Response due Friday March 27 at 5pm (EST).
Genetically modified organisms (GMO)
The pros and cons of GMO debate continues to heat up.
Review the following links (Ted Talk, CNN clip, and law blog) and response to the following questions.
Response to another student's response.
1. Describe one advantage of GMO labeling
2. Describe one disadvantage of GMO labeling
3. Moving forward, as the population continues to increase, do you think we should continue investing in research and development in GMO or do you want to propose alternative methods to support the food supply. Please discuss your ideas.
4. What are your reactions to the TedTalks? Share something new you learned here.
TedTalk:
Why Genetically Engineered Foods Should be Labeled: Gary Hirshberg
https://youtu.be/pGyOwnqpCKkTedTalk:
GMO controversies - science vs. public fear: Borut Bohanec
CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/16/health/apples-genetically-modified-usda/
Law Blog:
http://www.ncsl.org/blog/2014/05/12/vermont-s-new-gmo-labeling-law-faces-challenges.aspx
1) One advantage of GMO labeling is to allow consumers to make the choice of whether they would like to consume GMO food or not. By labeling GMO food products, as consumers, we are able to choose to make a decision, as Mira Calton states, “We don't want to be the guinea pigs” (CNN).
ReplyDelete2) A possible disadvantage of GMO labeling is that the food industries costs may increase. Food producers creating GMO foods may find that through consumer choice, their revenue may decrease. However, those producers farming organic foods may see revenue increase over time with more consumer choice, but consumers may face that increased cost.
3) As the population of the world continues to increase every single day, we should be investing in research and development of alternative food products, not GMO products. The research based on GMO food products is not conclusive, and there is possible evidence to suggest that GMO food products are harmful to humans. Therefore, I would suggest that we being investing in research based on possible healthy and environmentally- friendly pesticides. GMO food products have been created to decrease the need for pesticides, but also to increase the world’s food supply. If we are able to decrease the need for harmful pesticides, hopefully we will be able to increase the amount of healthy food production. In addition, another suggestion could be that research should be introduced to attempt to educate the public on healthy food choices. Especially in America, most people choose to consume high-calorie, low-nutrient foods, ie: junk food. If we are able to educate the public on the importance of consuming higher-nutrient foods ie: traditional food crops, it is possible that we can also decrease the need for GMO foods to be used in these lower-nutrient foods.
4) The TedTalks were very educational. The most shocking fact from the TedTalks was from “Why Genetically Engineered Foods Should be Labeled: Gary Hirshberg at TEDxManhattan 2013”. In the TedTalk, the speaker discussed the use of BT insecticide. The speaker noted that in the past, apparently researchers stated that the insecticide was safe for human consumption, and that human saliva would destroy it. However, recently, they found out that the insecticide was found in pregnant women’s blood. This fact is shocking and scary! GMO food products should be labeled, so consumers can make their own choices about what goes into their bodies.
References:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/16/health/apples-genetically-modified-usda/
Hi Brienna,
DeleteI like your point that labeling GMO products may affect consumer costs and producer revenues,especially because currently there is no federal legislation mandating labeling. Rather, labeling varies on a state by state basis. It's an additional hassle for farmers, food manufacturers and grocers to separate GMO products by those that will be labeled verses those that won't be depending on which state is their intended destination.
Sarah
Brienna,
DeleteYour point about the costs of labeling on the revenue is important, and I hadn't thought about that before. I had only thought about the cost of physically printing and putting labels on all of these products and how that would increase costs to the consumer and not how the corporations would be impacted.
Unfortunately, the problem with the pesticide resistant crops is they are only resistant to a specific type of pesticide, which often is produced by the same company that made the pesticide resistant crops. Because of this, there is no market incentive for these companies to want less pesticide used- they just want their product to be the only one the farmers can buy. The most concerning thing to me about the GMOs are the companies who own the gene patents and basically have a monopoly. They exploit smaller farmers and cause an issue to free market practice that the government needs to intervene on.
An advantage to GMO labeling is enabling consumers to choose whether or not they consume foods that have been genetically engineered, whether for ethical or religious reasons. People consume many foods that have been artificially altered without realizing it because there is no mandate for labeling; perhaps if they were aware of what they were eating they would choose otherwise.
