How much do we really know about the food we eat? Where did it come from, what has been done to it, and what exactly is in it? GMOs, products that contain ingredients that have been genetically modified in some way, are often a topic of passionate debate in America. A large portion of the public view GMO foods as so-called 'Frankenfoods ', unnatural, unhealthy, and directly associated with a host of detrimental health effects. While the evidence of this connection is flimsy at best, more and more people are calling for all products containing genetically modified ingredients be clearly labeled as such. However, food manufacturers argue that labeling genetically modified food is unnecessary and will only hurt their profits. Do GMOs really
…show more content…
Opponents of labeling believe it is like putting "a warning label on the front of the food package, something akin to the label that you see on cigarette packages" (TVW), although provocative, this is not entirely accurate. A GMO label would not include a disclaimer addressing a health threat, like the kind you find on raw meats warning about the risk of foodborne illness. Instead, it would only inform the consumer that the product is, or contains ingredients that have been, genetically modified. If those demanding GMO labels succeed, many people would be surprised to discover just how much of our food, including food most people would define as healthy, has been genetically altered. "Two-thirds of food sold in the US is genetically modified, including 80%-90% of bacterial enzymes used to make hard cheeses, and almost all corn and soybeans" (Dominguez). Consequently, almost all of us consume GMO products on a daily basis without even realizing it. It 's not only here in the US either, "17 million farmers in 29 countries now fill fields with genetically engineered crops like corn, soybeans, canola, cotton, and alfalfa" (TVW). Despite growing popularity with farmers, some countries have banned growing GMO crops altogether, claiming that there has not been a sufficient amount of research into the safety of genetically modified food. Claims that suppose genetic modification could …show more content…
There are several good reasons to label GMOs, the most apparent of which would the consumer demand for these labels. A survey conducted by the New York Times concluded "that 93% of Americans believe foods containing GMO ingredients should be labeled to reflect that" (Ghorashi). Some opponents have argued that labeling would increase prices, although the countries that currently require GMO labels have not seen prices go up as a result of labeling. Another benefit of labeling is that there would also be an increase in research into the safety of GMO products. As more and more studies confirm the safety of genetically modified products, "people would understand their purpose better worry less about whether or not they are safe to eat" (TVW). Additionally, it could encourage more transparency of food manufacturing practices and safety precautions. It would provide a monetary incentive for companies to do more in depth testing on the health effects of their products, and to improve food safety practices that could lower instances of foodborne illness. Much of the unfavorable assumptions people have about GMOs is "more about the admittedly shady agribusinesses, not necessarily the foods themselves" (Dominguez). Consequently, the malefic veil of conjecture covering large agriculture corporations would begin to dissolve. Unsatisfactory practices could be revamped and
Opponents of labeling believe it is like putting "a warning label on the front of the food package, something akin to the label that you see on cigarette packages" (TVW), although provocative, this is not entirely accurate. A GMO label would not include a disclaimer addressing a health threat, like the kind you find on raw meats warning about the risk of foodborne illness. Instead, it would only inform the consumer that the product is, or contains ingredients that have been, genetically modified. If those demanding GMO labels succeed, many people would be surprised to discover just how much of our food, including food most people would define as healthy, has been genetically altered. "Two-thirds of food sold in the US is genetically modified, including 80%-90% of bacterial enzymes used to make hard cheeses, and almost all corn and soybeans" (Dominguez). Consequently, almost all of us consume GMO products on a daily basis without even realizing it. It 's not only here in the US either, "17 million farmers in 29 countries now fill fields with genetically engineered crops like corn, soybeans, canola, cotton, and alfalfa" (TVW). Despite growing popularity with farmers, some countries have banned growing GMO crops altogether, claiming that there has not been a sufficient amount of research into the safety of genetically modified food. Claims that suppose genetic modification could …show more content…
There are several good reasons to label GMOs, the most apparent of which would the consumer demand for these labels. A survey conducted by the New York Times concluded "that 93% of Americans believe foods containing GMO ingredients should be labeled to reflect that" (Ghorashi). Some opponents have argued that labeling would increase prices, although the countries that currently require GMO labels have not seen prices go up as a result of labeling. Another benefit of labeling is that there would also be an increase in research into the safety of GMO products. As more and more studies confirm the safety of genetically modified products, "people would understand their purpose better worry less about whether or not they are safe to eat" (TVW). Additionally, it could encourage more transparency of food manufacturing practices and safety precautions. It would provide a monetary incentive for companies to do more in depth testing on the health effects of their products, and to improve food safety practices that could lower instances of foodborne illness. Much of the unfavorable assumptions people have about GMOs is "more about the admittedly shady agribusinesses, not necessarily the foods themselves" (Dominguez). Consequently, the malefic veil of conjecture covering large agriculture corporations would begin to dissolve. Unsatisfactory practices could be revamped and