Hr 1599 Essay

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

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

On November 6th, 2012 Proposition 37 that would have required genetically engineered foods labeling was among 10 other initiatives on the ballot in California. Unfortunately, only 6,088,714 people (48.59%) voted “Yes”, so it was defeated. I think it was a mistake to reject this initiative because if it had been passed it would have benefited Californians in a variety of ways. It would have become a conscious decision whether to buy a genetically engineered or not. Also, producers would have had to stop misleading customers by saying that their products are “natural” even though contain Genetically Modified Organisms. In addition to the advantaged obtained immediately, passing of Proposition 37 most likely would have led to the decrease in a general level of products that include Genetically Modified Organisms in the foods market. Although, at this point, it is impossible to eliminate Genetically Modified Organisms from one’s diet completely, naturally grown production would have become more competitive because people prefer them over GM products which would have caused an increase in production of organic products that, unlike genetically modified, are not harmful for people’s bodies. However, Proposition 37 like any other initiative has downsides, such as: increasing state costs of regulating labeling and possible “costs for the courts, the Attorney General, and district attorneys

In November of 2014, a bill called Proposition 105 was on the ballot in Colorado that, if passed, would require any foods with genetically modified ingredients, to be labeled. Although the bill did not pass, the debate on whether GMOs (genetically modified organisms) should be labeled or not rages on. As defined by dictionary.com, a GMO is defined as “An organism or microorganism whose genetic material has been altered by means of genetic engineering.” This genetic alteration that takes place, is not possible in nature, which has some people apprehensive about GMOs overall safety. Bills like Proposition 105 have already passed in the states of Vermont, Connecticut, and Maine, giving these three states the same rights that 64 countries around

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

Whether or not to require labeling of GM foods is a major issue in the persistent debate over the risks and benefits of foods crops that are produced using biotechnology. Bills requiring compulsory labeling have been introduced and proposed in different levels, but not evenly implemented. Some of the common genetically engineered crops include soya beans, canola, corn and cotton. The US Food and Drug Administration policy on the labeling of GM food requires labeling is the food has significantly distinct nutritional property (US FDA par 2). Further, labeling is required if the GM food product includes an allergen that consumers may not expect to find in such a product, or if the product contains a toxicant that is beyond acceptable limits (US FDA par 3).

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

We can expect push back to this policy in regards to the extension of time it will take for a GMO to reach the market along with the economic implications that this policy will bring. Any party that is invested in the GMO market such as Monsanto (a major producer of GMOs) or any company that would sell GMOs to the public will be strongly against our policy. This is because our policy would impose further regulation on an industry that is already heavily regulated. Our opponents would argue that 13 years of testing/studying GMO’s before being approved for the public is more than sufficient and that elongating that process would be harmful to the GMO industry. Extending the time it takes for a GMO to hit the market will slow down the economic growth of the relatively new industry, which is why it is important to offer subsidies to companies that are invested in the production of

Since human have farming, they have been selecting for certain characteristics through conventional breeding techniques, but genetic engineering allows for a more exact selection for characteristics of crops. Traditional breeding produces more unknown results while genetic engineering is more precise in the resulting plants variants. Ever since the technology to create GE was developed in the 1990s, there has been a debate over how to label these food products. Several states including Maine, and Connecticut have already introduced and signed bills into effect that will require companies to label products that contain GE ingredients or derived from using GE practices (“Labels for GMO Foods Are a Bad Idea.”). Currently members of Congress

Dear Congressman Foster, I am a student in a freshman biology class at Joliet West High School and I am writing in regards to the unlabeled GMO foods sold in stores. I believe that it’s wrong for companies to keep that information from us. We’re the ones who are buying it and making them money, so we should know what we’re buying. In my opinion GMOs are not ethically wrong, they are done for many reasonable purposes. Such as producing insulin, for people whose bodies are unable to, or produce an insufficient amount. Or human growth hormones, antibodies, vaccines, and infertility drugs. But besides the medical field, GMO’s are in our everyday foods. Strawberries, although not in season now are still being produced. How, you ask? Because of

On behalf of the interest groups and the Florida coalition committee leaders here with me, I would like to thank you for inviting us today in your office. Can you please allow me introducing each member of this delegation. Here is to my right, Ms. Sanders, representing the Florida community activist groups; next to her, Ms. Levy, nurse practitioner and advocate member of the American Nurses Association (ANA); to my left, we have Mr. Lucas, representing Florida coalition counties committees, and myself, registered nurse, executive council of the steering committee. Once again, this is an honor to be here and I would like to thank you in advance for your support in this political endeavor aimed to request mandatory labeling of genetically modified food packages.

When speaking about groups and organizations that are opting to make GMO recognition a permanent change, we depend on Right to Know MD in order to help us get the attention of the people we hope to attract. Targeting a smaller audience in the region of Bethesda, in order to get our message across. We believe that getting families attention will get us closer to a national GMO label requirement. We expect that the spread of GMO knowledge will ultimately get us closer to our goal of requiring GMO labels on all foods, because it will allow the public to have an opinion of their own. But it is Companies such as Giant, who have the biggest ties to the biggest GMO distributors, who have an effect on bills that pass regarding the Right to Know advocacies. To put this into perspective, if they allowed the GMO Label bill to pass, they would be forced

There has been a huge debate over GMO labeling going back many years, only now starting to really gain traction. Measure 92 in Oregon was a vote over the labeling, if it passed, Oregon would be the first state in the U.S. to require the labeling of genetically modified foods. The vote was extremely close, forty-nine-point-nine percent were for the bill, and fifty-point-zero were against. Because of the very small margin between the two, there has been a mandatory recount. Many still believe that the outcome will not change. But this is just the first, and it’s already so close down the middle. Large corporations are fighting very hard to stop these bills from passing, and it is very suspicious as to why it would concern them so much that they would pour literally millions of dollars into stopping bills like measure 92. All foods that have been genetically modified, or contain

Right now only three states have passed laws that require GMOs to be labeled, but it has been an uphill battle for these three states ever since. Vermont was the first state to pass this law and has come under fire from large businesses suing the state claiming their GMO labeling law is “unconstitutional”. These lawsuits plaguing Vermont, have consequently caused Connecticut and Maine to hold off on implementing their labeling laws until bordering states implement labeling laws of their own.

As a company, we feel this is a path in the right direction in food labeling, but this is still not enough. This new food labeling law does not hold the companies up to the highest standard. The food law only requires companies to use a QR code rather than outright labeling it as a GMO food on the packaging. Consumers deserve the right to know what is in their food, as this has been a topic of conversation ever since GMOs were first used in food products. The food industry feels that people deserve to know, but sides with the FDA because the FDA has stated that GMO is closely related genetically to non-GMO and therefore does not need to be labeled (Institute of Food Technology, 2000). Additionally, Consumers all over the world feel they deserve to know what is in their food (Premanandh, 2011). Given these points it is important to label foods as GMO or non-GMO because we want