What Are Natural Food Companies Unethical

When I think of all-natural foods, my mind is filled with thoughts of free range chicken, organic vegetables, and farm fresh eggs.  I envision the farmer, tending his crops; the baker selling his goods.   One thing that does not come to mind is Genetically Modified Organisms.  Everywhere we turn, GMOs are popping up at an alarming rate.  The scary thing is that many people are not even aware they are consuming these products.  As of now, companies who manufacture GMOs are not required to label their products as such.  These foods that are consumed by millions of people every day are still permitted to be labeled as "all natural." Producers of genetically-modified organisms should be required to

This paper will particularly focus on the food industry and will outline the ethical issue of food marketing towards children by reviewing the existing marketing ethics literature. The paper will evaluate the ethical responsibilities of marketing managers towards the issue of food marketing towards children and its impact. The paper will also explore and propose how managers of marketing can change their strategies to improve the ethical performance of the company by analyzing theories such as business ethics, social marketing and corporate social responsibility (CSR). It will discuss various theoretical approaches to marketing.

Professor Richard Lewotin said “An ecosystem, you can always intervene and change something in it, but there is no way of knowing what all the downstream effects will be or how it will affect the environment.” Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) are not healthy and they shouldn’t be put in our food. Our nation does not know the full extent of GMOs. GMOs are used in almost all of our food, and for the most part there are no regulations for these GMOs that food companies are using now a days. They have been used for years without telling us the full background and side effects they could have. As a nation we need to take the right step in learning the facts about them and making our food truly healthy. GMOs should be made illegal due to the fact that studies have shown them to be unsafe and harmful to consume.

The Federal Government should require labeling of GMO’s on genetically modified foods. The people deserve to know what they put in their bodies. Some of the food is very unhealthy and some people are completely unaware of that fact. Many food companies do not put out all the information about what goes into the food in which we consume, if the Federal government were to require labeling of all GMO foods then the people could be well educated about what they put inside their bodies, and know if it is good for them or not. GMO stands for genetically modified foods, a genetically modified food is “..an organism whose genome has been altered by the techniques of genetic engineering so that its DNA contains one or more genes not normally found

A new kind of foods called the genetically modified foods has been creating a quiet revolution in the American market for the past several years. Scientists are able to produce these new foods by transferring genes from one organism into another across species boundaries. This new technique has been developed to improve the shelf life, nutritional content, flavor, color, and texture of foods. Since 1994, about 45 genetically modified foods such as tomato, corn, soybeans, canola, and potatoes have been marketed in the United States. About two-thirds of foods that are processed in U.S. contain genetically modified ingredients. So, we the people are consuming these foods without realizing the fact that they are not produced naturally.

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

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

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 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

By the year 2012, over 70 percent of the processed foods in the U.S can be linked to genetically modified organisms, or GMOs. Despite this strong dependency on the manipulation of genetic material, there are many questions concerning long-lasting impacts such food could bring. The government of the United States of America should enforce stricter restrictions on the consumption, production, and availability of food products containing genetically modified organisms. Genetically engineered foods have detrimental impacts on the environment, are linked to large, monopolizing industries, and do not reduce world hunger.

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

The FDA has been protecting the American food supply for over a hundred years. They use scientific testing to examine new food, beverage, and drug products before they enter the market in order to ensure that what we purchase at the grocery store passes health and safety regulations. Currently, they are in charge of setting guidelines for the classification, certification, and labeling of organic food products. H.R. 1599, the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act, aims to give them the same authority over foods considered "natural" and "GMO-free."

There are currently two federal legislative initiatives, entitled the “Genetically Engineered Food Right-to-Know Act” which will require labeling of genetically modified (GM) foods. HR 1699, introduced by Rep Peter de Fazio 4/24/2013, is currently in the House - Energy and Commerce Committee. An identical senate bill, S 809, introduced by Sen Barbara Boxer 4/24/2013, is currently in the Senate - Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee.

The secretary of Agriculture, Dan Glickman, once said “The organic label is a marketing tool it is not a statement about food safety. Nor is ‘organic’ a value judgment about nutrition or quality.” While the greatest feature for stores is to have their very own marketing gimmick, the gimmick being their products are non-genetically modified. Many experiments and tests have been conducted over genetically modified organisms and the answer they keep coming up with is “there is no good evidence that genetic modified itself causes foods to become unhealthy or toxic”, according to Authority of Nutrition. This statement alone takes the marketing gimmicks used against GMO foods down a peg. For years humans have eaten genetically modified foods and have