Gmo Labeling

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.

Have you ever heard what a GMO is? A GMO is a genetically modified organism, such of which is not labeled on items. Should GMOs be labeled? Some experts say that it should. They say that consumers buy products from companies, of which they trust to list the ingredients. However, most consumers are not informed of what GMO products are in their meals, or even what GMOs are.

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

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

There are varied arguments that favor or are against compulsory labeling of genetically engineered food products. Those who argue for the labeling of such products argue that consumers have a right to know what is contained in their food, particularly food products for which there have been health and environmental concerns (Caswell 26). Compulsory labeling will permit consumers to identify and avoid those food products that may cause them problems. On the contrary, those who argue against mandatory labeling point out that

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

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

The last few years American’s have been the center of attention when it comes to an example of unhealthy living. In 2013 obesity became recognized as a disease in order to help aid the fight for a healthy future. Fingers are being pointed at every company and government branch possible on who is to blame for the current crisis. One thing people are able to agree on is that the food we are eating is the main cause of the health crisis in America. At the heart of this debate is the discussion on genetically modified organism, or GMO foods.

Do you find the labels on your favorite snacks to be helpful to most consumers? Many would answer this question yes, and argue that labels contain important information that all buyers should know for health or safety reasons. While this is true, this argument should not apply to GMO labeling. GMOs, of genetically modified organisms, are foods with altered genes from biotechnological techniques. They are used to help foods to be preserved, or prevent certain pests from eating or infecting them, or even to have other desired and beneficial traits. While many may disagree, including use of these GMOs on food labels is completely ineffective. They make GMOs appear to be foreign and dangerous. There are already organic foods for those who are suspicious of genetically altered foods that cause harm. These labels would also make buyers spend more money down the road. A bill to label GMOs would cause multiple issues for producers and buyers everywhere.

Over the years genetically modified foods continue to be controversial topic in the realm of food safety and consumption while some argue that GMOs are safe, others are adamant they are detrimental to one's health. According to Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; farmers grow corn, cotton, and potatoes without spraying the bacterial insecticide bacillus thuringiensis becauses the crops produce their own insecticides, by using GMOs. GMOs are genes from the DNA of one species are extracted artificially forced into the genes of an unrelated plant and animals.

Do you want to know what you are eating? Have you gotten sick over the past few years and not known why? Many people have gotten sick over the increase of food products with GMOs within them. Over the years many have argued that GMOs aren’t what is causing the increase in death and the decrease in birth, but many say it is the problem. GMOs should be labeled on our foods today because of the amount of health problems, and consumers want to know what they are eating. After all, it is what is going into our bodies.

Food is everywhere. It is an integral part of society and is a major part of everyday life. We plan our days around mealtimes, pack snacks for work and school, and visit the grocery store at least once a week. However, even our best, well thought out efforts to achieve a healthy lifestyle leave us mostly in the dark about what we are really putting into our bodies. GMOs, Genetically Modified Organisms, are organisms that have been bioengineered, planted, and sold to the public as food. These organisms are unnatural and have proven to be harmful. Unfortunately, the labeling of foods containing GMOs is not government mandated. Monsanto, the largest GMO producing conglomerate, will go to all lengths to convince the public that their product is safe and does not need to be labeled for consumers, despite the fact that countries around the world have stood up and refused to sell their products to their citizens. Unfortunately, the United States is not only not among these countries, but the government has shown little care for the global issue. Everyone has the right to know exactly what they are putting into their bodies and feeding their loved ones. For this reason I will be exploring how, with the existing research, GMOs are FDA approved, as well as how this relates to Monsanto’s fight against GMO labeling.

In the article “Why We Should Accept GMO Labels,” by Dan Fagin, the author discusses exactly what the title states. Fagin begins by using an analogy to connect how GMOs are being viewed in court to McCarthyism, where either GMOs are either approved of or refuted by the science community. Fagin believes that there is no middle ground currently existing between supporters and opposition of GMOs. He then continues to give examples of why people oppose GMOs so heavily and critiques them slightly since he believes that genetic engineering is an important tool to help people around the world who are in need, but believes we don’t really need them in first-world countries. Fagin argues that one reason that GMO foods haven’t been widely accepted is partially due to large businesses, like Monsanto, using GMOs strictly for profit, rather than to help a population. Stating that mandatory labeling of GMO foods is not the answer, Fagin claims that a pro-labeling movement will begin in North America no matter what since it has already occurred for much of the rest of the world. The author defers to the editors of Scientific American who released an article stating that labels don’t educate the public on what genetic engineering in food actually means for the consumer and circles back to his statement that there needs to be a middle ground between pro and anti

A portion of our population, of which I am apart of, do not really read the labels on food we purchase on a daily basis. Then there are those that religiously read labels and want to know exactly what they are eating. There are two sides on this issue like all others. First the negative implications of labeling GMO’s. The AAAS argue that labeling GMO’s could “mislead and falsely alarm consumers” (source 2). I can see this side of it basically making a mountain out of a mole hill. Then again we do have a basic human right to know exactly what we are eating and where/how it was grown for our consumption. Another negative for labeling GMO’s is that it would “impose a cost on all consumers- including those not desiring such information” (source 2). Being that this would require separate facilities for the GMO products I can see how the cost would filter down to the consumer eventually. Do we really want to pay the price just so we can know this information? Some would say yes I myself would say no, but I can understand the other side of this

Making them safe to eat and no studies were required to test the safety of these GM foods. The reason for this, the FDA official in charge of promoting GMOs was the former attorney for Monsanto, one of the biggest biotech companies that made huge profits. After the official was removed from his position in the FDA, it was found that the FDA scientist had actually warned against the use of GM foods because of their ability to create hard to predict side effects such as new diseases, nutritional problems, and allergies. These scientist pushed for long-term safety studies but were rejected. Many of biotech companies that have been found to hide the effects of their toxins, are in charge of deciding whether foods are GM