Gmos : A Threat Of Our Freedom

Genetically modified foods are produced from organisms that have gone through a process that introduces specific changes to its DNA using genetic engineering. This process allows companies to choose specify traits a crop will display. On the surface this process seems like a technological breakthrough, and it is, however, the topic of genetically modified foods (GMOs) is very complex. There are many aspects of this process we must consider when deciding if GMOs should continue to be sold. Due to many human health, environmental, and economical concerns the sale of all genetically modified foods should be banned.

A growing number of foods we intake on a daily basis are composed of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). DNA from other kinds of organisms, bacteria, or viruses are used to change the DNA of GMOs so that they can counteract pesticides. According to Bill Freese, “GMOs are present in 60 to 70 percent of foods on US supermarket shelves” (1) . Not only is the food itself a problem, but the method of growing GMOs can potentially harm the soil, in turn decreasing bio-diversity. Purchasing non genetically modified foods is a better decision. Despite the convenience of junk food, anyone can live a healthier lifestyle by making an effort to eat non gmo, raw, organic, and vegan foods.

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

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

Sixty four countries around the world have banned the use of GMOs, otherwise known as Genetically Modified Organisms, within farms and supermarkets. However, the United States, a usually technologically advanced country, has yet to invest much time or effort into this endeavour, one that would make food healthier for people and protect the environment. The US government has taken a step back in this effort for healthier food options, as in the country, companies that use GMOs are not required to label their food as such. Some companies and businesses, however, are working to make a change in the case for GMOs in the US, by advocating minimized GMO usage, menu transparency, or the complete ban of the usage.

The genetic engineering of foods has, in one sense, been in existence for hundreds of years. The first time Gregor Mendel bred different varieties of pea plants to observe the various traits present in their offspring, the concept was born. Today, genetic engineering has developed into one of the most complex and advanced fields of scientific thinking, all the while provoking many questions and acquiring many opponents along the way. While there are compelling arguments presented for each side of the issue, the simple fact is that genetically modified (GM) foods are a reality, especially in the United States, as they are already present in many products that are consumed on a daily

As I mentioned some people prefer to not purchase GMO’s food products, maybe because GMO’s are not trustworthy enough and are relatively new, or maybe because of religion concerns. GMOs can have ingredients such as pork that people who practice Jewish, and Muslims religious can’t eat, or fish that Buddhists can’t eat for religious reasons (Global, 39). Therefore, labeling those GMO’s products is a crucial thing for a lot of citizens in the US, and consumers demand to label for all GMO’s foods (Sax, 631). However, the US government once again treats GMOs as natural, organic food. The US government uses the ‘substantial equivalence’ principle which says that GMOs food should be treated equally because GMOs have the same characteristics and composition

This article is about the Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) labeling law that President Obama signed, the law allows companies to label their products in anyway they want to indicate the presence of GMO products. This article discusses the controversy between both sides of the GMO labeling debate, the pro labeling side desiring to know what they are consuming and the against labeling side expressing their fear that the label of GMO on a product would make consumers turn away unnecessarily. This law was a compromise to both sides as it requires a form of labeling that makes it possible for inquiring consumers to find what is in their food but also does not require companies to clearly state the presence of GMO.

It was decided almost 20 years about by the Food and Drug Administration that GMOs do not need to be labeled, despite the consumers’ desire for GMO labeling. Consumers’ demanding to know what is in their food has lead to the proposed legislation of GMO labeling from more than twenty states. Health safety is a large part of the proponents’ argument for GMO labeling (Murray 2016). The consumers right to know, right to choose, and ethical rights are also all reasons for GMO labeling policy. The oppositions’ arguments against mandatory GMO labeling are that it could falsely alarm consumers, impose extra costs on consumers and lead to restricts on consumer choice (Hemphill 2015). There would be more harm than good to come from

The debate for labeling genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the food supply has been an ongoing battle for years. Both sides have valid points and believe passionately in their stance. One side states they are safe for the consumer to eat and do not need to be labeled. The other side argues not enough long term studies have been done to validate this claim and labeling should be mandatory to protect the consumer. While both supporters and non-supports of labeling GMO foods may not seem to have much in common, they can both agree that there is a need for a plentiful and nutritious food supply.

The leaders of the United States of America need to recognize and take action on the concern of the public, regarding GMO food. People have a deep concern for GMO food. They have a right to be concerned about something that is potentially harmful to the population of the United States of America. They are concerned for the safety of GMO food. They are also concerned about the loss of money that can happen, when investing in GMO food. There are many concerns for GMO food. However, the only way to prove this statement, is to successfully refute the opposing viewpoints other people may have, regarding GMO food.

In almost all of the foods that the average person consumes there reside harmful ingredients and chemicals. Citizens and scientists alike have posed questions and concern about not only what a GMO is, but why the government refuses to pass GMO-labeling laws, while still claiming GMOs harmless characteristics. GMO-containing foods should be labeled to the fullest extent due to the fact that people have the right to know what they are consuming, regardless of what the government and big-box companies have to say about the chemicals and their prospective side effects. By not passing these laws, the government does citizens a huge (and unlawful) disfavor because of the controlled factors of what is labeled and what is consumed. The government

Making way down the fruit section in the grocery store, the mom picks out a box of strawberries. She thought it was just ordinary strawberries because there was nothing different about the fruit. However, what she did not know was that the strawberries contained genetically modified organisms. Also known as GMO, it is the removal of DNA from another species then artificially injected into an unrelated species: plant or animal (“GMO Education”). GMOs are also worldwide out in the market for anyone to buy. Although it may be in the open market throughout the world, not all consumers know what is inside their food. There are disputes about labeling GMOs: that it matters or that it does not matter. Scientists claim that GMOs are nontoxic, however others propose that the knowledge of risks are not explored enough to complete understand or agree that it is safe (“GMO Foods Should Be Labeled”). Either way,

Food is genetically modified to taste better, to have a better texture, and even look better to buyers. Think about when you are in your local grocery store. Walking through the food, you are going to pick the best looking food to buy; that is just one of our natural instincts. For example, corn is a food I look at and pick the better piece. If the end is all brown and kernels are missing, I go on to the next piece of corn. Scientists have started to make corn more yellow, they are now able to fill the whole corn with kernels so none are missing, and the corn is lasting longer than ever before. The first GMO crop to be put on the market was BT-corn. The corn was made to produce pesticides, which helps it last a lot longer. The genetically modified foods are the ones that are made to look better to the buyer, which increases sales. Plants have been created that need

As time goes by, the amount of land used for agriculture decreases, farmers decrease, and the world’s food supply begin to decrease. Scientists decided to use GMO’s to help stop the decrease in food supply. GMO’s are genetically modified organisms that scientists created by transferring specific genes from one plant to another to create a more nutritious product. In other words, one may say that scientists are trying to cheat nature. Some scientists claim that GMO’s have some beneficial aspects that would help society during the decline in our food surplus and provide nutrients to 3rd world countries. But, according to the “GMO Education”, about 60 countries have already restricted GMO’s or even banned them. The problem is, the United States