Gmos : A Threat Of Our Freedom

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

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

Employees or Students? When someone hears college sports, the first thing that comes to mind is tradition and school pride, not money for the players. College is supposed to be for learning for their future job not getting paid for playing a sport. The learning that students do in college will stay with them for the rest of their lives, and if they get injured or retired, then there is something to fall back on. When they earn a full scholarship, then that should be satisfying enough that the student athletes get to have their education for free while playing the sports that they love.

A growing number of foods we intake on a daily basis are composed of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). DNA from other kinds of organisms, bacteria, or viruses are used to change the DNA of GMOs so that they can counteract pesticides. According to Bill Freese, “GMOs are present in 60 to 70 percent of foods on US supermarket shelves” (1) . Not only is the food itself a problem, but the method of growing GMOs can potentially harm the soil, in turn decreasing bio-diversity. Purchasing non genetically modified foods is a better decision. Despite the convenience of junk food, anyone can live a healthier lifestyle by making an effort to eat non gmo, raw, organic, and vegan foods.

Background: Genetically modified foods are products that we designed to be more efficient and nutritious. The labeling issue has been heatedly debated since GMOs were introduced to the public 20 years ago. According to the Thomson Reuter Pulse Healthcare Survey, 93% of Americans demand mandatory labeling for GM foods. (Just Label It, 2010)

According to the NASW Code of Ethics for licensed Social Workers, Social Work is clarified as the attention to environmental forces, which creates, contributes, and addresses problems in living, among individuals, families, groups, organizations, and communities, with a goal of reducing discrimination, oppression, poverty, and other forms of social injustice (NASW, 2008).

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

GMOs, or genetically modified organisms, are organisms that are injected with DNA from other organisms. This can be from a similar species or even from a completely different type of organism. According to Jeffrey Smith, a GMO expert and author, the attempted benefit of GMOs was to increase nutritional value and production, but “two main traits that have been added to date are herbicide tolerance and the ability of the plant to produce its own pesticide” (2006). The Food and Drug Administration currently has the control to label a food item containing GMOs but that is about to change. The Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act, or the DARK Act is an act that recently passed through the House of Representatives that would take away the laws for mandatory labeling of food containing genetically modified organisms. This can have massive effects on the consumers because they

Making way down the fruit section in the grocery store, the mom picks out a box of strawberries. She thought it was just ordinary strawberries because there was nothing different about the fruit. However, what she did not know was that the strawberries contained genetically modified organisms. Also known as GMO, it is the removal of DNA from another species then artificially injected into an unrelated species: plant or animal (“GMO Education”). GMOs are also worldwide out in the market for anyone to buy. Although it may be in the open market throughout the world, not all consumers know what is inside their food. There are disputes about labeling GMOs: that it matters or that it does not matter. Scientists claim that GMOs are nontoxic, however others propose that the knowledge of risks are not explored enough to complete understand or agree that it is safe (“GMO Foods Should Be Labeled”). Either way,

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.

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

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

Food is genetically modified to taste better, to have a better texture, and even look better to buyers. Think about when you are in your local grocery store. Walking through the food, you are going to pick the best looking food to buy; that is just one of our natural instincts. For example, corn is a food I look at and pick the better piece. If the end is all brown and kernels are missing, I go on to the next piece of corn. Scientists have started to make corn more yellow, they are now able to fill the whole corn with kernels so none are missing, and the corn is lasting longer than ever before. The first GMO crop to be put on the market was BT-corn. The corn was made to produce pesticides, which helps it last a lot longer. The genetically modified foods are the ones that are made to look better to the buyer, which increases sales. Plants have been created that need

	I chose to write my "Significant Woman" paper on Egypt’s last pharaoh, Cleopatra. When I began my report, I knew very little about Cleopatra, except that she was the mistress of both Julius Caesar and Mark Antony of Rome. I wondered what impacts on history Cleopatra made on her own.

As time goes by, the amount of land used for agriculture decreases, farmers decrease, and the world’s food supply begin to decrease. Scientists decided to use GMO’s to help stop the decrease in food supply. GMO’s are genetically modified organisms that scientists created by transferring specific genes from one plant to another to create a more nutritious product. In other words, one may say that scientists are trying to cheat nature. Some scientists claim that GMO’s have some beneficial aspects that would help society during the decline in our food surplus and provide nutrients to 3rd world countries. But, according to the “GMO Education”, about 60 countries have already restricted GMO’s or even banned them. The problem is, the United States