ReplyDeleteHowever, there are potential disadvantages to labeling foods that have been genetically engineered. A GMO may imply to some that there are negative health or environmental effects, even when there is no evidence to support or refute that claim. Furthermore, if genetically engineered food has any nutritional differences from its conventional counterpart of contains any allergens, the FDA already requires labeling.
I support continued research and development of GMOs. As the world population continues to increase so too does the demand for food. Without an increase in food production, food shortages will expand. If genetic engineering can help alleviate famine it's a solution worth exploring. In particular, it is important to research and develop crops that can survive and thrive in harsh environments. That's not to say we should not also look into alternative methods to support and bolster the food supply.
I thought Gary Hirshberg raised very interesting points in his talk supporting the labeling of GE products. In particular, I found it interesting when he discussed the testing pharmaceutical drugs undergo before hitting the market. They undergo animal testing before the human clinical trial phase and additionally, drugs must be tested for carcinogenicity as well as detrimental fetal and neurological impact. In contrast, no GMO products are required to go through such extensive testing.
References:
http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/foodnut/09371.html
Sarah,
DeleteYou have a very interesting point when discussing GMOs, and supporting more research and development of the genetically-modified food products. You make the point that “If genetic engineering can help alleviate famine it’s a solution worth exploring”. Worldwide, we currently have millions of people dealing with hunger. In addition, we already have GMO food products in the marketplace. Its plausible to think that we should be already treating and helping the hungry with GMO food products. Perhaps, like you suggest, we should “look into alternative methods to support and bolster the food supply”, and also use the genetically- engineered research to provide hunger relief in the United States and around the globe.
Hey Sarah,
DeleteI also found it interesting that the FDA did not have to approve foods for consumption and GMO products were not tested for carcinogenicity, allergens or any other potential side effects. I personally have taken a number of consumer health courses and unfortunately this is true for things like herbal supplements and things of the sort. You can walk into a GNC and there are hundreds of supplements, none of which had to be FDA approved. The claims are not supported by the FDA nor are their safety. The only time which these products are tested and taken off shelves are once there have been enough adverse effects reported. Kind of makes consuming products scary if you ask me. I’d suggest we make sure to do our own research on GMOs and supplements before incorporating them as a staple of our diets.
I believe that consumers have a right to know what they’re eating. People should have all the information available to them in order to make educated choices for their own lives. Though GMOs have been described as safe and many have been run through the FDA, it’s not required for the FDA to approve them for consumption, which is a valid reason for someone to not want to eat GMOs until more information is available.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, a disadvantage is that there are a lot of misconceptions about GMOs and a lot of fear and anger regarding them from the general population. Not everyone has access to appropriate information about the risks and testing procedures these foods have gone through. Just putting a label on could cause more fear in the general population.
I think GMOs are a good way to help augment the food supply. The gene patenting and contamination of organic farms from pollination of their plants with plants that were genetically modified is a problem because I don’t think those farms should be legally liable for the contamination, but that’s a legal issue, not a safety issue. I think that urban farms and backyard gardening should be encouraged, but I don’t think there’s anything wrong with using GMOs. We need to work on our aid policy and send GMO seeds for healthy fruits and vegetables that have been modified to be able to be grown in the conditions of the country that needs food instead of sending the cornmeal bags with no nutritional value that we currently send.
I think that the talk about public fear of GMOs that Borut Bohanec spoke of is really important. The amount of vandalism towards GMO crops that goes unprosecuted was shocking. It brings up the need for unbiased, educational materials that present the facts about the crops to the public. This educational information cannot be funded by anyone with a stake for or against GMOs and should be disseminated in communities, markets, and schools.
I also agree that consumers have a right to know what they are eating and therefore they can make an educated choice about what they put into their bodies. In a society where everyone is so obsessed with calories and carbs, why are they not concerned about GMOs and what is completely FDA approved. We believe in the easiest option to fix something for the time being. Yet, currently GMOs are a great way to aid in food supply issues. I still believe they should be searching for other options as they continue to research the harms and benefits of GMOs.
DeleteI love that you brought up the fact that some people don't have access to appropriate information about GMOs because I think that it's something a lot of people don't normally consider. Of course, it's easy for many people to hop on their computers and research GMOs/their benefits and possible adverse effects, but there are also many people who lack the resources and I think that for the most part, these are the people we need to worry about/help the most.
