Labeling For Better Or Worse By Jim Kling

“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.

Genetically modified foods are products that contain genetically modified organisms. There has been some controversy that customers should be aware on the nutrient labels if the product contains genetically modified ingredients. Researching this topic is very important for everyone to understand and this topic came to mind while finding a page online called Consumer Reports, which is base from, a magazine. This page explains to people why they need to know about GMO foods and their labels. The goal of this research paper is to let customers know that using genetically modified organisms can harm the body to some extent; it could possibly harm the environment, and it could drive up the cost of grocery prices.

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

During the Ragtime era Upton Sinclair felt that people should be educated on what happens to their food a social issue that can be found happening today as people are demanding to know what’s in their food. Furthermore, Labeling Genetically Modified food is the best way to educate customers about what they are consuming. Polls conducted by professional news organizations, including the Washington Post, MSNBC and Reuters/NPR consistently show that over 90% of consumers want GMO ingredients labeled. As ABC News stated, “Such near-unanimity in public opinion is rare.” This study shows how many people are adamant to have GMOs labeling. Pam Pinto, owner of Act Natural Health and Wellness in Torrington Connecticut. “I strongly feel that GM food should be labeled.” Pinto said, “We should not be our Government's experiment.”

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

Barbara Johnson Persuasive speech #2 Professor Connie J. Tice April 20, 2017 “Just Label It Movement 2017 on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO)” Introduction: All fellow American’s there is a crises going on right now, that we must stand up to the government and producing plants by signing a petition that we the citizen have the right to know what we are eating and what is truly in our food, by enforcing these companies to label there product. Specific Purpose: To Persuade American’s to protest against the no labeling company GMO, whose products have health risk and make aware to Americans that our country is one of the two countries that don’t enforce the labeling with all products. Thesis Statement: The sole purpose of this speech

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

Do you want to know what you are eating? Have you gotten sick over the past few years and not known why? Many people have gotten sick over the increase of food products with GMOs within them. Over the years many have argued that GMOs aren’t what is causing the increase in death and the decrease in birth, but many say it is the problem. GMOs should be labeled on our foods today because of the amount of health problems, and consumers want to know what they are eating. After all, it is what is going into our bodies.

An interest statement: I think this topic will keep me engaged because I did my last essay on the use of GMOs and now I am curious to see why people are opposed to the labeling of them and how they will impact the farmers if the labeling laws pass in certain states. I know families typically prefer organic food, however, it appears that this is the case because the word “organic” sounds pleasing. Most people seem very uneducated on what GMOs really are and just assume from the media that they are horrible technological advances. This topic seems like a very current issue which will allow me to find an abundance of useful information.

Genetically Modified Organisms, or GMOs, are genetically modified plants, animals, or microorganisms whose genetic information has been modified by DNA-editing methods such as DNA splicing or gene modification. This modification creates unstable combinations of plant, animal, or bacterial genes that are not found in nature (GMO Facts). It is the right of the consumer to know exactly what they are consuming. However, in the United States, it is not required that food containing GMOs has to be labeled, despite the fact that in 2015, 93% of Americans believed that genetically modified food should be labeled (GMO Facts). Foods containing GMOs should indeed be labeled because the consumer deserves to know what is in their food.

Americans deserve to know what they are consuming and they do not want to involuntarily be a part of the ongoing experiment for the side effects of eating or drinking genetically modified organisms. There are currently 61 countries that already label genetically modified organisms, GMOs, and these countries make up over 40% of the world’s population (Kingston). However, GMO labeling is not required in the U.S. Although a recent survey found that 92% of Americans want GMOs to be labeled on their food and drinks, the federal government refuses to establish food labeling laws (“Where GMOs Hide In Your Food”). A genetically modified, or genetically engineered,

in Newton 129-130). In making this argument against labeling, Jones alludes to a future where the foundation of which the FDA’s labeling decisions are built upon is compromised as a result of GMO labeling laws. Additionally, undermining a definitive conclusion by the scientific community could potentially lead to laws being passed based on erroneous, or completely unfounded, science. Pamela Bailey of the Grocery Manufacturers Association sensibly asserts that Vermont’s labeling law “invites state legislatures to cite junk science as justification to enact laws. ‘Stud[ies] referenced by questionable public figures like talk show host Dr. Oz could [then] be reason enough to pass legislation” (Bailey 1). In arguing this claim, Bailey contends that these laws are not only a matter of the merit of whether GMOs should be labeled, but also a matter of the precedent that this law would set for other labeling issues as well as the future trajectory of FDA labeling. Overall, the costs of GMO to producers and consumer, combined with the misguided precedent that these labels set, are enough reason in themselves to ban state legislatures from passing such laws.