GMO Labeling Law: Article Analysis

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

Many food companies frown upon the idea of having to put labels on their foods because consumers will not want their product if their are too many GMOs in the product. If food companies were forced to put GMO labels on their products they may feel inclined to put less GMO in their products to cause consumer happiness. With labels on the food products consumers will feel more confident with their purchase to consume that food. Which would cause sales to fly through the roof for many food companies, especially organic food companies. GMO labeling influences consumer behavior, “...the majority of supermarket employees believed that the presence of non-GMO labeling influenced consumer behavior in some way, with 52.9% reporting that it impacted all consumers, 17.6% asserting that it mattered to those who were knowledgeable and interested in food without genetic modification, and only 5.9% feeling that their clientele would not be interested because of its demographics.” (Wunderlich). According to a survey done by Wunderlich, Gatto and Mangano where they investigate the current Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) and organic labeling policies and to determine the impact on consumer choice. They found: “There is a need for clearer labeling policies regarding GMO foods. If GMO foods were labeled more clearly, consumers would be able to make more educated purchasing decisions and

GMO’s should not have any regulations because it helps keep our food safe and healthy. GMO has kept our food safe from pesticides. “ In the Us, adoption of GM crops resulted in pesticide reduction of 46.4 million pounds” (The Facts About GMO). As you see without GMO, our farmers would have been using pesticides to keep our food “healthy”, which we know is not healthy at all, because it’s chemicals in our food. But GMOs don’t use chemicals, it makes our food healthy without using chemicals. For example, papayas are genetically modified because papayas from Hawaii are infected by these insects, which because this disease . Though this disease is curable, GMO has helped it to be better. What I mean by better, is that they have taken an altered

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.

Whether or not to require labeling of GM foods is a major issue in the persistent debate over the risks and benefits of foods crops that are produced using biotechnology. Bills requiring compulsory labeling have been introduced and proposed in different levels, but not evenly implemented. Some of the common genetically engineered crops include soya beans, canola, corn and cotton. The US Food and Drug Administration policy on the labeling of GM food requires labeling is the food has significantly distinct nutritional property (US FDA par 2). Further, labeling is required if the GM food product includes an allergen that consumers may not expect to find in such a product, or if the product contains a toxicant that is beyond acceptable limits (US FDA par 3).

Furthermore, Marvell uses the second stanza, not so discreetly, to further his argument. In a way, the first stanza served as this hypothetical version of life since the speaker describes how much he loves his mistress and how things would be going even better for them if they had more time, but then Marvell strategically makes use of the second stanza of the poem, as well, as the turn of the poem. As readers, we find out that although the speaker loves his mistress so much, the speaker and his mistress don’t have much more time. The speaker tells his mistress that “Time’s winged chariot hurrying near” (22), implying that life is short and that they only have so much time to live, while they have “deserts of vast eternity” (24), or forever

The debate over genetically modified foods continues to haunt producers and consumers alike. Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are foods that have been modified through bioengineering to possess certain characteristics. These plants have been modified in the laboratory to enhance traits such as increased resistance to herbicides or increased nutritional content (Whitman, 2000). The debate continues to grow as to whether these genetically altered foodstuffs are the answer to hunger in the coming years, or whether we are simply children playing with something that we do not have the capacity to understand. One of the biggest debates in the GMO issue is whether producers need to use labeling of

Background: Genetically modified foods are products that we designed to be more efficient and nutritious. The labeling issue has been heatedly debated since GMOs were introduced to the public 20 years ago. According to the Thomson Reuter Pulse Healthcare Survey, 93% of Americans demand mandatory labeling for GM foods. (Just Label It, 2010)

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

Slavery was the life of the African American of how they suffered and how they were treated, and even though all this was happening they still tried to keep their family together no matter what was happening. First, in a slave's life family's where separated (chapter nine-page 433) ''A husband or wife could be sold' Quote 1. means that a wife or a husband can be sold to a new owner and they will have to leave their families and their children, but their children will stay with an aunt or uncle. Also, the slave they could not get married but they say a phrase that says ''until death or separation do us part.'' They will say this to keep a promise to each other. Also, the salves had their own culture (chapter nine-page 433) ''These native-born African American practiced their African customs''. Quote 2. means that the African Americans enjoyed their traditions. They told stories to their grandchildren. Even though they were slaves I think they should not sale each one if they are going to sell them at least let their family go with them. Also, they tried to be happy in their own way.

As CEO of Monsanto, I manage to tackle controversial issues with transparency. By publicly practicing transparency, I would balance the conflicting needs of the variety of stakeholders while at the same time benefit consumers. Although it may be hard to stand up to these accusations, boycotts and protests took place in at least 52 countries and 436 cities amassing over 2 million people us over genetically modified foods, it has to be done for the sake of business and in order to establish integrity with consumers (Mainwaring, 2013). Combating protesters with transparency will help to keep Monsanto out of such pessimistic headlines. I believe it is time to come forth with labels defining whether or not they are GMO. We have seen this type of

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

As a company, we feel this is a path in the right direction in food labeling, but this is still not enough. This new food labeling law does not hold the companies up to the highest standard. The food law only requires companies to use a QR code rather than outright labeling it as a GMO food on the packaging. Consumers deserve the right to know what is in their food, as this has been a topic of conversation ever since GMOs were first used in food products. The food industry feels that people deserve to know, but sides with the FDA because the FDA has stated that GMO is closely related genetically to non-GMO and therefore does not need to be labeled (Institute of Food Technology, 2000). Additionally, Consumers all over the world feel they deserve to know what is in their food (Premanandh, 2011). Given these points it is important to label foods as GMO or non-GMO because we want

According to a study taken by Pew Research center, 57% of Americans believe that GMO foods are generally unsafe. Genetically modified organisms are foods that have had their genetic makeup altered to exhibit traits that are not naturally theirs. Currently, the United States and Canada do not require the labeling of genetically engineered foods even though 93% of Americans believe genetically modified foods should be labelled. On July 29, 2016, Barack Obama signed a bill saying that not all GMO foods will be labeled with one out of three options; text, QR code, or electronic link. GMO foods can lead to health issues, should be labeled to give consumers confidence in what they are buying, and allows them to practice their

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