GMO Labeling And Regulation

GMOs, (genetically modified organisms) have been a topic of interest in the social eyes for years. Since they’ve been created, many people have voiced and written about their opinions on GMOs, and whether they are dangerous or not. Created to expand the genetic diversity of crops and animals, many don’t know whether GMOs are good or bad, and neither do researchers. Though there hasn’t been any evidence claiming whether GMOs are good or bad, it has certainly not stopped the public from creating their own opinions. Since no one knows the truth behind GMO, it has opened a window of opportunities for companies including Monsanto to voice their support of GMO, while other companies like the Non-GMO Project voice their

The battle over whether food with GMOs should be labeled as such or not, continuez in The Battle Over GMOs by Alessandra Potenza illustrates what a GMO is and why they need to be labeled. First of all GMO stands for genetically modified organism, meaning GMOs are organisms that have been genetically modified to include a gene from another species to produce a certain trait. The reason that some people are very upset at the whole GMO thing is because some companies that include GMOs in their products are refusing to label the fact that they use GMOs. Outrage has sparked everywhere over this and people are demanding that companies using GMOs in their products must label them. The companies on the other hand are claiming that they have a right to privacy and are claiming that the FDA, which stands for Food and Drug Administration, have approved the GMO usage in their products.. This reader believes that we the people have a right to know what is in our food and decide if we still want to consume it.

“Should We Care About Genetically Modified Foods?” by John N. Shaw appeared in Food Safety News issue of February 1, 2010, as a feature under the health section on the controversy between the pros and cons of genetically modified foods (Also known as GMO, genetically modified organisms). The main idea of this article is to inform people of the benefits of GMOs . The author, John Shaw received his Bachelor of Science degree in Finance with a minor in Marketing from the University of Arkansas in 2007, where he was a “leadership scholar.” In addition to his studies, he has worked as a research assistant with Food Law LL.M. Director Susan Schneider, interned with Wal-Mart Government and Corporate Affairs division, the Arkansas Attorney General Public Protection Division, and with United States Senator Blanche Lincoln. John has a passion for Food Law, sports, and outdoors. In the article, he states, “ I submit that I am no scientist; merely an interested student.” According to the article, he is passionate and has done sufficient research about the topic to support his argument.

GM foods are in the middle of many controversial issues; primarily these are addressed by conflicts over the relative pros and cons of GM foods. Major biotech companies like ‘Monsanto ' and ‘Cargill ' are promoting GM foods by focusing only on their beneficial aspects, giving least importance to their negative effects on safety, environment and biodiversity. On the other hand, governmental regulators and nongovernmental organizations, along with some scientists, are strictly opposing this type of blind promotion of GM food by enlightening the people on their negative effects The controversies associated with GM foods include issues such as safety, environmental benefits and risks, biodiversity, and ethical and social considerations.GM foods are implicated for adverse human health risks like people being allergic to it, environmental hazards such as development of super weeds, and pesticide and antibiotic resistance in disease causing organisms. On the other

Genetically Modified Organisms, or GMO’s, are organisms that have had genes from a different organism implanted into their own genetic code in order to produce a new result (“Genetically engineered foods”). This practice has elicited polar responses across the globe, for a multitude of reasons. Besides the obvious reason, being the morality of changing an organism's DNA for human benefit, one frequently noted problem is the monopolization of GMO’s by the company Monsanto, whose name is nearly synonymous with GMO’s due to their involvement with these crops. Monsanto has been at the center of many controversies regarding GMO’s, and is even considered to be ranked third to last for reputation among all major American companies (Bennett). Most

The new GMO Labeling bill S. 764, that was passed July 2016 after being tacked onto the National Sea Grant College Program Act, requires companies to disclose their inclusion of GMOs in their products directly on the label. This legislation panders to consumers that are already against GMOs while creating more economic strain on consumers who cannot choose to eat non-GMO due to budgetary restrictions. This bill will have serious implications not only in our economy and agricultural industry, but many economies and agricultural industries worldwide. Recent studies of how extensive the effect of this bill will be on the consumers of the United States are estimating upwards of $1,050 annual increase in our grocery spending to accommodate. The damage occurs when food producers that use GMOs inevitably follow the trend of agricultural industries before them and switch to non-GMO ingredients if they believe that it could potentially save public relations and customer loyalty. These switches have grievous implications, including triggering a setback on technology currently being developed and technology that could be developed in the future. 70% of products consumed in the U.S. have genetically engineered materials in them. These labeling laws do not just affect some consumers. In fact, those who are advocating strongly for this labeling system are likely not going to be impacted to the same degree as lower income Americans. This is due to lower income Americans not having the

Over the past few decades a new controversy has arisen in the scientific community: should Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO’s) be used in modern society. There are generally two sides to this debate: one being in favor of GMO use and the other against it. Pro GMO activists believe that GMOs can help address hunger issues and help reduce use of pesticides/insecticides while Anti-GMO activists state that it is a threat to the agriculture industry, and should be banned. Both sides have several valid points, however GMO’s are even more complicated from initial glance, and may not be as dangerous as some believe.

