Those Opposed Of Gmo Labeling Have Won Once Again

In 2015, Tim Anderson, a PhD researcher, wrote “GMO Foods are Unsafe”, an article which perhaps sheds light on the mishandling of genetically modified foods, including the lack of testing of said food products, as well as the potential hazards posed to humans and the environment. In the same year, Genetic Literacy Project’s web editor, JoAnna Wendel, wrote a contrasting article “Genetically Modified Foods Have Been Studied and Found Safe to Eat”, and voices her disgust over the false information that constantly belittle GMOs. She believes the allegation that little evaluation has been accomplished to monitor and ensure the safety of these genetic modifications is based on frantic opinions and not accurate facts. Although their positions appear to utterly oppose one

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

“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.

In the essay “Genetically Modified Food: Watching What We Eat,” by Julie Cooper, she argues against the rampant use of genetically modified food (GMO) without any current form of regulation. Cooper discusses the possibility of health risks to those consuming foods with altered genes and the food’s capabilities to have far-reaching health risks. She continues with a discussion as to how and why the creation and use of the GMOs have become so unregulated. She then discusses the response, which is the public’s cry for their right to make informed choices. Other topics discusses are the political, environmental, and corporate ramifications of the rise of GMOs.

to argue against the media that caused fear to erupt in the public. To begin his essay, he explains

The argument that I wish to refute will be, “Monsanto’s Reasons for Fighting GMO Labeling? It Loves You ” this is a persuasive argument that would like to bring in a younger uneducated audience in to believe that GMO labeling is bad. This cartoon was published on the humor section of planetsave.com. This means that this is little more than a brief chuckle at the argument and then disregarding it because it has not backing behind it. The author appears to be against GMO labeling because consumers will try to research what GMO is and use up resources and electricity. This will worsen pollution levels, and cause them to look deeper into the topic.

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

Genetically Modified Organisms, or GMO’s, are organisms that have had genes from a different organism implanted into their own genetic code in order to produce a new result (“Genetically engineered foods”). This practice has elicited polar responses across the globe, for a multitude of reasons. Besides the obvious reason, being the morality of changing an organism's DNA for human benefit, one frequently noted problem is the monopolization of GMO’s by the company Monsanto, whose name is nearly synonymous with GMO’s due to their involvement with these crops. Monsanto has been at the center of many controversies regarding GMO’s, and is even considered to be ranked third to last for reputation among all major American companies (Bennett). Most

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

The use of images and other visual aids has become an effective way to stake one’s claim on a situation since the popularization of media in all its forms. Companies, as well as different organizations, use images on their websites in the same way advertisers use websites, to persuade people to buy a certain product or believe in a certain cause. Genetically Modified Organisms have been a topic of negative commentary and The Non-GMO Project wishes to bring awareness of this topic to the public, utilizing their Verified stamp of approval as well as their website, which highlights many ways to live a GMO-free lifestyle. The Non-GMO Project, a credible stakeholder in the fight against Genetically Modified Organisms, uses images on their website to persuade people to live a healthier lifestyle by avoiding products containing these harmful Genetically Modified Organisms. The website is full of images that could make even the unhealthiest of people want to eat GMO free foods. The Non-GMO Project

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

The public believes that Monsanto’s genetically modified organism (GMO) products is harmful not solitary to the environment and our food system but also to the consumers itself. Joe Mohr’s visual argument of Monsanto’s Reasons for Fighting GMO Labeling? It Loves You is a poor argument in an attempt to change the public’s view. Mohr claims that GMO labeling will cause the earth and its citizens to more stress, global warming, and cellular radiation. Mohr’s hope in transforming the unknowing public’s opinion by using Logos in defending Monsanto through a sound and logical visual explanation that was unfounded is nothing but a disappointment. Monsanto is all about corporate control and profit. Images and graphics that was used could potentially give depth and change public understanding to Mohr’s one-sided argument in procuring

Instead of being worried about if the food in grocery stores has labels or not, he explains that it is much more important to understand what the labels would mean and to use the GMO food to help people in need since it won’t matter if it has a label on it or not as long as its nutritious. Fagin’s alternative point of view takes an overall passive stance on GMO labels in the end and says that the public should just accept that it will happen for GMO foods, just like it did for organic

Many people in today’s society are finding themselves deciding to purchase GMO products or to buy products that are only organic. The reason so many citizens are having a hard time trying to decide whether to be for or against GMO products would be due to the amount of information that is very hard to understand. The fact that the people have the right to chose what and how their food “in this case” is produced is something that many feel strongly about. However, due to recent allegations, many citizens are questioning what their food is truly made of.

In the growing pitched debate over the use of GMOs and application of genetically altered foods, it can become difficult to see where scientific evidence comes to an end and speculation begins. The never-ending argument over genetically modified organisms can get brutal at times, and most often, very confusing due to a lot of misleading information. GM foods are such an embedded part of our food system nowadays, but it’s not difficult to think back to a time when food was simpler and healthier. Last year, on the 18th of August, Stefaan Blancke, a philosopher and writer, wrote an article on Scientific American™, in which he concluded that the public 's dislike and attack on GM foods derived from the food 's lack of psychological