Argument 105: The Bill Of Proposition 105

The battle over whether food with GMOs should be labeled as such or not, continuez in The Battle Over GMOs by Alessandra Potenza illustrates what a GMO is and why they need to be labeled. First of all GMO stands for genetically modified organism, meaning GMOs are organisms that have been genetically modified to include a gene from another species to produce a certain trait. The reason that some people are very upset at the whole GMO thing is because some companies that include GMOs in their products are refusing to label the fact that they use GMOs. Outrage has sparked everywhere over this and people are demanding that companies using GMOs in their products must label them. The companies on the other hand are claiming that they have a right to privacy and are claiming that the FDA, which stands for Food and Drug Administration, have approved the GMO usage in their products.. This reader believes that we the people have a right to know what is in our food and decide if we still want to consume it.

A GMO is a genetically modified organism that goes through the process of genetic engineering. This is when genes of one organism are extracted, altered, and then artificially placed into another organism to then grow. We typically see GMOs in the food we consume every day. These foods include fruits and vegetables, however the most common organisms that are genetically engineered include, corn, soy, and cotton. It is ultimately the unnatural cross breeding of plants, animals, bacteria, and virus genes (Non-GMO Project). But now why is there a debate for placing a label to notify consumers of GMOs in their foods? Do we know the potential harm that GMOs can cause? We have the right to know what we are putting into our bodies and what is found in our everyday foods.

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

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

Initiatives like any other issues have two sides to it; we must assess both sides to get a better scope of the issue. Contrary to the believe, propositions gave some benefits to the people of California as well as the legislature. In 1911 the California legislature passed the initiative process and was later approved through an election by Californians. By doing so Californians were given the right to directly vote on constitutional amendments and statues. In California, the legislature is prohibited from repealing or amending any statutory initiatives. The first initiative that had a beneficial effect on the legislature is Proposition 1A, which professionalized the California legislature by increasing their salary from $6,000 to $16,000 per

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

Good Morning Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I am here to testify as a proponent to Senate Bill No. 307

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

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

Since human have farming, they have been selecting for certain characteristics through conventional breeding techniques, but genetic engineering allows for a more exact selection for characteristics of crops. Traditional breeding produces more unknown results while genetic engineering is more precise in the resulting plants variants. Ever since the technology to create GE was developed in the 1990s, there has been a debate over how to label these food products. Several states including Maine, and Connecticut have already introduced and signed bills into effect that will require companies to label products that contain GE ingredients or derived from using GE practices (“Labels for GMO Foods Are a Bad Idea.”). Currently members of Congress

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.

Before one decides if GMO labeling laws are necessary, or not, one must know what GMOs really are. Standing for genetically modified organisms, “GMOs are plants or animals whose cells have been inserted with

There are few laws regulating genetically modified organisms due to the fact that they have not been around for a long time. No long term testing has been concluded, therefore there is no scientific conclusion when it comes to the safeness of genetically modified organisms. Compared to other countries, the United States regulations on GMOs is relatively favorable towards their development. According to the Library of Congress, a series of polls conducted from 2001 to 2006 found that the publics understand of biotechnology technology, which produces these genetically modified foods, was relatively low, and that consumers were relatively unaware of the extent to which their foods included genetically modified ingredients (United States). Sixty-four countries around the world require labeling of

There has been a huge debate over GMO labeling going back many years, only now starting to really gain traction. Measure 92 in Oregon was a vote over the labeling, if it passed, Oregon would be the first state in the U.S. to require the labeling of genetically modified foods. The vote was extremely close, forty-nine-point-nine percent were for the bill, and fifty-point-zero were against. Because of the very small margin between the two, there has been a mandatory recount. Many still believe that the outcome will not change. But this is just the first, and it’s already so close down the middle. Large corporations are fighting very hard to stop these bills from passing, and it is very suspicious as to why it would concern them so much that they would pour literally millions of dollars into stopping bills like measure 92. All foods that have been genetically modified, or contain