GMOs are living organisms whose genetic material has been artificially manipulated in a laboratory through genetic engineering. The GMO debate has a huge gap just like the climate change’s ambiguous debate. Some people are for the consumption of it and have as arguments that GMOs will feed the future population of the world that is expected to double in the few years to come, or that scientists can build stronger crops that resist to pests, therefore less use of pesticides. Some are against these ideas because they think that GMOs represent a threat to the environment and that they can cause a lot of health problems. The goal of this paper is to look at two articles “The GMO Debate is Over Again” by Mark Lynas and" Seeds of Evil: Monsanto and Genetic Engineering" by Dr. Joseph Mercola, and see where the use rhetorical strategies are effective and where they are not.

Ever since their entrance onto the consumer market in the last two decades of the twentieth century, genetically modified organisms (often referred to as GMOs) have been getting mixed reviews from the public. Genetically modified consumer products (primarily food) have pushed the barriers of some people's comfort levels. Born out of either a lack of knowledge or a sincere concern for public health or the environment, a consumer rights movement has been planted around the world pushing for labeling of genetically modified food products. This movement has matured in many places to a degree where interest groups have successfully lobbied governments into adopting criteria for labeling transgenic food

In December 2014, a Harvard professor wrote an article outlining the many benefits of GMOs (genetically modified organisms) and why it is a good idea to use them. This professor is now surrounded by controversy because he failed to note his connection to the largest producer of GM seeds, Monsanto, who not only told him to write the article but also gave him the major points he was to address. Why was this such a huge deal, and why did Monsanto want a pro-GMO article out there so badly? The GMO debate is largely controversial, but largely misunderstood because of the misinformation given by biased writers, such as John Hibma, a nutritionist and author who wrote the article “More Pros Than Cons.” What many people do not realize is that genetic modification is a serious issue and that articles like Hibma’s fail to disclose the truth about the numerous health, crop, and environmental concerns surrounding GMOs.

Today’s world is all about how we can be seen as helping others, or how one county is offering support to those in need of it. When Jeremy Seifert starting his work on his film GMO-OMG (Seifert, 2013), the film started by asking people the simple question do they eat GMO. The film goes through the first 2 min of just people responses to that question and it is amazing how people were so unware of what they were eating. GMO are genetically modified organism which as the movie explains there are two primary categories of GMOs, the pesticide producer, and Herbicide resisters (Seifert, 2013) which help farmers to grow crops by making them resistant to bugs or weeds that would have destroyed crops in the past. Monsanto is one of the largest GMO producers of a corn seed that would allow for crops to grow with natural resistant to herbicide and insects. When Jeremy went to Africa to research why some of the locals were rejecting the Monsanto seeds because they said that you could only plant them once and then you would be forever in need of the replace seeds rather than just reusing seeds from the fully grown plants. The Haitian people believed that the seeds of life are a common inheritance of all humanity (Seifert, 2013).

GMO’s stands for genetically modified organism, which are organisms that have had their genes altered or genetically engineered so that it can have resistance to pesticides and have rapid growth . Food markets around the United States sell products that are organic as well as genetically modified products but, as a society, we are not fully aware of that. Through reading the The Secret Life of Plants by Ferris Jabr, it lead us to think about how we are not aware of what produce we buy in our local food markets. We as a society in this democracy should have the knowledge of what we put into our body. Labeling Genetically Modified Organisms in food markets allows the consumers to know what they are eating and help them make the decision to buy the produce or not.

The problem with the GMO current system is the bio tech regulations are clearly out-of- date. Firstly, agencies with the authority over genetically engineered crops are the EPA, USDA, and FDA, which governs the bio tech crops. The GMO companies that are widely producing bio tech foods have refused testing for natural proteins that induce a reaction in a person with allergies. The US regulations of GMO crops focus on the quantity of the harvest. Despite the possibility of dangers, the FDA, USDA, and EPA should focus on the genetic process on the quality of the crop (Chen & Gao, 2014). Secondly, the impact on the environment has originated from pesticide with are inserted into genetically altered seeds to control certain pests. Although, pesticides that have transferred into the natural environment that is causing havoc on

GMO has been present in food and America has consume it more than 15 years and debate that it has no evidence to cause harm to consumer, however, this was not convincing that it will not cause harm. Some studies done in animal shown that GMO cause damage to the immune system, liver and kidney, but more studies is need as well as labeling is need to allow consumer to know what it’s in their food. According to the article, many company that opposing the GMO labeling is from company that manufacturing GMO such as the Coca-Cola, Monsanto, PepsiCo, Kraft food and etc. In general, the use of GMO is claim to reduce the pesticides use, but it has increase the use of herbicides that could be potential of harm to consumer in increased risk of non-Hodgkin’s

The Non-GMO project, one of the main proponents of labeling GMOs, feels with an obligation to inform consumers what they are putting into their bodies. As part of society, they feel they have an obligation to prevent fraud in consumers by providing them with reliable information about what are the ingredients in the food they are purchasing. They also feel obligated by creating a healthier community. This not only creates less harm but more awareness in what people are consuming to prevent illness or