Proposition 37 : The California Right? Genetically Engineered Food Act

“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.

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

Those opposed to GMO labeling have won once again. In “California Rejects Labeling Of Genetically Modified Food; Supporters Vow To Fight On”, Amy Standen points out the advantages that biotechnology companies have over local, small farms. Standen highlights the individual support, effort, and money put into labeling GMO’s. “Yes to 37” was a step away from success, until the opposing side stepped in and won the labeling battle. Through the use of direct quotes, as well as reference to companies like Monsanto, it becomes clear that biotechnology has succeeded once again. Standen uses these rhetorical strategies to evoke both an emotional, and ethical appeal within the reader throughout this article.

In November of 2014, a bill called Proposition 105 was on the ballot in Colorado that, if passed, would require any foods with genetically modified ingredients, to be labeled. Although the bill did not pass, the debate on whether GMOs (genetically modified organisms) should be labeled or not rages on. As defined by dictionary.com, a GMO is defined as “An organism or microorganism whose genetic material has been altered by means of genetic engineering.” This genetic alteration that takes place, is not possible in nature, which has some people apprehensive about GMOs overall safety. Bills like Proposition 105 have already passed in the states of Vermont, Connecticut, and Maine, giving these three states the same rights that 64 countries around

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

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

“Eat your vegetables, they're good for you”, The words a kid never wants to hear. People scan food packages for whole grains and fibers, avoid sugar, and don’t even think about buying something with trans fats. Just when people thought they knew how to eat healthy, there's another problem: Genetically Modified Organisms. Some opponents would have you believe these ingredients are the dietary curse of the decade. How concerned should people really be though? This is one of the most debated questions around the world. Many environmental organizations protest against genetic engineering, but numerous companies continue to use it in food production. The issue of Genetically Modified foods has been investigated by many different scientists for many

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

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

If this bill were to have been passed it would have prohibited labeling or advertising such food as "natural." The bill would’ve exempted from this requirement foods that are "certified organic; unintentionally produced with genetically engineered material made from animals fed or injected with genetically engineered material but not genetically engineered themselves; processed with or containing only small amounts of genetically engineered ingredients; administered for treatment of medical conditions; sold for immediate consumption such as in a restaurant; or alcoholic beverages. (California Proposition 37, Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food) The bill was unfortunately was not passed and was rejected by the majority of

You may ask, “what difference could a label on a package make?” If the labeling of genetically modified foods can inform consumers across the country of what exactly they are eating, it can make a huge difference. But the only way to increase these labels is for more federal laws to be passed. Once the new laws are passed, Americans will be more knowledgeable of modern agriculture. When more people buy those genetically modified products, money will come back to the American farmer, and consumers won’t have to spend as much on their trip to the grocery

Importantly, there is a current controversy concerning whether genetically modified foods should be labeled as such or if it is an unnecessary extra expense. Indeed, some individuals believe that if a product is genetically modified then it is potentially dangerous to a consumer’s health causing birth defects, increased risk of cancer, Parkinson’s, and Alzheimer’s disease (Greenpeace, n.d.). Therefore, based upon this predisposition they believe that a label should be placed on every product that is genetically modified, since it is the consumers right to know if a product has been exposed to harmful chemicals and pesticides. Contrariwise, others believe that labeling genetically modified foods is not needed, since there is presently no viable

Abhorrently, today's consumers are faced with discomfort regarding food safety. For the past 20 years millions of people around the world have been eating plants genetically modified by scientists. Genetically modified crops are tweaked to resist the harsh herbicides. In a recent article titled Labels for GMOs are bad the author argues that GMOs are safe for human consumption. In fact,Suspected culprit in devastating 'fiber disease' statistics show that “Around 70 percent of processed foods in the U.S contain genetically modified ingredients.” ( The Editors 1 ) I strongly oppose The Editors point of view towards GMO labeling because consumers want to know what they are eating. GMOs should indeed be labeled to inform what's in the product