Measure 92: Yes Or No?

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

Yet, despite these things, I’m going to focus on the health effects and the fact that the evidence suggests that health issues are not a concern for consumers. For example, in the article “Scientists Say GMO Food are Safe, Public Skepticism remains” from The Plate, they mentioned a group by the name of The National Academy of Sciences (a group funded by the U.S. Congress to provide expert scientifically-based advice on a wide variety of issues) and in particular used their findings in the article. What the committee came up with, after a two year long study, was that they “[didn’t] find evidence the consumption of the GE foods currently in our food supply increase food allergies, have significant effects on the GI tract, or pose a risk for horizontal gene transfer” (Tamar Haspel). To simplify what the committee was trying to get across, genetically

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

People nourish themselves by consuming three meals each day. Eating is essential for survival, but what is actually in food we eat? Many are oblivious to that. People should be very informed to what is actually going into their gastrointestinal system because it significantly impacts their health, and it can between life or death. Gone are the days when people saw every step of how their food was manufactured until it got onto their table to eat. With increased human population on Earth, consequently, mass production is ubiquitous. The commonality of mass production, has led to genetically modified foods. Genetically modified foods are foods that have been genetically engineered to produce effects that make them more desirable. It is also worth noting, that GMOs are not on food labeled when sold to the public. Many people are unaware of genetically modified foods as they have significant negative effects on humans in conjunction and the environment.

I don't consider myself a political activist, but I've sent a letter or two to politicians when I've felt strongly about an issue. I am writing to you now to urge you to pass H.R. 1599. Coming from an agricultural state, I am troubled by the lack of a consistent standard with respect to the labeling of GMO foods. This legislation, also known as the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act, would bring consistency and uniformity to what is quickly becoming a quagmire of competing state regulations.

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

Those opposed to GMO labeling have won once again. In “California Rejects Labeling Of Genetically Modified Food; Supporters Vow To Fight On”, Amy Standen points out the advantages that biotechnology companies have over local, small farms. Standen highlights the individual support, effort, and money put into labeling GMO’s. “Yes to 37” was a step away from success, until the opposing side stepped in and won the labeling battle. Through the use of direct quotes, as well as reference to companies like Monsanto, it becomes clear that biotechnology has succeeded once again. Standen uses these rhetorical strategies to evoke both an emotional, and ethical appeal within the reader throughout this article.

Maybe this does not concern some people, but it does concern me. While this is controversial, I think the experts should have more weight in determining the safety of GM foods than the political process. But that is my opinion.

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

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

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

GMOs have been deemed completely safe and legal. Other countries however, have firmly set their feet on the other side of the fence. Although it doesn’t directly affect us Americans right now, it could in 50 years when there are nine billion people. The simple fact is, if they aren’t using GMOs than they are not getting the greatest yield possible out of their crops, and if they remain anti-GMO they won’t be pulling what little weight their smaller countries can pull when crunch time comes and our world needs more food

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