What Effect Will 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.

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

Don’t you just love the smell of bread and butter and the delicious taste of brownies and muffins? Well, now more than 18 million Americans no longer can enjoy the great taste of these gluten foods, thanks to GMOs. GMOs (genetically modified organisms) are the result of a laboratory process where genes are taken from one species and inserted into another in an attempt to obtain a wanted characteristic, however, no one knows the long-term effect of GMOs. Genetically engineered foods are linked to gluten disorders and are known to cause birth defects. So why do people keep eating them? Consumers still inadvertently eat these foods, because there is no warning label to educate them otherwise. Foods with GMO genes need to be labeled so that people won’t unknowingly consume these genetically modified ingredients without their consent.

I don't consider myself a political activist, but I've sent a letter or two to politicians when I've felt strongly about an issue. I am writing to you now to urge you to pass H.R. 1599. Coming from an agricultural state, I am troubled by the lack of a consistent standard with respect to the labeling of GMO foods. This legislation, also known as the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act, would bring consistency and uniformity to what is quickly becoming a quagmire of competing state regulations.

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

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

Labeling of GM products entails real costs. These costs are in the form of testing, segregation or identity preservation, as well as risk premium for being out of contact.

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

A generally accepted definition of a GMO is an organism whose genetic makeup has been altered in a way other than by means of natural mating or natural recombination (Le Meur 1). Under this blanket definition, age old methods of horticulture and animal husbandry are also ways of genetic modification or engineering. However, common usage of the term implies the use of recombinant DNA technology.

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.

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

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 year 2015 marks the twentieth anniversary of bioengineered crops and genetically modified organisms’ (GMO’s) being grown, harvested and sold across the entire world. The percentage of people who are actually aware of this frankenfoods existence, however, are small in numbers and for a very terrifying reason. Already, labeling laws exist in 64 countries, including Japan, Russia, Australia and Brazil, but are coincidentally nonexistent in North America as a whole. This lack of awareness is the exact reason as to why all genetically modified foods, such as the Flavr Savr tomato, should have mandatory labeling laws placed upon them, similar to those discussed in Proposition 37. To be educated of the negative effects modified foods have on the human body while at the same time being properly informed should be a basic right, not a choice. Hence why the mandating of proper labeling laws in North America is an extremely important subject of discussion for everyone who consumes any sort of food.