There tend to be two main viewpoints when considering genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The two groups include the pro-camp, which fully supports GMOs, and the anti-camp, which is completely against GMOs. Between the two groups, there are major differences of opinion, scientific studies are interpreted with distinct disparities, and the proposed long-term benefits are argued intensely. Due to the varied sentiments regarding GMOs, governments and consumers have been unable to agree on laws to regulate the research or the implementation of GMOs. Acceptance of GMOs Biotechnology used in agriculture is a widely debated practice, and its uses and applications are not fully accepted throughout the globe. Countries are developing their own regulations for the production, cultivation, and importation of genetically modified (GM) crops due to the inability of all countries to agree upon and adopt international laws regarding GMOs (Martinelli, Karbarz, & Siipi, 2013). Governments are feeling the pressure to satisfy its citizens’ demands for the documentation, management, and safety of GM foods, and at the same time promote the selling and usage of authorized GM foods for economic purposes (Hellier et al., 2012). To address their need for security regarding GMOs, consumers are requesting that mandatory labeling practices be implemented. Concerns Regarding GMOs Consumer demand of labeling practices is in direct opposition to what the pro-GMO activists believe to be in the public’s best interest. Very little research has been published with regards to labeling products and how the design and wording has the potential to positively or negatively affect the consumer. GMO lobbyists are resisting the mandatory labeling practice of GMOs... ... middle of paper ... ..., & Siipi, H. (2013). Science, safety, and trust: The case of transgenic food. Croatian Medical Journal, 54(1), 91-96. doi: 10.3325/cmj.2013.54.91 Prakash, D., Verma, S., Bhatia, R., & and Tiwary, B.N. (2011). Risks and precautions of genetically modified organisms. International Scholarly Research Network, 2011, 13p. doi:10.5402/2011/369573 Pullé, A. (2012). Promoting global food democracy – GM foods, trade law, the environment & ethics. Asian Journal of WTO & International Health Law & Policy, 7(2), 285-314. Retrieved from http://www.law.ntu.edu.tw/center/wto/01acwh.asp Robbins, S.P., Coulter, M. (2014). Management (12th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc. [VitalSource bookshelf version]. Retrieved from http://devry.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781269550994/recent Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of Risk. Science, 236(4799), 280-285. doi: 10.2307/1698637
A trip to any supermarket in Canada will reveal nothing out of ordinary, just the usual of array of fresh and packaged goods displayed in an inviting manner to attract customers. Everything appear familiar and reassuring, right? Think again. A closer microscopic inspection discloses something novel, a fundamental revolution in food technology. The technology is genetic engineering (GE), also known as biotechnology. Blue prints (DNA) of agricultural crops are altered and “spliced” with foreign genes to produce transgenic crops. Foods harvested from these agricultural plants are called, genetically modified (GM). Presently, Canada has no consumer notification; GM foods are being slipped to Canada’s foods without any labels or adequate risk assessments. This essay argues that GM foods should be rigorously and independently tested for safety; and, consumers be given the right to choose or reject GM foods through mandatory labels. What is the need for impartial examination of safety of transgenic foods? And why label them? GM foods are not “substantially equivalent” to conventional foods, genetic engineering of agricultural crops is not a mere extension of traditional plant breeding, and finally, there are human health implications associated with it.
A very valid point brought up by Clause (Say ‘no’), Hemphill, and Banerjee (both G.M.O. and the U.S.), is that consumers already have an easy and effective option to steer clear from GMOs: buying organic products. Through Hemphill’s and Banerjee’s article, we are informed that United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) “presently offers an organic certification for crops and processed food products, which by definition prohibits the use of GMO ingredients” (Page 455-466). This is certainly a label that has the ability to help concerned customers know exactly what they are eating. The co-authors call this solution the “Voluntary Labeling Strategy.” There is, however, one issue with this: not all products that don't contain GMOs qualify as organic. The resolution lies in an upcoming proposal from the U.S. Food and Drug administration (FDA). It's called “Voluntary Guidelines” and it allows, but doesn't force, GMO-free products to display a label of their own. I believe that this is a much smarter option than labeling every item containing GMOs because it is not binding by law, which would provide consumers with all of the benefits they need to choose the right foods for their preferences, while saving on all of the unnecessary extra costs discussed
The technological advances are increasing each year, and electronics are not the only things upgraded. The food eaten in the United States has also been touched by science in the form of GMOs. Although GMOs have been in the US food industry for almost twenty years, consumers should have the right to know what is in our food with mandatory GMO labeling.
