In the article “Why We Should Accept GMO Labels,” by Dan Fagin, the author discusses exactly what the title states. Fagin begins by using an analogy to connect how GMOs are being viewed in court to McCarthyism, where either GMOs are either approved of or refuted by the science community. Fagin believes that there is no middle ground currently existing between supporters and opposition of GMOs. He then continues to give examples of why people oppose GMOs so heavily and critiques them slightly since he believes that genetic engineering is an important tool to help people around the world who are in need, but believes we don’t really need them in first-world countries. Fagin argues that one reason that GMO foods haven’t been widely accepted is partially due to large businesses, like Monsanto, using GMOs strictly for profit, rather than to help a population. Stating that mandatory labeling of GMO foods is not the answer, Fagin claims that a pro-labeling movement will begin in North America no matter what since it has already occurred for much of the rest of the world. The author defers to the editors of Scientific American who released an article stating that labels don’t educate the public on what genetic engineering in food actually means for the consumer and circles back to his statement that there needs to be a middle ground between pro and anti …show more content…
Instead of being worried about if the food in grocery stores has labels or not, he explains that it is much more important to understand what the labels would mean and to use the GMO food to help people in need since it won’t matter if it has a label on it or not as long as its nutritious. Fagin’s alternative point of view takes an overall passive stance on GMO labels in the end and says that the public should just accept that it will happen for GMO foods, just like it did for organic
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.
Many food companies frown upon the idea of having to put labels on their foods because consumers will not want their product if their are too many GMOs in the product. If food companies were forced to put GMO labels on their products they may feel inclined to put less GMO in their products to cause consumer happiness. With labels on the food products consumers will feel more confident with their purchase to consume that food. Which would cause sales to fly through the roof for many food companies, especially organic food companies. GMO labeling influences consumer behavior, “...the majority of supermarket employees believed that the presence of non-GMO labeling influenced consumer behavior in some way, with 52.9% reporting that it impacted all consumers, 17.6% asserting that it mattered to those who were knowledgeable and interested in food without genetic modification, and only 5.9% feeling that their clientele would not be interested because of its demographics.” (Wunderlich). According to a survey done by Wunderlich, Gatto and Mangano where they investigate the current Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) and organic labeling policies and to determine the impact on consumer choice. They found: “There is a need for clearer labeling policies regarding GMO foods. If GMO foods were labeled more clearly, consumers would be able to make more educated purchasing decisions and
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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
GMOs are the future of food but public relations are slowing that future. Many of the organizations that we trust and listen to such as WHO and the EU have found no negative effects of GMOs. But due to the internet all people see and hear are the theories on GMOs. GMO sellers fighting labelling don’t
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.
“Our primary health care should begin on the farm and in our hearts, and not in some laboratory of the biotech and pharmaceutical companies” (Gary Hopkins). The sun was hot and they sky was clear when I walked into the grocery store that smoldering summer day. I walked in expecting to pick up things for a barbecue; burgers, hotdogs, salad, buns, corn on the cob, condiments and of course chips and snacks. Strolling down the fresh produce aisle I began to wonder, what if all of my food isn’t fresh, clean, no preservatives or pesticides or even GMO’s for that matter? Why shouldn’t every food be labeled with exactly what went into making it? Even if that means it needs to be traced all the way back down to the DNA. Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) should be labeled because the health risks are still unknown, consumers want to know what they are eating and there is a growing rate of people developing allergies to them.
The FDA and Regulation of GMOs have defined GMOs as “Those in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in such a way that does not naturally occur.” My audience, people in the legislative branch of the government, hold varying viewpoints on the topic of GMO labeling. Some believe that the American people have the right to know what composes their food. Conversely, others believe that there exists such an overwhelming quantity of genetically modified foods that labeling would be impractical and expensive. However, considering that a person can, if they so desire, study the back of a cereal box in order to learn about its ingredients, they should also have the right to understand what makes up the ingredients going into a product.
When talking about GMO foods and labeling, I think that people first off need to understand what a GMO actually is. A GMO is a Genetically Modified Organism. A GMO is an organism that has had its DNA altered. GMOs give farmers the potential to increases their crop production and their profitability by planting GMO seed. Many agriculture crops that use mostly GMOs now are corn, soy, sugar beets, dairy, yellow squash, cotton and zucchini. Farmers use GMOs to protect their crops from insects, pesticides and various weather conditions. People often wonder if GMO food is safe to consume. It isn’t right for people to say that GM seeds are harmful because there is no nutritional characteristics that differ from GM foods vs Non-GM foods. There are obviously two different sides. There are people
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.