The Costs Of Labels : The Production Aspect Of Food

“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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

After presenting the arguments of supporters and opponents of the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act. This paper will now analyze each issue to determine the strengths and weakness of each side’s arguments. One argument that proponents make about genetically modified foods is that they are no different than natural foods. An argument that opponents make is that genetically modified organisms have not been tested enough because they are fairly new and some scientist truly don’t have a understanding of how it will effect humans bodies differently than natural foods. Proponents argue that genetically engineered foods have no needs for labeling; it would lead to consumer confusion. Opponents argue that consumers have the right to know what is

You may ask, “what difference could a label on a package make?” If the labeling of genetically modified foods can inform consumers across the country of what exactly they are eating, it can make a huge difference. But the only way to increase these labels is for more federal laws to be passed. Once the new laws are passed, Americans will be more knowledgeable of modern agriculture. When more people buy those genetically modified products, money will come back to the American farmer, and consumers won’t have to spend as much on their trip to the grocery

Importantly, there is a current controversy concerning whether genetically modified foods should be labeled as such or if it is an unnecessary extra expense. Indeed, some individuals believe that if a product is genetically modified then it is potentially dangerous to a consumer’s health causing birth defects, increased risk of cancer, Parkinson’s, and Alzheimer’s disease (Greenpeace, n.d.). Therefore, based upon this predisposition they believe that a label should be placed on every product that is genetically modified, since it is the consumers right to know if a product has been exposed to harmful chemicals and pesticides. Contrariwise, others believe that labeling genetically modified foods is not needed, since there is presently no viable

Recently, Monsanto, a GMO company, made an effort to remove GMO labeling protests. GMO labeling is a process that labels, whether a crop has GMOs or not. The consumers have a right to know what they are eating while Monsanto wants to remove that right. Ostrander writes, “The anti-GMO activists were vastly outspent: Monsanto alone invests $8 million in efforts to defeat the measure” (Ostrander). From Monsanto’s action alone, it seems that they do not want consumers to know what they are eating. They used $8 million alone to eliminate GMO labeling protests. Even though GMO companies claim to help provide more for the world, Monsanto’s activities show that the consumer’s rights are not of concern. Not long ago, Vermont state legislation planned to enforce GMO labeling. This did not last too long because the state was sued as a result of this enforcement. Fraser and Mittal write, “the Grocery Manufacturers Association (supported by corporations including Monsanto...) is now suing the state, alleging that the law would violate the U.S Constitution in various ways” (Fraser and Anuradha). Monsanto appears again in a battle against GMO labeling. Whenever a protest appear against GMOs or for GMO labeling, Monsanto will continue to find any opportunity to reject GMO labeling. In general, companies are formed to make a profit, although GMO companies claim to

Abhorrently, today's consumers are faced with discomfort regarding food safety. For the past 20 years millions of people around the world have been eating plants genetically modified by scientists. Genetically modified crops are tweaked to resist the harsh herbicides. In a recent article titled Labels for GMOs are bad the author argues that GMOs are safe for human consumption. In fact,Suspected culprit in devastating 'fiber disease' statistics show that “Around 70 percent of processed foods in the U.S contain genetically modified ingredients.” ( The Editors 1 ) I strongly oppose The Editors point of view towards GMO labeling because consumers want to know what they are eating. GMOs should indeed be labeled to inform what's in the product