Gmo Labelling And A Ban On Certain Gmo Crops

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.

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

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

The human body is not designed to handle all the toxins that are put into GMO products, and as consumers, we should be informed of the potential harm we are putting into our bodies. Helke Ferrie, in his article “Evidence Grows of Harmful Effects of GMOs on Human Health” states, “…all modern human diseases are being caused by environmental toxins of our own making” (12), on the contrary, in the journal “GMOs – A solution or a Problem”, Mark Lynas claims that “… there has never been a single sustained health concern [caused by GMOs]” (132). Ferrie mentions multiple studies where GMOs have proven to “…increase the incidence of cancer, diabetes, hormone disruption, neurological, immunological and other metabolic disorders” (12). After mass amounts of research have been conducted to prove the dangers of GMOs, proof that has been gathered of the detriments genetically modified organisms bring to the human liver; researchers conclude, “… anything that upsets the liver must be… exceedingly

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 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

Genetically Modified Organism or GMO is an organism that has been altered genetically. There are many possibilities for altering an organism such as growing conditions, quantity, or even scientific breakthroughs. Many choose a side over this heated debate, whether GMOs are safe or if they are harmful to humans. Currently about two-thirds of all items in the supermarket is GMO(Corn The Miracle Crop). GMO promise increase crop yields, lower costs, and less herbicides and pesticides. Altering the organisms genetics could negatively affect the organism resulting in an unstable product. Researchers have found that an unstable product can result in poor crop production, decrease in nutritional value, toxic and

The reason this debate is not as large as it should be is because people do not care, simply because they do not know enough to care. Perhaps the reason Monsanto felt the need to release an article was because its owners feared that people would soon become skeptical of GMOs, and that it would cause a decrease in their profit. If more people were educated on the various health, crop, and environmental risks associated with GM, the anti-GMO movement would gain more momentum. If more of the foods not genetically modified started having “non-GMO” labels, people would begin to wonder what the big deal is and become suspicious of those that do not. In the long run, there is a decision to make: whether to let GMOs run their course, or stop them before they have the chance to do some serious

(Visual aid)According to Mike Adams, author of an article for Huffington Post in 2012 titled New GMO Study: Rats Fed Lifetime of GM Corn Grow Tumors, in a study that has been labelled “the most thorough research ever published into the health effects of GM food crops,” researchers fed rats the same kind of GM corn that is used in our potato chips and corndogs, and measured the results against a control group over their lifetime. The researchers found that “The animals on the GM diet suffered mammary tumors, as well as severe liver and kidney damage. The researchers said 50 percent of males and 70 percent of females died prematurely, compared with only 30 percent and 20 percent in the

Michelle Schoffro cook, PhD, DNM, Clinical Nutritionist. Michelle states that “according to research published in the Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, Scientists found that the genetically-modified corn was linked to liver and kidney damage in animal” (Schoffro). In other words what Michelle is saying is that there is proof that GMOs could cause some damage to the animal’s organs. These so called GMOs are modified genetically so that they can produce their own pesticides and therefore they are immune to any plague. Studies show that some of those pesticides are toxic to humans. Some of those toxins are the Bt-toxin and Roundup Ready which are now found in corn, cotton and soybeans. These two pesticides have been linked to severe health risks. Studies conducted on animal have shown that GMOs can cause damage to their liver, kidney, and the male’s reproductive organ damage and spleen damage. This should make us wonder, if these modifications on the food have a drastic effect on animals, then we must assume the same thing could happen to us. In the same matter, now that these pesticides and toxins are built in the plants they cannot be washed off, which means that they are being consumed. This leads us to the conclusion that we are eating a food that could kill

Autism, a disease that increased alongside the growing use of Roundup, is a major concern for the American people. The United States has the highest rate in Autism in the world. Glyphosate again plays a major role in the large amount of cases. This was proven by a study conducted by Dr. Huber, a professor emeritus from Purdue University. Dr. Huber tested on rats being fed non-GMO then switched to GMO feed. At the beginning of the study when the rats were being fed organically made food were very passive and friendly but after a month of being fed GM food they became easily irritated and would not get along with one another. This proved that the psychological and behavioral well being of rats was affected by their food and they showed similar symptoms and behaviors to those diagnosed with Autism. In figure 1, the correlation between the increase of glyphosate and Autism is very clear. If America wants to decrease the amount of cases of Autism per year, the ban of GMOs would be very beneficial. It would also promote a healthier diet as organic food would increase in number and lower in price.

Genetically modified crops are proven to damage human, animal, and plant life. These foods are toxic to all forms of life. Gary Null is an activist with a Ph.D. in human nutrition and public health science. He wrote the article, ’44 Reasons to Ban or Label GMOs’, he says, ‘GMO giant Monsanto [one of the largest producer of GM foods] has a history of producing highly dangerous chemical compounds including DDT, Agent Orange [remember that orange spray from the Vietnam war?], saccharin, and recombinant bovine growth hormone, all of which are known to cause significant health issues’ (Null). Null also says, ‘According to meta-analysis carried out by researchers at Caen University in France, a GMO feed diet contributes to kidney and liver toxicity in rats (Null). If a GMO diet does this to rats, what would happen to the

Meanwhile, a growing body of evidence connects GMOs with health problems, environmental damage and violation of farmers’ and consumers’ rights.

Should we have to label GMOs what do you think?GMO’s are genetically modified organisms and that means they are not natural that means their made in a lab and have chemicals in them.Some people think that GMO’s should be label and some people do not.But I agree that food companies should label GMO’s because if they do that means people know what their eating.

Much of the public concern surrounding the safety of GMOs stems from the process of actually creating them. This is admittedly not a natural process, which is a surefire way to raise critic’s eyebrows in doubting their safety. However, there is no evidence that supports these myths. The Committee on Genetically Engineered Crops, The National Academy of Science, and the Board on Agriculture and Natural Recourses all agree after extensive testing and observation that there is no additional harm in the consumption of GMO food. The research conducted in animal studies, as well as chemical analysis of the crops, show no indication that GMOs are negatively affecting human health. The next allegation hurled at GMOs is that they may have