DeleteI feel like something else that one must take into consideration is the over-generalization of negative cases related to GMOs that can easily overshadow their benefits. So that even if you provide the public with all of the information in the world, they may still have irrational biases due to certain negative studies (similar to the way that some parents believe vaccines may cause children to have autism because of a flawed study).
Delete
ReplyDelete1. One of advantage of GMO labeling is being able to calculate what is going into your body. GMO is a new technology that needs to be closely evaluated because it either has potential risks or benefits. We closely follow a lot of technologies to ensure that their benefits outweigh their risks, like drugs, so why not evaluate the food that people eat on a regular basis. This way, if people are seeing certain diseases arise, one can evaluate if its based on the GMOs because their food was labeled and they would know that there was GMOs.
2. One disadvantage of labeling GMO foods is that people may not buy the food if they know that it contains GMOS. Although it is a controversial topic and not everyone is keen on it benefits or harms, people may begin to think that it’s being labeled for reasons that they should steer away from buying it. Therefore it might hurt the selling of those foods. Yet, this could be more beneficial for humans as companies might have to think of more natural ways to make their food, making it safer and more nutritious to eat. We should be eating food for it’s energy and nutrients, which is something people tend to forget.
3. I believe we should definitely continue investing in researching GMOs, yet I don’t believe we should continue its development. While researching its safety and harms, they should also try to develop some other ideas to support the food supply. If GMOs are proven effective and safe, then they should continue its development. Otherwise, development should cease.
4. The one thing that truly surprised me from the TedTalks is that countries like Russia and Syria mandate marking which foods are GMO, yet in the U.S. we do not label these foods. We deserve to know what is going into our bodies and how that can negatively or positively affect us. I was also shocked to hear that 300 million pounds of herbicides were used, since that is a large number. He explained how this large number now leads to it drifting through the air, meaning we are breathing and drinking herbicides. That cannot be beneficial as it is not a natural substance that one needs to drink or breathe in.
The topic of continuing the research while halting the development is definitely controversial. GMOs have been on the market for a few years now with very little regulation. I think that it would be hard to just up and stop the production of them because we don't totally understand the pros and the cons of them. It is going to take years to figure out what they do to our bodies in their entirety. I agree they should be more researched on, but I think it's okay to allow production to continue. With the way the population is growing we are absolutely going to need GMO foods due to scarce land. Perhaps more money could be dumped into researching effects on humans rather than most of the money going into production. It's a hard topic to discuss, but i don't think halting the production is going to be possible at this point.
Delete1.
ReplyDeleteIt can make the food seem more aesthetically pleasing to the consumer. It can make apples more red, or oranges more orange. Whatever the consumer is used to seeing is what the supplier wants the GMO food to look like so more people will purchase it.
2.
The food is irradiated and it can cause acute toxicity to consumers and eventually cause harm to their offspring and possibly introduce dangerous mutations. Through epigenetic’s these mutations can cause a lot of harm down the family tree as more and more generations consume more and more of these harmful chemicals in our food.
3.
I believe that we should continue to invest in the research and development. As we learned, there is still a lot we have to learn about GMO, but at the moment we have one very important benefit. They are plentiful. The main issue is overpopulation and until we can find another alternative that produces the same amount of food at the same cost as GMO than I do not see an issue with it. Sure there are issues with toxicity, which scares even the likes of me, but with more research I am sure that we can find alternatives instead of dangerous pesticides. Perhaps in the future there can be more testing, but since the main scare is people starving due to lack of food I think that GMO food should be invested in.
4.
Well Borut made a multitude of points that backed up the usage of GMO food. Especially the idea that “eventually, if someone tells the same lie enough, everyone will begin to believe it.” He pointed out that everyone wanted more testing on GMOs before they believe it should be on the market. I think that the altering sides both have extremely valid and believable points. Perhaps even more money should be invested into GMO so there can be an equal amount of research done while the food is being produced. The FDA and the federal government need to act upon this before it gets out of controls, not just in the face of health, but there will be protests and outrages due to the differing sides and opinions.
I like the point you made regarding an advantage of GMOs, as this would make foods seem more aesthetically pleasing to consumers. I also agree with you that more research and development measures should be implemented when it comes to GMOs, because it really is one of the best methods that currently exists that can help sustain overpopulation. However, though I agree with your thoughts on GMOs, I feel like you could have discussed more about GMO labeling itself, and whether or not this would be helpful to both consumers and food producers.