Our attitudes toward GMO foods range from hostility to indifference. GMO foods, like pesticide-resistant Roundup Ready soybeans and fast-growing salmon, seem to exist primarily to pad corporate pockets. Most people are not aware that they are eating GMO foods. The greater percentage of the population is just looking at the price tag instead of what is in the food product. This technology has the potential to provide sustainable nutrient rich food sources throughout the ages if the science is not abused for the food industry’s
Robbins, S. P., & Coulter. M. (2014). Management (12th ed.). Retrieved from: Colorado Technical University eBook Collection database.
Alessandra Potenza informed the reader on the argument of GMOs in, “The Battle Over GMOs.” Scientist have proven it to be completely safe for humans to consume GMOs in their food. GMOs are a genetically modified organism, or the result of a cross breed of plants. Also the GMO business has taken advantage of the people, because they are not labeling if the food is genetically modified. GMO’s should be labeled because it is always good to know what you are consuming; and some people prefer not to consume GMO’s.
The term GM foods or GMO (genetically-modified organisms) is most commonly used to refer to crop plants created for human or animal consumption using the latest molecular biology techniques (Whitman, 2000). These plants have been modified in the laboratory to offer desired traits such as increased resistance to herbicides or improved nutritional content. Also, genetic engineering techniques have been applied to create plants with the exact desired trait very rapidly and accurately. For example, this is done by the geneticist isolating the gene responsible for drought tolerance and inserts it into another plant. The new genetically-modified plant will now have gained drought tolerance as well.
GMOs can also bear consequences in terms of genetic pollution and alteration, from contamination and mutation to adaptation to evolution to species extinction. Indeed, some claims are not well supported and may require testing, like genetic alteration through consumption or the validity of correlating animal health deficits with GM feeds. However, overall, GM foods clearly affect the world negatively in terms of biodiversity and ecosystem impacts. With all of the controversy surrounding GMO foods: health versus biodiversity; benefits versus dangers; pros versus cons, a topic that always arises is the subject of labeling. Labeling has been a matter of discussion for years and surprisingly, it is a hot debate that is still full of life.
Even though many do not know information about GMOs, some are being misinformed about the truth of GMOs. Since the creation of Genetically Modified Organisms in the 1930s, many have been told that GMOs are safe and do not have negative effects upon consumption, which is misleading and not fully trustworthy(Miller1). As a result, many who have been misleaded have been tricked into believing false information and are now affected with various risks. With various surveys being conducted in order to see the viewpoints of people on the use of GMOs in food, the number of people who are pro-GMO is only increasing. Whenever ⅓ of 1,000 people surveyed are in favor for chemicals that have a possibility of hurting them, then there must be a resolution to this ongoing problem(Philips1). The government should reduce these numbers and provide the truth to the public. We need to realize ourselves that the reality of food production is not being provided to us, and if we want to end the false ideas from affecting us anymore. Instead having 23% of 1000 people knowing about GMOs, everyone must know the truth and reality of the food production in the U.S(Non Gmo1). If so were to happen, consequently the future of the nation will become increasing in
Robbins, S. P., & Coulter, M. (2009). Management (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Jones, G. R., & George, J. M. (2011). Contemporary management. (7 ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Okigbo, R., Iwube, J., & Putheti, R. (2011). An extensive review on genetically modified (GM) foods
The subject matter of my paper revolves around the application of genetically modified organisms (GMO) in modern societies. A GMO is an organism whose genetic material has been modified by artificial means. This involves the addition, the loss or the mutation of a specific gene. The main value conflict surrounding the topic of genetic engineering is whether innovation is more important than the sanctity of life. As humans alter the genetic material of an organism, they ultimately violate the natural order of life that is said to be sacred and to remain untouched.
Robbins, S.P., & Coulter, M. (2009). Management (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Runge, C. F., Bagnara, G., & Jackson, L. A. (2001). Differing U.S. and European perspectives on GMOs: Political, economic and cultural issues. The Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, 2(2), 221-234