Arguments Against Gmo Labeling

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.

“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.

“By 1999, to avoid labels that might drive customers away, most major European retailers had removed genetically modified ingredients from products bearing their brand.” (Chayka 1). Today most people seem to be more concerned about what is in their food. The author shows his concerns about GMOs and uses statistics to help his argument. All of the author’s reasoning makes me concerned and worried about our food and the safety of everyone else. People’s health is important for this world to survive and live a healthy lifestyle. GMO labels should be honest about their food no matter what issue they may face. People trust these brands and most likely stick with it for most of their lives. The important part of food companies is being honest with their ingredients, not interfering or harming other food companies, and ensuring the safety of its consumers.

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.

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

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

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.

It is very important to have the same food labeling system regardless of where you travel within the U.S. Uniform labels across the country help the consumer understand what they're eating, so it's an important health and safety issue. Efforts by some states to implement their own GMO labeling laws could harm consumers, and Congress needs to stop them. I am writing today to ask you to vote for H.R. 1599, a bill that puts the FDA in charge of creating a uniform set of standards for companies that want to market GMO-free foods.

The idea of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) has been a controversy for the past several years. Some groups claim that they are perfectly safe and possibly even better than organic foods, while other groups contradict that and say that GMOs are harmful to both the environment and the people that consume them. One of the questions that still hangs in the air through all the debates and protests is “should GMOs be labelled?”

that the last year have been greatly influenced by the polemics surrounding GMO labelling. My major concern is the educational component that seems to be missing from this argument. Many people do not entirely understand what GMOs are and the benefits and consequences of eating them or the processes enacted to allow for a pesticide-free version of a highly common vegetable or fruit in the public’s repertoire of groceries. In this paper, I will argue for required labelling of foods that contains either GMOs or is GMO free. Labelling means decisions, decisions mean trade-offs, but I do not want for people, in the most ideal scenario, to have to make these decisions without first being armed with the sufficient knowledge to make a decision.

Genetically modified organisms (GMO) has created a name for itself by making it a wide spread issue in the food industry. GMO’s are organisms that have genetic material that was artificially edited in laboratories through genetic engineering. This semi new way of making food has shown to have both positives and negatives, creating a huge conversation around genetically modified organisms. This big conversation is whether or not products that are affiliated with GMO’s should be labeled. This has been an on going debate, where the public seems to have split decisions on the topic. People that disagree with the mandatory labeling of these products main argument around the subject seems to be that the labels would imply that the foods are not safe.