Persuasive Essay On Whole Foods

However, eating foods that are not genetically altered may be easier said than done. At present, manufacturers are not required to label their products as containing GMOs. According to the Food and Drug Administration, “foods developed using recombinant DNA (or rDNA) techniques would not be required to have special labeling to reveal that fact to consumers (Le Trent).” While this may seem like a harmless practice to many consumers, it can often lead a person to feel deceived and misinformed.

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.

Foods with GMO ingredients need to be labeled because they are bad for your health. GMOs are not proven to be safe in the long run. The FDA has not run any tests to tell whether or not GMOs are safe. GMOs are linked to birth defects, and to Gluten disorders. According to USRTK, “ The FDA does not require independent pre-market safety testing for genetically engineered food. As a matter of practice, the agrichemical companies submit their own studies to the FDA as part of a

Would you like to have no decisions on the healthiness of your food, and being able to only eat fast food, fried foods, etc. Most people would say no and rightfully so, people should be able to have choices on the foods they want to eat whether it’s healthy, unhealthy, fast food, farm grown, we shouldn’t have only unhealthy foods for our choices of what we eat. In the film Food Inc. directed by Robert Kenner there is a part in the movie that talks about the food choices of consumers. A point that was talked about for a decent amount of time in this part was how healthier foods are more expensive than fast food. This stood out to me because it’s true it cost more to eat healthy than it does to just go through a drive through. This is outrageous it should be the opposite, we should have to spend more for fast food than healthy foods. While at most fast food places there are ways you can eat healthy food but it is still more expensive than just buying a cheeseburger or chicken nuggets. During this part of the film a family was talking and saying that they have to choose whether to eat healthier food or get there father/husbands medicine so he could work. A family has to choose between those to things and that is not fair to anyone that has to make that decision. The family wanted to have better food and to not always be eating fast food meals but they don’t really have a choice and that is heartbreaking to see.

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

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

The Food Drug and Cosmetic Act contains a labeling law for any positive and negative “material” changes to the nutrition of food. For example, trans fats are labeled because they are related to cardiovascular disease (Murphy). Products containing peanuts and other allergens are required to be labeled due to the potential adverse health effects if eaten by individuals with nut or other allergies. In 1992, the Food and Drug Administration addressed the labeling of GMOs in a policy statement amended to the act. The policy states that foods developed by genetic

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

Whole Foods, as stated in their values concerning the food that they sell, say that they are committed to provide clean, fresh, quality organic food for a low price. This however can be fought as falsely advertised due to the fact that there are products on their shelves that contain GMOs. Any food that is truly organic will have the words Organic or GMO Free.

The FDA does not require companies in the food industry to provide any labeling for their product if it contains GMOs. Many of the scientists that support genetic engineering claim that GM foods are safe for human consumption. But the practice of genetically engineering an organism in a lab to possess certain qualities is far from natural. There are several reasons that scientists are working to genetically engineer many plant and animal species. Scientists claim that they are genetically engineering many animals so that they have pharmacological qualities that may benefit human health. (Food-borne illnesses) There is a risk of transferring a disease from animals to humans. Much like the problems with using antibiotics in animals, engineering an animal to be resistant to certain viruses could result in super bugs or more antibiotic resistant viruses. Some animals are being genetically engineered so that they are better for marketing. Chickens, for example, are being engineered to grow larger breast. Cattle are being modified so that they grow faster and are even engineered so that they produce less pollution; supposedly a plus for the environment. Certain species of fish, such as salmon, are being engineered so that they produce more of the healthy fat, omega-3. This may seem innocuous enough, but these animals are being genetically engineered in ways that would primarily benefit the farmers and

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.

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

Healthy food should be accessible to everyone. If healthy food isn’t available for everyone all it’s going to do is cause more and more health problems. If we made healthy organic food the same price as cheap unhealthy food there would be a big difference in the health of our country. It’s completely unfair to make healthy food too expensive for other people to buy, which causes them to buy cheap unhealthy food, like off a dollar menu at a fast food restaurant. This issue needs to be put to an end.