The Pros And Cons Of Regulation Genetically Modified Foods Legislation

GM foods are in the middle of many controversial issues; primarily these are addressed by conflicts over the relative pros and cons of GM foods. Major biotech companies like ‘Monsanto ' and ‘Cargill ' are promoting GM foods by focusing only on their beneficial aspects, giving least importance to their negative effects on safety, environment and biodiversity. On the other hand, governmental regulators and nongovernmental organizations, along with some scientists, are strictly opposing this type of blind promotion of GM food by enlightening the people on their negative effects The controversies associated with GM foods include issues such as safety, environmental benefits and risks, biodiversity, and ethical and social considerations.GM foods are implicated for adverse human health risks like people being allergic to it, environmental hazards such as development of super weeds, and pesticide and antibiotic resistance in disease causing organisms. On the other

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

Whether or not to require labeling of GM foods is a major issue in the persistent debate over the risks and benefits of foods crops that are produced using biotechnology. Bills requiring compulsory labeling have been introduced and proposed in different levels, but not evenly implemented. Some of the common genetically engineered crops include soya beans, canola, corn and cotton. The US Food and Drug Administration policy on the labeling of GM food requires labeling is the food has significantly distinct nutritional property (US FDA par 2). Further, labeling is required if the GM food product includes an allergen that consumers may not expect to find in such a product, or if the product contains a toxicant that is beyond acceptable limits (US FDA par 3).

Due to the rigorous testing of GMFs to make sure they are not toxic, the government has approved several genetically based foods since 1994. While we are constantly being told that their testing is thorough, very little long-term testing has been carried out to understand what possible effects they could have on both the environment or human health (refer to the article Genetically Modified Crops Safety Assessments: Present Limits and Possible Improvements for more information on the matter). Moreover, the fact that it takes ten years to approve a genetically engineered food should make us feel comfortable, but overall there are still varying results in relation to long-term effects of these foods. The citizens with this knowledge are uncomfortable when buying foods, as they do not know which products to avoid. There are 64 countries that have already made GMF labelling a legal requirement, while other countries (such as the United States) have recently passed this

A genetically modified organism, GMO, has been altered by genetic engineering techniques. GMOs are widely used by scientists in many different ways to include the production of food and in research.8 Zebrafish genetically modified to be a fluorescent bright red, green and orange have been available for purchase as pets in 49 states in the United States since 2003.8 However, these patented GloFish are banned in California. The California Fish and Game Commission decided the fish were the result of a “trivial use for a powerful technology.”7 The Commission’s belief that the fish should not have been created led to a law making the GloFish illegal. Originally GloFish were developed by scientists in Singapore to be living pollution sensors as they would only glow when in the presence of pollutants.7 The Commission’s ban on GloFish highlights the controversy over genetically modified organisms and how public opinion can be swayed by the beliefs of others whether those beliefs are based on science or not. This paper will focus first on what genetic modification means and then will look at the pros and cons of genetically modified foods. Finally, the author’s opinion of the issue of GMO food will conclude the paper.

There are several controversial issues confronting us today; from Universal Healthcare (Obama Care) to Stem Cell research, to vaccinations, to genetically engineered (GE)/genetically modified (GM) foods. However, I shall look at genetically modified foods as the controversial issue for this article. I shall look at an article from the mass media about this controversial public health issue and place emphasis on the message the document wants to convey and address any biases that may be within. In addition, I shall provide additional data or facts from another article to see if it supports or refutes the controversial message. It is my intention that this article will provide some clarity on genetically modified foods confronting us in the United States and the world over.

There is currently a lot of controversy over Genetically Engineered Food (GM). The controversy is mainly over the genetic engineering and production of food that is sold in the market place. Many people and organizations are involved in the disputes over these practices. Farmers, biotechnology companies, scientists, government regulators, and activists are some of these people.

According to Library of Congress (n.d) compared to other countries, regulation of GMOs in the US is relatively favourable to their development. GMOs are an economically important component of the biotechnology industry, which now plays a significant role in the US economy. For example, the US is the world’s leading producer of genetically modified crops. This explains, why Monsanto Company makes more emphasis on improving their biotechnology and teach it to future generations, while EU establishes a strict monitoring of GM products for marketing in regard to the requirement of mandatory labelling rules. On the other hand, in the United States the issue of GMOs are promoted as a benefit for the population and the environment, while in the European Union, biotechnology has been viewed as a new process that requires large regulators by the European Food Safety Authority. It would be the reason because Syngenta's report is focusing on issues related to make crops more efficient and to help farmers meet new emissions requirements, to produce more food while reducing their environmental footprint.

Genetically modified crops are a controversial issue to many people. GMO’s have both pros and cons. Due to increasing demand for food genetically modified crops have been more effective because they are designed to produce more yield and be pest resistance. Some downfalls of GMO’s are that they decrease biodiversity and the long term effects of GMO’s are still unknown. I believe that genetically modified foods should be labeled, because people have the right to know what is in the foods they are eating. If the GMO foods are labeled then people have the opportunity to decide for themselves if they want to eat genetically modified crops. Many consumers want to buy healthy foods at the grocery store so they go out of their way to buy local

I believe that producers should label genetically engineered foods because people should know what they are eating. For someone like me who questions what they eat on daily basis should be concerned with this, because GMOs can cause serious health problems. Children have fast-developing bodies and weak immune systems, which puts them at even greater risks.

For decades, scientists have been discovering new methods of producing food for the population. One of these methods is genetically engineering food. Though genetically modified food is consumed by the majority of the American population, one must wonder, what are the ethics of it? How will it affect the consumer and the environment? Based on prior knowledge of this topic, I know that scientists change the genetic makeup of certain foods. I also know that different genes are inserted into different organisms.

In the modern world, more and more people start pay attention to own healthy problem. Eating is important basic of life. According to recently survey, the 60 percent of food is Genetically Modified Organism in the USA market. Eating Genetically modified organism food may cause our bodies to be disorder for the immune system and cause contaminate for environmental.

Genetically Modified Organisms are not needed to feed the growing population because enough food is produced to feed the community it is just a matter of whether or not people have access to it. Growing food is not the problem the world should be looking at. GMOs are unnecessary for reasons such as, increased toxicity for plants and putting local farmers out of business.

As a scientist from the United State Department of Agriculture, I would recommend the adoption of the GM corn being provided by the US. Genetically modified crops are a breakthrough technology as they accelerate the breeding of crops and make crop production more efficient. I will like to highlight the focus on the issue of safety of the GM corn. The ‘anti-GM faction’ has tried to suggest that GM corn is not safe for human consumption, but I will prove that the GM corn is perfectly safe for human consumption.

“Anyone that says ‘Oh, we know GMOs are perfectly safe,’ I say is either unbelievably stupid, or deliberately lying. The reality is. we don't know. The experiments simply haven't been done, and we now have become the guinea pigs.” ~ Dr. David Suzuki. As of 2013 sixteen counties have total or partial ban of banned GMOs. GMO’s should be banned from the U.S due to the safety concerns, genetic engineering creating side effects, and the potential to cause cancer.