The Importance Of Labeling Gmos

Have you ever heard what a GMO is? A GMO is a genetically modified organism, such of which is not labeled on items. Should GMOs be labeled? Some experts say that it should. They say that consumers buy products from companies, of which they trust to list the ingredients. However, most consumers are not informed of what GMO products are in their meals, or even what GMOs are.

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

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

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

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

As I mentioned some people prefer to not purchase GMO’s food products, maybe because GMO’s are not trustworthy enough and are relatively new, or maybe because of religion concerns. GMOs can have ingredients such as pork that people who practice Jewish, and Muslims religious can’t eat, or fish that Buddhists can’t eat for religious reasons (Global, 39). Therefore, labeling those GMO’s products is a crucial thing for a lot of citizens in the US, and consumers demand to label for all GMO’s foods (Sax, 631). However, the US government once again treats GMOs as natural, organic food. The US government uses the ‘substantial equivalence’ principle which says that GMOs food should be treated equally because GMOs have the same characteristics and composition

My own view is that whether or not GMOs are bad for human health, they should still be labeled. To this date, GMOs Mandatory labeling remains optional which has led to deceptive advertising. This kind of deception prevents consumer from knowing the exact ingredients of their foods, prevents scientists from identifying the effects of the consumption of GMOs and causes consumer’s mistrust of the Food and Drug Administration agency. In other words, Optional labeling of GMOs allows deceptive marketing, prevents people from recognizing GMOs side Effects, and causes mistrust towards the FDA.

Imagine, if you will, something that can protect our food from pests. Something that saves our water resources by watering our crops less. Imagine something that allows us to feed more people and grow more food. This, among many other things, is what the GMOs claim to fame is. What actually is a GMO? In recent years the conversation about this topic has increased significantly for good or ill. We hear amazing things about GMOs, all the potential benefits for mankind and our food. Conversely, we hear very negative things about GMOs and how it adversely affects our food and the people eating these foods. What is the truth? What do the facts says, and what is the world doing about GMOs? This paper will discuss what a GMO is, the labeling of GMOs and the controversies surrounding GMOs. These three topics will lead to a better understanding of the GMO debate.

This article is about the Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) labeling law that President Obama signed, the law allows companies to label their products in anyway they want to indicate the presence of GMO products. This article discusses the controversy between both sides of the GMO labeling debate, the pro labeling side desiring to know what they are consuming and the against labeling side expressing their fear that the label of GMO on a product would make consumers turn away unnecessarily. This law was a compromise to both sides as it requires a form of labeling that makes it possible for inquiring consumers to find what is in their food but also does not require companies to clearly state the presence of GMO.

It was decided almost 20 years about by the Food and Drug Administration that GMOs do not need to be labeled, despite the consumers’ desire for GMO labeling. Consumers’ demanding to know what is in their food has lead to the proposed legislation of GMO labeling from more than twenty states. Health safety is a large part of the proponents’ argument for GMO labeling (Murray 2016). The consumers right to know, right to choose, and ethical rights are also all reasons for GMO labeling policy. The oppositions’ arguments against mandatory GMO labeling are that it could falsely alarm consumers, impose extra costs on consumers and lead to restricts on consumer choice (Hemphill 2015). There would be more harm than good to come from

In almost all of the foods that the average person consumes there reside harmful ingredients and chemicals. Citizens and scientists alike have posed questions and concern about not only what a GMO is, but why the government refuses to pass GMO-labeling laws, while still claiming GMOs harmless characteristics. GMO-containing foods should be labeled to the fullest extent due to the fact that people have the right to know what they are consuming, regardless of what the government and big-box companies have to say about the chemicals and their prospective side effects. By not passing these laws, the government does citizens a huge (and unlawful) disfavor because of the controlled factors of what is labeled and what is consumed. The government

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.

The general argument made by the editors of Scientific American in the article “Fight the GMO Food Scare” is the labeling of Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) products is superfluous because of the innocuous hazards of GMOs. According to the editors, “instead of providing people with useful information, mandatory GMO labels would only intensify the misconception that so-called Frankenfoods endanger people's health.” Here, the editors are basically saying that labeling would have a harmful effect, rather than a helpful one (as intended), since the requirement would make it seem like these foods are dangerous. In addition, the editors claim that labeling GMO products would cause a “family's yearly food bill by as much as $400”as “conventional crops often require more water and pesticides than GMOs do”. The editors also argue that “such

I hope that in this short paper you relies we need to educate people more and ease regulations on farmers. I think they should label whats in food but not ban GMOS, its a farmers choice to go with a company like Monsanto, and to buy into their