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”.
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
With research showing that GMOs are bad for human consumption, there hasn’t been any policy restrictions made towards GMO foods. Here specifically it is up to the FDA and the government to pass the bill that would make these restrictions mandatory. Currently, this policy is being ignored and thought to not be necessary when factoring in human health. In other words, these large federal agencies are ignoring the facts and choosing to not make GMO restrictions
“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.
“When you light a candle, you also cast a shadow.” – Ursula K. Le Guin. No matter what good some people believe they are doing, everything seems to come with a consequence, and the question is whether or not the good overpowers the bad. Many experts argue that Genetically Modified foods are actually beneficial to, not only people, but animals, plants, and the world overall. Some experts even state that, not only are they beneficial, but that they also protect the environment and aid food productivity. Most farmers actually recommend GMO’s because they are easier to grow, maintain, and tend to be more profitable; however, countless other experts have come to realize that GMO foods are untested, unsafe, and unhealthy. Studies indicate that
Presently there is no scientific evidence to support that GMOs are inherently bad, despite more than 30 years and thousands of studies that were conducted. The population is growing and Policy should lead to the development of regulatory frameworks that minimize the number of new data requirements and maximize the value of existing
It was decided almost 20 years about by the Food and Drug Administration that GMOs do not need to be labeled, despite the consumers’ desire for GMO labeling. Consumers’ demanding to know what is in their food has lead to the proposed legislation of GMO labeling from more than twenty states. Health safety is a large part of the proponents’ argument for GMO labeling (Murray 2016). The consumers right to know, right to choose, and ethical rights are also all reasons for GMO labeling policy. The oppositions’ arguments against mandatory GMO labeling are that it could falsely alarm consumers, impose extra costs on consumers and lead to restricts on consumer choice (Hemphill 2015). There would be more harm than good to come from
The conflict of GMOs has changed a little over time but not as dramatically as some of the public believes. The amount of GMO crops has increased substantially, as well as the profit from the crops. But the overall conflict, the views on the issue the measures to stop or change GMOs has gone almost nowhere. (Ballotpedia) The conflict has always been about the same issue and the solutions have always been along the same premise. To stop using GMOs as a food source, or recently to make non-GMO products labeled. The only thing that has changed is the companies that control the GMOs have grown considerably since the controversy has started. (disabled-world) (Food Democracy)
GMOs won’t harm anyone, hopefully, this is the common thought of many people, and they believe GMOs won’t affect anyone gravely because there is no physical evidence. But like most controversy scapegoats are necessary because most people do not like difficult investigations that call for heavy research or reading. Give the angry crowds the name and address they will react. Although the food supply has rules, regulations and safety procedures on how to treat the food, clean it and remove harmful food-borne illness; mishaps in the procedures can lead to food-borne illnesses that can not only damage our health, but can also be fatal. So why are consumers being misled by products and instinctively misguided? The very process of creating a GM plant can result in guaranteed damages; they will produce new toxins, allergens, carcinogens, and nutritional deficiencies. As a result, the toxins can now enter into foods and vegetables we eat. Food regulations influence consumers because of the health, the unknown that may come in the future, the environment, and most importantly the unexposed issues that are always censured.
When looking at the French ad and all the oppositions against GMO develops a simple theme of uncertainty. These non-supporters don’t realize opportunity as our scientist made huge agricultural advancements in producing more food organism to help our growing population. With the work of destroying agricultural land, increase food supply, and over consumption build our nations needs for GMO food items. In fact, over 70% of our produce has already been
Some of the most important opinions regarding GMO’s include the President, some members of his cabinet, the House, the Senate, along with International laws and our local Mendocino view. President Obama has displayed his opinions clearly through the allowance of Monsanto and GMO organizations to gain control of our food. He signed the Monsanto Protection Act (HR 933), which allows Monsanto to grow their GMO’s without prosecution from the federal courts even if it is discovered and proven that these GMO’s cause detrimental health issues. Obama’s signing this act clearly shows that he is biased toward GMO use and the Monsanto company over the pleas of over 250 thousand Americans. In Obama’s cabinet, we have Tom Vilsack, who is our secretary of agriculture. He has been a long time supporter of GMO’s, and in his past career as Senator of Iowa, he made it nearly impossible for farmers to regulate their seeds and crops. He also allowed the early versions of GMO’s to be grown in Iowa, despite the scientists fears of cross pollination. In the senate, we have Barbara Boxer from California, who has been against GMOs from the start. She kick started the GMO Food Right to Know Act, but unfortunately the bill has not been passed due to a conflicting bill, known as the DARK Act. Another member of our senate is Chuck Grassley of Iowa. He is currently attempting to convince Europe to accept GMO corn produced in
Although GMO products have faced many backlashes by concerned consumers, the amount of benefits GMO products offer to both Farmers and consumers is
As a consumer, we have the right to know and control that which we consume. The right to control what we consume is a basic human right, and not being made aware of the use of GMO’s impinges on that right. Even if the average person can not fully understand what GMO’s are or what purpose they serve in the food they eat, they still should be made aware of what is in their food. Better yet, by introducing the means to educate the populace on the ways that GMO crops benefit them and the environment, GMO’s can become more widely accepted
Much of the public concern surrounding the safety of GMOs stems from the process of actually creating them. This is admittedly not a natural process, which is a surefire way to raise critic’s eyebrows in doubting their safety. However, there is no evidence that supports these myths. The Committee on Genetically Engineered Crops, The National Academy of Science, and the Board on Agriculture and Natural Recourses all agree after extensive testing and observation that there is no additional harm in the consumption of GMO food. The research conducted in animal studies, as well as chemical analysis of the crops, show no indication that GMOs are negatively affecting human health. The next allegation hurled at GMOs is that they may have
France, Germany, Belgium, Austria, all member states of the European Union and also participants of EU’s legislation and policy on GMOs, amongst other EU countries. A policy that is aimed to prevent harmful effects on the environment as well as monitor the safety of humans and animals in the area (Library of Congress, 2015). It is also seen to be one that accurately represents the concerns of local consumers and producers in the area. The success of this policy is due to science-based risk assessment that is designed to protect the health of organisms in the area; the success of this policy has led to no human or animal health related GMO incident in member countries. The United States is currently adhering to the opposite ideal and does not have a federal law relating to the regulation of genetically modified organisms. Furthermore, since the US is so heavily dependent on genetically modified foods, regulations on GMOs are not aimed at restricting production but rather focusing on the nature of production. (Library of Congress, 2015) After learning about the success of a restrictive GMO policy such as the one implemented in the EU, an average American consumer may wonder why the US has not adopted a similar policy? Or why the US might not be able to adopt a comparable federal legislation? The unforeseen issue with the United States government choosing not to restrict the increasingly growing GMO sector, leads to several adverse issues for an average daily consumer. As with