Essay On Food Labeling

On November 6th, 2012 Proposition 37 that would have required genetically engineered foods labeling was among 10 other initiatives on the ballot in California. Unfortunately, only 6,088,714 people (48.59%) voted “Yes”, so it was defeated. I think it was a mistake to reject this initiative because if it had been passed it would have benefited Californians in a variety of ways. It would have become a conscious decision whether to buy a genetically engineered or not. Also, producers would have had to stop misleading customers by saying that their products are “natural” even though contain Genetically Modified Organisms. In addition to the advantaged obtained immediately, passing of Proposition 37 most likely would have led to the decrease in a general level of products that include Genetically Modified Organisms in the foods market. Although, at this point, it is impossible to eliminate Genetically Modified Organisms from one’s diet completely, naturally grown production would have become more competitive because people prefer them over GM products which would have caused an increase in production of organic products that, unlike genetically modified, are not harmful for people’s bodies. However, Proposition 37 like any other initiative has downsides, such as: increasing state costs of regulating labeling and possible “costs for the courts, the Attorney General, and district attorneys

It is very important to have the same food labeling system regardless of where you travel within the U.S. Uniform labels across the country help the consumer understand what they're eating, so it's an important health and safety issue. Efforts by some states to implement their own GMO labeling laws could harm consumers, and Congress needs to stop them. I am writing today to ask you to vote for H.R. 1599, a bill that puts the FDA in charge of creating a uniform set of standards for companies that want to market GMO-free foods.

Opposition to Proposition 37 argues an increase in state administrative costs for GMO labeling would not only add additional costs at the state level but would raise the cost for Department of Public Health. The increase would be needed do to regulating the labeling of genetically engineered food. Maintaining regulations of GE foods would include inspections of proper labeling to ensure correctness of ingredients clarification, analyzing documents. These costs added cost could range from several hundred thousand dollars to over one million annually (Attorney General).

In his article “Labeling for Better or Worse” (2014), Jim Kling informs readers of the benefits of labeling genetically modified foods, while also discussing a few disadvantages. Kling discusses laws proposed for this issue, the response to these laws, and the difficulties they may face on a national scale, while also educating readers on why labeling these foods has become an issue. The purpose of this article is to enlighten readers as to why this has recently become a hot topic. Directed towards anyone who is interested, the author uses an informative tone to educate

After presenting the arguments of supporters and opponents of the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act. This paper will now analyze each issue to determine the strengths and weakness of each side’s arguments. One argument that proponents make about genetically modified foods is that they are no different than natural foods. An argument that opponents make is that genetically modified organisms have not been tested enough because they are fairly new and some scientist truly don’t have a understanding of how it will effect humans bodies differently than natural foods. Proponents argue that genetically engineered foods have no needs for labeling; it would lead to consumer confusion. Opponents argue that consumers have the right to know what is

To remove the ability to have knowledge about what we are putting into our bodies is to remove a fundamental right from our society. I am not entirely satisfied with this new law for the same reasons as the author described: “The new law tells consumers, ‘You deserve to know what’s in your food, so we’re going to tell you,” while sending a not-too-subtle message to food companies: “Feel free to make this information as difficult to find as you’d like.’” by allowing companies to disclose the presence of GMO through QR codes, toll free numbers, and really whatever means the company wants to it makes it harder for the consumers to realize what is in their food. However I am pleased that it has made it possible for consumers who are informed about the pros and cons of GMO and desire to understand what is in their food able to find the facts, this is expressed in the following passage “All of this information could be made available. Some people care about this, others don’t. But now that the new labeling law has opened the disclosure door a crack, why not open it wide and see what’s inside?”. GMO labeling is more than a health decision to me, it is a human rights decision. I believe every person has the right to know what they are consuming, and if GMO are as safe as Monsanto keeps

There has been a huge debate over GMO labeling going back many years, only now starting to really gain traction. Measure 92 in Oregon was a vote over the labeling, if it passed, Oregon would be the first state in the U.S. to require the labeling of genetically modified foods. The vote was extremely close, forty-nine-point-nine percent were for the bill, and fifty-point-zero were against. Because of the very small margin between the two, there has been a mandatory recount. Many still believe that the outcome will not change. But this is just the first, and it’s already so close down the middle. Large corporations are fighting very hard to stop these bills from passing, and it is very suspicious as to why it would concern them so much that they would pour literally millions of dollars into stopping bills like measure 92. All foods that have been genetically modified, or contain

