Gmo Labeling As The Choice Debate Topic Essay

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

“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.

In the essay “Genetically Modified Food: Watching What We Eat,” by Julie Cooper, she argues against the rampant use of genetically modified food (GMO) without any current form of regulation. Cooper discusses the possibility of health risks to those consuming foods with altered genes and the food’s capabilities to have far-reaching health risks. She continues with a discussion as to how and why the creation and use of the GMOs have become so unregulated. She then discusses the response, which is the public’s cry for their right to make informed choices. Other topics discusses are the political, environmental, and corporate ramifications of the rise of GMOs.

Although people have been made aware of the many risks that long-term consumption of GMOs poses, many people continue to consume the harmful chemicals that come with GMOs. This is due to the negligence of the Texas legislature to make GMO labels a requirement in order to be sold. By having San Antonians and other Texans campaign and petition for this requirement, change will undoubtedly occur. As seen in Vermont, Connecticut, and Maine, making GMO labels required is a problem that can be feasibly solved by the collaboration of both concerned citizens and legislators. This collaboration, Texan citizens will not only be able to know which foods contain dangerous pathogens through chemicals, but will also be able to make the conscious decision of choosing what goes in their

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

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.

Dr. Praphul Joshi 10/23/2013 Controversial Public Health Issue There are several controversial issues confronting us today; from Universal Healthcare (Obama Care) to Stem Cell research, to vaccinations, to genetically engineered (GE)/genetically modified (GM) foods. However, I shall look at genetically modified foods as the controversial issue for this article. I shall look at an article from the mass media about this controversial public health issue and place emphasis on the message the document wants to convey and address any biases that may be within. In addition, I shall provide additional data or facts from another article to see if it supports or refutes the controversial message. It is my intention that this article will provide some clarity on genetically modified foods confronting us in the United States and the world over. Since the successful cloning of Dolly, the sheep, in July 5, 1996, Biotechnology has been praised and castigated at the same time.

The theme of agriculture and even more specifically genetically modified organisms helped to critically examine the dangers and hazards of such GMOs. Knowing the potential issues with GMOs from class helped understand and effectively critique this article more. The examples and real world statistics in this article magnified the importance of GMO labeling and the dangers imposed upon consumers who eat such foods.

GMO: “Why is it legal?” “Is it considered safe amongst consumers?”. Those are the two frequently asked questions. If GMOs are used on farms, are consumers rights and health at stake? GMOs are bad because they can cause health problems, environmental damage, and violation of farmers and consumers rights. The lack of GMOs labels plays a major part. How will consumers know what they're putting in their bodies? GMOs are used in 80% of processed foods. Yet, consumers fail to begin living “healthy” lifestyle, the consumption of GMO will drastically affect them.

An interest statement: I think this topic will keep me engaged because I did my last essay on the use of GMOs and now I am curious to see why people are opposed to the labeling of them and how they will impact the farmers if the labeling laws pass in certain states. I know families typically prefer organic food, however, it appears that this is the case because the word “organic” sounds pleasing. Most people seem very uneducated on what GMOs really are and just assume from the media that they are horrible technological advances. This topic seems like a very current issue which will allow me to find an abundance of useful information.

The idea of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) has been a controversy for the past several years. Some groups claim that they are perfectly safe and possibly even better than organic foods, while other groups contradict that and say that GMOs are harmful to both the environment and the people that consume them. One of the questions that still hangs in the air through all the debates and protests is “should GMOs be labelled?”

Audience: Speech class of students ranging from freshman to seniors, some may have prior knowledge of GMOs.

GMOs are one of the most disputed areas of science, genetic engineering is used in many careers, but even though medical utilization such as GM insulin are accepted, the controversy heats up when it comes to agriculture. Why is that, Why is the same thing treated so differently? Lets try to get to the bottom of this and explore the facts, the fears and the future of GMOs.

Much of the public concern surrounding the safety of GMOs stems from the process of actually creating them. This is admittedly not a natural process, which is a surefire way to raise critic’s eyebrows in doubting their safety. However, there is no evidence that supports these myths. The Committee on Genetically Engineered Crops, The National Academy of Science, and the Board on Agriculture and Natural Recourses all agree after extensive testing and observation that there is no additional harm in the consumption of GMO food. The research conducted in animal studies, as well as chemical analysis of the crops, show no indication that GMOs are negatively affecting human health. The next allegation hurled at GMOs is that they may have