The Ethical Principles Of Genetically Modified Organisms Essay

Genetically Modified Organisms (G.M.O.s) debates have plagued society and politicians since the idea of G.M.O.s have come to the playing field. Should farmers use them? What are the risks of G.M.O.s? Can G.M.O.s cause cancer in humans? All of these questions as well as a collection of others are waiting to be answered. The article “A Lonely Quest for Facts on Genetically Modified Crops” by Amy Harmon is concentrated on a councilman-Greggar Ilagan- researching questions he has about G.M.O.s so he can make an educated vote on whether or not to pass a ban on genetically modified crops.

“By 1999, to avoid labels that might drive customers away, most major European retailers had removed genetically modified ingredients from products bearing their brand.” (Chayka 1). Today most people seem to be more concerned about what is in their food. The author shows his concerns about GMOs and uses statistics to help his argument. All of the author’s reasoning makes me concerned and worried about our food and the safety of everyone else. People’s health is important for this world to survive and live a healthy lifestyle. GMO labels should be honest about their food no matter what issue they may face. People trust these brands and most likely stick with it for most of their lives. The important part of food companies is being honest with their ingredients, not interfering or harming other food companies, and ensuring the safety of its consumers.

“Agriculture is the most healthful, most useful, and most noble employment of man,” George Washington. Agriculture has been around for 12,000, this changed the lifestyle of people from hunting and gathering to permanent settlements with a steady food source (“Development of Agriculture”). From this, civilizations and cities grew, food could now be grown to meet the demands of the ever growing global populations. Since the development of agriculture advancement has been made to feed the population. One of the many modern advancements has been genetically modified organisms. Genetically Modified Organism, is the results of a laboratory process, where genes from the DNA of one of the species are extracted, and artificially forced into the genes of an unrelated plant or animal. Some of the unanswered questions about GMO’s have been what they are, companies that are involved,

Have you ever seen a commercial and said, “wow, I can relate to that” or “I could use that product”? Well each company has a specific age range that they target to increase their profits. Like toys are targeted at children, and medicine is targeted for adults. However, sometimes there are times where the companies use unethical ways to sell their products, especially in genetically modified foods. It is ethical for food companies to sell unlabeled genetically modified food because customers can become confused if there are too many labels they do not understand. Companies become so desperate to bring in new customers they will use inappropriate ways to gain their attention, in hopes to increase their profits.

In conclusion, GMOs and pesticides are harmful and alarming to producers and consumers. They cause animals pain and harm humans when consumed. Many animals live short and painful lives, while humans now must suffer with long term diseases or damage to their bodies. Although some argue that Genetically modified produce is benefiting producers and consumers, I still argue that genetically modified organisms harm animals and

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 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

A genetically modified organism, GMO, has been altered by genetic engineering techniques. GMOs are widely used by scientists in many different ways to include the production of food and in research.8 Zebrafish genetically modified to be a fluorescent bright red, green and orange have been available for purchase as pets in 49 states in the United States since 2003.8 However, these patented GloFish are banned in California. The California Fish and Game Commission decided the fish were the result of a “trivial use for a powerful technology.”7 The Commission’s belief that the fish should not have been created led to a law making the GloFish illegal. Originally GloFish were developed by scientists in Singapore to be living pollution sensors as they would only glow when in the presence of pollutants.7 The Commission’s ban on GloFish highlights the controversy over genetically modified organisms and how public opinion can be swayed by the beliefs of others whether those beliefs are based on science or not. This paper will focus first on what genetic modification means and then will look at the pros and cons of genetically modified foods. Finally, the author’s opinion of the issue of GMO food will conclude the paper.

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

The consumers want to know what they are purchasing yet the manufacturers are opposed to labeling and have contributed a considerable amount of money so as to prevent such labeling from occurring (Parker, 2012). The Big 6, which consist of Monsanto, BASF, Bayer Dow, DuPont, and Syngenta, are the dominating companies in regards to genetic modification and they continue to argue and oppose the labeling of their products when sold to consumers (Parker, 2012). There are still plenty of people who would like the labeling of all foods once they are put on the market and sold to the

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

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs), also known as genetically modified or engineered foods, are created by forcing a piece of DNA from a totally different species, such as bacteria or viruses, into the DNA of a plant or animal. There are no long-term studies demonstrating that GMOs are safe for humans and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not do its own safety testing. Since most people like to know what they are eating, the question is: “Should GMO products be labeled”?

In a life of technological advancement, human beings are faced with many ethical issues regarding the natural world. People have become capable of scientifically manipulating genes to create organisms that nature never intended to exist. Although scientists have the technology at their disposal, it begs the questions: Is it ethical to change living organisms to better satisfy our own needs? Do scientists know enough about the process of genetic engineering and the long-term effects of genetically altering a food supply, to determine if it is safe and environmentally sound? Many companies have made large profits on genetically altered produce. Tomatoes are bigger and corn is more golden. Consumers are happier. The government does not require that companies label their genetically engineered products. However, through regulation and knowledge, the government could be a crucial ethical force in controlling the impact of genetic engineering on industry and society.

Humans have been altering the genomes of plants and animals for many years using traditional breeding techniques. Artificial selection for specific, desired traits has resulted in a variety of different organisms, ranging from sweet corn to hairless cats. But this artificial selection, in which organisms that exhibit specific traits are chosen to breed subsequent generations, and has been limited to naturally occurring variations. GMO’s achieve what natural breeding cannot by allowing precise control on what the organism’s traits are. Genetically modified organisms have become very common and have a wide variety of applications from medicine to agriculture. Issues revolving around GMO include dangers to the eco system and there have been studies relating GMO’s to negative impacts on human health. GMO’s can optimize agricultural performance or facilitating the production of valuable pharmaceutical substances. Crop plants, farm animals, and soil