Mandatory Labeling

“Should We Care About Genetically Modified Foods?” by John N. Shaw appeared in Food Safety News issue of February 1, 2010, as a feature under the health section on the controversy between the pros and cons of genetically modified foods (Also known as GMO, genetically modified organisms). The main idea of this article is to inform people of the benefits of GMOs . The author, John Shaw received his Bachelor of Science degree in Finance with a minor in Marketing from the University of Arkansas in 2007, where he was a “leadership scholar.” In addition to his studies, he has worked as a research assistant with Food Law LL.M. Director Susan Schneider, interned with Wal-Mart Government and Corporate Affairs division, the Arkansas Attorney General Public Protection Division, and with United States Senator Blanche Lincoln. John has a passion for Food Law, sports, and outdoors. In the article, he states, “ I submit that I am no scientist; merely an interested student.” According to the article, he is passionate and has done sufficient research about the topic to support his argument.

In the essay “Genetically Modified Food: Watching What We Eat,” by Julie Cooper, she argues against the rampant use of genetically modified food (GMO) without any current form of regulation. Cooper discusses the possibility of health risks to those consuming foods with altered genes and the food’s capabilities to have far-reaching health risks. She continues with a discussion as to how and why the creation and use of the GMOs have become so unregulated. She then discusses the response, which is the public’s cry for their right to make informed choices. Other topics discusses are the political, environmental, and corporate ramifications of the rise of GMOs.

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

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

A trip to any supermarket in Canada will reveal nothing out of ordinary, just the usual of array of fresh and packaged goods displayed in an inviting manner to attract customers. Everything appear familiar and reassuring, right? Think again. A closer microscopic inspection discloses something novel, a fundamental revolution in food technology. The technology is genetic engineering (GE), also known as biotechnology. Blue prints (DNA) of agricultural crops are altered and “spliced” with foreign genes to produce transgenic crops. Foods harvested from these agricultural plants are called, genetically modified (GM). Presently, Canada has no consumer notification; GM foods are being slipped to Canada’s foods without any labels or adequate risk

Approximately eighty percent of food eaten in the United States contains GMOs, but not many people know what they are actually consuming from their food sources (Prah). Genetically modified organism, also known as genetically modified organisms engineered in a lab by scientists that alter the genes of plants and animals. By fixating DNA from other organisms into America’s food sources, they create substances that are detrimental to the health of human beings. In addition to this, these genetically modified organisms are completely foreign to the plants and animals they undergo; their genes can become damaged from inserting the genes of the organisms. This unnatural process can interfere with a metabolic pathway in the plant or animal. In addition, studies have shown that on average forty-four percent of people had the “Round-up Ready” herbicide, glyphosate, which is used on genetically modified crops, found in their bodies (Stonebrook). Both, the genetically modified organisms and the chemicals used on them, cause several problems to occur in humans and other organisms which consume GMOs. These include tumors, damaged immune systems, allergies, and infertility; this is dangerous to the health of humans and to their regular body processes. Americans have the right to know what is going into their bodies and how these man-made GMOs are affecting them. By the government

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

The public has grown intimidated by GMO’s and have come up with a myth of how harmful these modifications are to humans. It’s been seen in documentaries, and heard through advertisements but where did it all come from? The fear of eating something naturally made then transformed to fit societies need created the myth: GMOs are bad for people. With this mindset, people will willingly reject foods after they find out it has been “modified”.

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

During the Ragtime era Upton Sinclair felt that people should be educated on what happens to their food a social issue that can be found happening today as people are demanding to know what’s in their food. Furthermore, Labeling Genetically Modified food is the best way to educate customers about what they are consuming. Polls conducted by professional news organizations, including the Washington Post, MSNBC and Reuters/NPR consistently show that over 90% of consumers want GMO ingredients labeled. As ABC News stated, “Such near-unanimity in public opinion is rare.” This study shows how many people are adamant to have GMOs labeling. Pam Pinto, owner of Act Natural Health and Wellness in Torrington Connecticut. “I strongly feel that GM food should be labeled.” Pinto said, “We should not be our Government's experiment.”

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

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.

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

Our policy could also receive push back in regard to priorities within the GMO industry. Our policy prioritizes further testing for possible long-term consequences that GMOs can cause in order to provide evidence that GMOs are safe for concerned consumers. People against our policy might argue that a faster implementation of GMOs into our agriculture for the sake of food security takes priority over educating the public about GMOs. We feel like this policy provides balance and considers everybody's best interest on both sides of the issue because it addresses the concerns of people against GMOs with the long term goal of increasing the usage of GMOs and recognizing the necessity of them. In addition, pushing GMOs into the public too fast could cause defects within products to slide through testing without notice, causing problems later down the line when they are made available to the

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.