Gmo Labeling Research Paper

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

He did however use a few examples from researching the topic could cause more pollution, or cause stress that can lead to an early grave. But if anyone attempted to refute the argument all they would have to do is use some studies and facts by reliable sources and attack this by its lack of references and this argument falls apart fast. The cartoon does sound logical and an uninformed person could read this and feel as if GMO labeling is a bad thing. If you are an environmentalist who never heard of GMOs and you read this you might think, “ya GMO labeling is bad it causes more electronic use and paper labels to be used and littered.” However the author is just trying to seem like this is factual evidence so without a number or any sort we don’t know if people who research GMO labeling could have any substantial effect on pollution.

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

Mohr showed focused attention to the public’s values and beliefs by presenting Monsanto’s interests in protecting its consumers and the earth through spending millions of dollars to stop GMO labeling. He offered one side of the story and not the other, which is a good strategy in an argument if the other story outweighs Mohr’s claim. What Mohr omitted are the facts regarding the benefits to be harbored in labeling GMO products in the future. Mohr was focused on the present state of the matter without due consideration of the future, hence making his appeal to Pathos

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

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.

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.

You may ask, “what difference could a label on a package make?” If the labeling of genetically modified foods can inform consumers across the country of what exactly they are eating, it can make a huge difference. But the only way to increase these labels is for more federal laws to be passed. Once the new laws are passed, Americans will be more knowledgeable of modern agriculture. When more people buy those genetically modified products, money will come back to the American farmer, and consumers won’t have to spend as much on their trip to the grocery

In this article, Tamara Thompson asks common questions regarding genetically modified organisms otherwise known as GMOs. She gives a decent definition of GMOs as plant seeds that are modified to resist certain insects as well as harsh weather conditions. It is a very biased article, drawing attention to the company, Monsanto, in particular. She repeatedly assures her readers that GMOs are safe and that Monsanto currently works to the standards of organizations, such as the Food and Drug Administrations (FDA), Dept. of Agriculture (USDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). She concludes with the benefits of GMOs nutritional value and how they contribute to reducing draws on natural resources such as fossil fuels. This article was beneficial, although biased it gave insight to what companies such as Monsanto want the public to believe. I found this article in Opposing Viewpoints with the search entry being genetically modified foods.

This article examines how Genetically Modified food is unsafe for the people's health. This article talks about how by consuming GM foods can give you health problems and why it does ( gives you specific examples in the article). The good thing about this article is that it gives you information why GM foods are not safe and also gives you data about why is it unsafe for someone's health. The usefulness of this source for answering my research paper is that it helps by giving me data to actually prove why GMO labeling is necessary for food products. The bias this source is towards my argument. This source helps me answer my research question by explaining the negative side effects of GM foods, showing that just because a label has a GMO label

Writer, Michael specter who has been awarded the Global Health Council's annual Excellence award twice spend his time writing about developing issues such as agricultural biotechnology, before he served as the national science reporter. Specter claims that there is no need for GMO labels and it does not make “scientific sense”(Specter. Par. 6) to include them on food products. Specter main concern is just because food companies are adding GMO labels to the product does not give the consumer enough information about what the actual ingredients are. “They would tell you how your food is put together, but not what it contains. How could that help anyone make a sound decision about his health”(Specter. Par. 6)? The public is getting more curious

Almost all of the food we either buy and eat will have little or lot of genetically modified ingredients. People could think that what they are eating is healthy, but in reality they have no clue that it can damage their health. That is why a major threat to people’s everyday lives is GMO’s especially when they are not labeled. Genetically Modified Organism need to be labeled because consumers have the right to know what is in their food, people have the right to avoid GMO foods, make labels should known the hazards and America should follow the example of other countries that require it. Monsanto pays a lot of money to stop labeling from happening when they could just use the money towards labeling where the majority of Americans interest.

The article reviews that, Vermont's GMO labeling became a law. Thus Vermont wants other states to support their way to go. The usefulness of this article is that it demonstrates how Vermont is changing their way of living in a good way and want others do to the same. The bias for this source is for GMO labeling. Information that this source gives me to put into my article is showing Vermont's accomplishment and show the positively you can get from it with just GMO- labeling. I will use this source to show the good outcomes with just switching to GMO- labeling.

The majority of opposition comes from social advocacy groups such as the Institute for Responsible Technology, led by Jeffrey Smith. The opposition usually couples their self-determined negatives of GMOs along with the need to label genetically modified food products. The main claim of most opposition groups is that GMOs are terrible for a variety of reasons and should be forced to be labeled so that consumers know what they are buying and feeding their families. A popular supporting reason of such a main claim that social activists use is that GMOs are unhealthy and lead to organ damage, immune system disorders, and infertility among other dangers. (Institute for Responsible Technology) Smith makes the argument that large agencies such as The American Academy of Environmental Medicine urge “doctors to prescribe non-GMO diets for all patients.” Smith also states that health problems increase with GMO usage: “the percentage of Americans with three or more chronic illnesses jumped from 7% to 13% in just 9 years” and that transgenes in GM foods can transfer into our own DNA. Toxic transgene insecticides found in GM corn were also “found in the blood of pregnant women and their unborn fetuses.” (The Institute for Responsible Technology) Another reason Smith gives for the danger of GMOs is that they increase the use of harmful herbicides. GMO plants are designed to be “herbicide tolerant” so that they can be used in conjunction with deadly herbicides. “Between 1996 and 2008, US