Government Food Label Requirements : Food Labeling

A GMO is a genetically modified organism that goes through the process of genetic engineering. This is when genes of one organism are extracted, altered, and then artificially placed into another organism to then grow. We typically see GMOs in the food we consume every day. These foods include fruits and vegetables, however the most common organisms that are genetically engineered include, corn, soy, and cotton. It is ultimately the unnatural cross breeding of plants, animals, bacteria, and virus genes (Non-GMO Project). But now why is there a debate for placing a label to notify consumers of GMOs in their foods? Do we know the potential harm that GMOs can cause? We have the right to know what we are putting into our bodies and what is found in our everyday foods.

Consumers could spend as much as $10 more per product if proposed label changes go through. The FDA is proposing new food labels by changing its look, and what information is places on the label. Improving food labels would not improve the public’s health because it is (1)costly, (2)will take lots of time and, (3)it is unnecessary. I believe that the new labels won’t help public health because people are not educated enough to know how to read them. More money should be spent on educating people on the labels rather than changing them. If the new labels are made the people who knew how to read them before will now have to learn how to read the new labels. With the new labels means more money spent on things that is unneeded.

The Federal Government should require labeling of GMO’s on genetically modified foods. The people deserve to know what they put in their bodies. Some of the food is very unhealthy and some people are completely unaware of that fact. Many food companies do not put out all the information about what goes into the food in which we consume, if the Federal government were to require labeling of all GMO foods then the people could be well educated about what they put inside their bodies, and know if it is good for them or not. GMO stands for genetically modified foods, a genetically modified food is “..an organism whose genome has been altered by the techniques of genetic engineering so that its DNA contains one or more genes not normally found

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 advancement of technology has allowed our generation to genetically modify food for what is believed to be beneficial to consumers. The environmental and health effects of genetically modified foods have generated controversy about whether these foods are safe. With such advances, the use of genetically modified food is expanding, even though they 're unlabeled. Genetically modified foods should be labeled because of the possible health, environmental, and economic risks. Once a consumer knows what they are paying for, it is fair to produce and market such 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.

After presenting the arguments of supporters and opponents of the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act. This paper will now analyze each issue to determine the strengths and weakness of each side’s arguments. One argument that proponents make about genetically modified foods is that they are no different than natural foods. An argument that opponents make is that genetically modified organisms have not been tested enough because they are fairly new and some scientist truly don’t have a understanding of how it will effect humans bodies differently than natural foods. Proponents argue that genetically engineered foods have no needs for labeling; it would lead to consumer confusion. Opponents argue that consumers have the right to know what is

Importantly, there is a current controversy concerning whether genetically modified foods should be labeled as such or if it is an unnecessary extra expense. Indeed, some individuals believe that if a product is genetically modified then it is potentially dangerous to a consumer’s health causing birth defects, increased risk of cancer, Parkinson’s, and Alzheimer’s disease (Greenpeace, n.d.). Therefore, based upon this predisposition they believe that a label should be placed on every product that is genetically modified, since it is the consumers right to know if a product has been exposed to harmful chemicals and pesticides. Contrariwise, others believe that labeling genetically modified foods is not needed, since there is presently no viable

The consumers want to know what they are purchasing yet the manufacturers are opposed to labeling and have contributed a considerable amount of money so as to prevent such labeling from occurring (Parker, 2012). The Big 6, which consist of Monsanto, BASF, Bayer Dow, DuPont, and Syngenta, are the dominating companies in regards to genetic modification and they continue to argue and oppose the labeling of their products when sold to consumers (Parker, 2012). There are still plenty of people who would like the labeling of all foods once they are put on the market and sold to the

After presenting the arguments of proponents and opponents of the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act. This paper will now analyze each issue to determine the strengths and weakness of each side’s argument. One argument that proponents make about genetically modified food is that they are no different than natural foods. An argument that opponents make is that genetically modified organisms have not been tested enough because they are fairly new and some scientist truly don’t have an understanding of how it will affect humans bodies differently than natural foods. Proponents argue that genetically engineered foods have no needs for labeling; it would lead to consumer confusion. Opponents argue that consumers have the right to know what is in the foods they are eating and supporting.

There are roughly sixty countries that require GMO labeling and they do not have the problem that the United States have. Some countries even go as far to ban GMOs and only let some in. They have to go through many processes and tests to examine the effects and quality of the plant and/or product. These countries have lower rates of GMO food purchases and their environment is much cleaner than the United States. Monsanto has always tried its hardest to prevent any law from passing to regulate and label their products. They have spent millions of dollars. They have also threatened to sue the states that have brought up the idea or bill the label. The public has protested and demanded labeling, they believe they have a right to know

“Our primary health care should begin on the farm and in our hearts, and not in some laboratory of the biotech and pharmaceutical companies” (Gary Hopkins). The sun was hot and they sky was clear when I walked into the grocery store that smoldering summer day. I walked in expecting to pick up things for a barbecue; burgers, hotdogs, salad, buns, corn on the cob, condiments and of course chips and snacks. Strolling down the fresh produce aisle I began to wonder, what if all of my food isn’t fresh, clean, no preservatives or pesticides or even GMO’s for that matter? Why shouldn’t every food be labeled with exactly what went into making it? Even if that means it needs to be traced all the way back down to the DNA. Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) should be labeled because the health risks are still unknown, consumers want to know what they are eating and there is a growing rate of people developing allergies to them.

GMOs should be labelled when being sold. After reading up on the facts and understanding both sides of the argument, my opinion is that it is up to the consumers to determine how to feel. They can be in love with GMOs or can absolutely despise them. The consumers can make that decision for themselves. I think GMOs should be labelled to give those consumers a choice. If they are not labelled, people won’t know what they are buying. It might be okay for those that do not think GMOs are inferior to organic plants. It will only affect the people that dislike them. A lack of labels results in a lack of choice, and therefore makes the decision for the consumer. No matter how healthy or great for the environment GMOs are, people should still be given a choice on whether or not to buy them. If a person is opposed to GM foods and only buys organic and traditionally bred foods, they should know if they are about to buy a GM product. A label will not harm the product in any way, shape, or form. If anything, it will be beneficial to the people who are buying them. The main reason companies don’t want to label their GMO products is because “Companies selling GMOs don't want their products labeled for fear of stigmatizing their products and losing customers.” Those thoughts should be put aside in favor of the

The FDA and Regulation of GMOs have defined GMOs as “Those in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in such a way that does not naturally occur.” My audience, people in the legislative branch of the government, hold varying viewpoints on the topic of GMO labeling. Some believe that the American people have the right to know what composes their food. Conversely, others believe that there exists such an overwhelming quantity of genetically modified foods that labeling would be impractical and expensive. However, considering that a person can, if they so desire, study the back of a cereal box in order to learn about its ingredients, they should also have the right to understand what makes up the ingredients going into a product.

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