The United States map above shows the states that have already passed the GMO bill. The green states are Connecticut, Vermont, Maine, and Hawaii. For example, the Vermont Senate and House have both voted the bill H112 on April 14 and 23, 2014 respectively in support of GMO labeling, (Vermont General Assembly, (2014). In the same context, the State of Maine House and Senate passed a law in 2013 that would require to label foods containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs), (Main State Legislature, 2013). This law will go into effect on July 1, 2016). Note to mention that Connecticut and Hawaii have passed the GMO labeling bill through the House and Senate respectively. Based on these facts, the coalition believes that with a collaborative effort of everyone and the legislators’ support the same legislatives actions can be taken in Florida as well to pass the GMO

Just like every other issue, there is more than one side to this one as well. Many people like the idea of labeling food packages. The Washington House of Representatives voted to pass a bill in April 2015 which does not make labeling GMO, or genetically modified organisms, products mandatory, according to CBS News and naturally many people were upset by this decision (House votes to block mandatory GMO labeling). Vermont 's democratic representative Peter Welch asked "What 's the problem with letting consumers know what they are buying?" To answer his question, the problem here is that there is a

In almost all of the foods that the average person consumes there reside harmful ingredients and chemicals. Citizens and scientists alike have posed questions and concern about not only what a GMO is, but why the government refuses to pass GMO-labeling laws, while still claiming GMOs harmless characteristics. GMO-containing foods should be labeled to the fullest extent due to the fact that people have the right to know what they are consuming, regardless of what the government and big-box companies have to say about the chemicals and their prospective side effects. By not passing these laws, the government does citizens a huge (and unlawful) disfavor because of the controlled factors of what is labeled and what is consumed. The government

States, such as Vermont and Connecticut, have set precedent for GMO labeling. Corporations such as Kelloggs and Campbell’s have teamed up with ConAgra Foods, one of the main Fortune 500 companies, in labeling their food products that are genetically-modified. (Vermont Biz. “US Senate Rejects Bill Opposed to GMO Labeling.” March 18, 2016) By 2018, Campbell’s Soup-a company that uses GMOs in their products- will be the first United States company to list all GMO ingredients found in their products. Campbell’s does not believe that labeling its products will add significant costs to its company. Other companies, such as General Mills, are against labeling their products, but gave in to public pressure. When General Mills labeled its Non-GMO products, such as Cheerios, they did not receive a greater profit in sales in return. The Non GMO Project, too, has not seen a great increase in sales either. However, consumers want companies to be translucent in telling the public what their products are made of. (NYT) By July 16, 2016, “ConAgra will begin adding labels to products nationwide to meet Vermont’s GMO labeling requirements.” (Vermont Biz. “US Senate Rejects Bill Opposed to GMO Labeling.” March 18, 2016) ConAgra agrees that it is beneficial to label products because citizens have the right to know what they are purchasing. ConAgra believes that a nationwide-GMO labeling policy is more cost-effective than a state-by-state labeling requirement approach. “The need for a

During the recent comment period the proposed revision to the food labeling regulations have received a significant number of positive comments. These comments have come from a variety of interest groups and individuals with unique motivations. The majority of the comments are written by community groups and medical organizations.

The first step in combatting consumer revolt centers around food labeling. Congress passed a GMO Labeling Bill in July 2016 which will establish national standards for genetically engineered food labeling. This legislation directs the USDA to define what will be included. It is yet to be determined if Sonny Perdue, President Trump’s choice as USDA Secretary, prioritizes developing these national standards. The consensus is that the new administration will be pro GMO and will significantly slow these initiatives.

IntroductionStakeholders according to the Project Management Institute is "An individual, group or organization who may affect, be affected by, or perceive itself to be affected by a decision, activity or outcome of the project."( Project Management Institute, 2013). The safe and accurate food labeling bill provide for federal standardization of ingredients and nutritional information on food labeling with the exception of genetic sourcing of the product. Creating a debate focused on the public's requirement and rights to know the process of food production. Industries on both sides of the issue have key participants that will prosper from the passage or rejection in Senate. Many stakeholders are directly involved and concerned with the development,

For this project, I plan to research the public policy of nutrition labeling on foods. This policy was created by the Food and Drug Administration to inform citizens about what exactly they are consuming when they eat or drink a particular good. The policy is a part of the code of Federal Regulations and all companies that produce edible goods must comply with it.