DeleteI agree that the FDA and the federal government need to be involved in the whole GMO experience. How do you think GMO companies will influence government intervention? It seems as though there is limited testing due to pressure from companies, but will this pressure continue if more money is put into testing GMOs?
DeleteI agree on your point about your reasons for continuing research for GMO. It is such a tricky thing for me to think because depending on how you look at this, i believe people would have different opinions. I said it in my post that Id prefer natural food, and everything was natural at first place before us humans started to bring in our technologies into it. But yet, i do understand that you can grow more, and stronger plants/food by genetic modification. Especially, when you think of consumption rate and growth rate of food, this is very appealing point. I just do not have enough knowledge to back my comments up, but I think there will be a long discussion regarding GMO for long time in our society.
Delete1. Labeling foods that contain genetically modified ingredients, also known as GMOs, allows food purchasers to have access to the information they may need to make decisions about what products to buy. The articles and TedTalks that discussed this issue of GMO labeling also mentioned that this prohibits foods from being labeled as “natural,” “all natural,” or “naturally grown,” when they, in fact, are not, so consumers are better aware of what really goes into the foods they are eating.
ReplyDelete2. GMO labeling, however, can bring about difficulties for many families, especially for those who may now choose to purchase organic goods but may not necessarily have the means to be able to do so. These labeling requirements, according to the NCSL article, could increase food costs for many households, as well as create difficulties for farmers and those in the food manufacturing and distribution industry, as state mandates may change because of these new laws.
3. I believe that GMOs should be labeled, as it is important for there to be trust within a consumer-buyer relationship, especially when it comes to foods that we eat everyday. I think that more research and development measures should be implemented, so that the safety and hygiene procedures are disclosed, allowing consumers to become more aware of the process behind creating these GMOs. As the population continues to increase, I believe that this would be the most efficient way to be able to stabilize the every-growing demand for food. However, I also believe that in the end, the consumer should be able to decide what he or she wants to purchase, whether that be GMOs or organic products.
4. I found the TedTalks to be very informative and helpful in forming thoughts about GMO labeling, a controversy I had never really considered significant until now. In Gary Hishberg’s Ted Talk, he discussed several reasons as to why genetically engineered foods should be labeled, and even cited the President’s cancer panel report, which recommended food to be grown without unnatural additives. I was surprised to learn that many other countries around the world, some of which are not considered “developed,” require GMO labeling. However, a country has advanced as the United States has not mandated this, but I believe that it is time for a change.
I found the way you described GMO labeling bringing financial difficulties to many families to be very interesting, as it is something that I hadn't considered prior to reading your post. GMO labeling has the ability to increase food costs for families, but I also agree with you in the sense that being a country as advanced as the United States, we should be mandating something as serious as this by now, and doing so in a way that is affordable for all.
DeleteLabeling GMO products will allow customers to avoid eating foods that they wish to avoid for religious or ethical reasons, health or environmental concerns.
ReplyDeleteA drawback to labeling GMO products is that labeling them as such implies a warning regarding their health effects, whereas no verifiable differences in health effects between GM and non-GM foods have been detected.
I fully support further research and investment in GMOs, as it will ensure their safe production. I feel as if they are a logical solution to the issue of food disparity and our world’s growing population, and a logical solution to stabilizing the word’s growing demand for food. GMOs increase farming efficiency, increasing total crop yields. I also strongly believe that we should invest in researching other solutions for the issue of food disparity, if health concerns do end up arising regarding GMOs in the future, therefore preventing us from being able to use them.
I genuinely enjoyed the TedTalks and felt that they were very informative, as I am a huge foodie and love to hear about the science behind food! I One thing that surprised me was that so many countries besides the US have mandatory GMO labeling, yet we do not. Also, learning that there are certain GMO products in circulation that have been ingested by us under false pretenses, or that have caused us to develop allergies was also extremely surprising and alarming to me. I feel that mandatory allergy testing should be necessary before any GMO product is introduced into the market.
Alexandra,
DeleteYou had a great response to the question regarding whether we should be putting research into GMOs or finding alternative methods in food production. I agree that GMOs have made a huge contribution to the way the world produces food. Since GMOs have not been in our food for a very long period of time, I feel that we do not have enough scientific evidence to deny or prove that GMOs are harmful to our environment and health. With time, we will be able to fully test and study the impacts GMOs have. Your suggestion that if they are proven to be harmful then we should take action in trying to find a healthier method of food production was great as well.
Hi Alexandra,
DeleteI agree with your point about how beneficial GMOs are and that we should continue to research them. Do you think there is another way to solve the problem of food disparities besides GMOs?
1. An advantage of GMO labeling will benefit consumers with the ability to know which products contain GMOs. As consumers, it is only right to know what is contained in the food products that we buy and eat. GMO labeling will give us the option to choose between purchasing GMO and non-GMO products.
ReplyDelete2. A possible disadvantage of GMO labeling can affect both producers and consumers. If GMO labeling leads to a decrease in the sales of products that contain GMO, the producers of these products will have lower revenue and will most likely have to lower the prices of their products in order to appeal to consumers. If consumers have a higher demand for non-GMO products, producers that provide these items may increase their prices. This benefits the producers but leaves the consumers spending more money for non-GMO items.
3. With world population increasing, keeping a sustainable food source that parallels the population is imperative. GMOs have given us the ability to expand our food source and help reduce famine all over the world. They provide us with better and bigger crops that could have been destroyed if only natural/non-GMO methods were used to grow them. However, there seems to be a large stigma around GMOs and their possible harmful impacts on our health. Research should be put into both the development of GMOs as well as alternative methods to increase and create a sustainable food source. Each side is double-edged sword; GMOs help us have crops that can grow in harsh environments, but have a possible negative affect on our health while non-GMOs are seen as less harmful but currently do not have the ability to provide as much food to the population compared to GMOs. The problem here seems to be choosing between having a large enough food supply to support the growing population or to have more natural products that may lack in quantity. If research goes into both choices, maybe an alternative method can be found or more conclusive evidence that proves GMOs are not harmful can alleviate the stigma that surrounds them.
4. Both of the TedTalks were informative and interesting views of GMO labeling and usage. In Borut’s presentation it was shocking to see how much time goes under GMO production and implementation. He talked about how it takes over a decade in order for GMOs to develop from an idea into being in commercial products. I think this goes to show that GMO production takes a lot of time and resources that include testing from plenty of sound scientists, researchers, and professionals. Maybe with longer time, we will be able to truly study and provide evidence for the long-term affects GMOs have on our environment and health.
I share with you a cautious approach to GMOs after watching the TedTalks. I agree with you that GMOs seem our best chance at getting adequate food supplies to people around the world and ending famines, but we cannot know for sure their effects on our health. When you mention our problem of choosing between lots of GMOs that can feed everyone or lower quantities of non-GMOs that we know for sure are safe, I imagine the decision should be made per-region rather than universally. That is to say, in places like the United States where quantity of food is not an issue, only food distribution as much of it goes to waste while some go hungry, it seems practical to promote small-scale organic, locally supported, non-GMO agriculture within communities. In third world countries though, food may need to be produced on a massive scale as the only way of feeding everyone. As such, GMOs could be planted there on a large scale. Either way, I agree with you that more research, which seems to always be a good thing, is indeed in order for determining the health effects of GMOs and how best to feed the world.
Delete1) GMO labeling is advantageous because it provides consumers with more freedom. In knowing whether or not their food is genetically modified, consumers have a truer perspective and can choose what they want to consume with more freedom than they could when unaware of whether their food is genetically altered or not.
ReplyDelete2) A disadvantage of GMO labeling is that it could cause food prices to increase. Assuming that most people would prefer to eat non-GMO foods than GMOs when given the choice, store owners and businesses will likely switch to selling non-GMOs to meet the demand. Non-GMOs are more costly to produce though given their less resistance to forces of nature and their greater susceptibility to destruction while being grown. So while consumers will have more freedom in choosing what they eat, their likely choices will cause an increase in what they have to pay at the store.
3) As the population continues to grow, most people agree that we'll have to produce more food to meet the rise in demand. I believe, however, that our primary approach to support the food supply should be cutting down on waste and overproduction, as well as better sharing resources through favorable trade laws to get food from fertile regions to countries with poor good agricultural lands. It seems that the issue with GMO production is not the direct effects GMOs have on human health when consumed, but rather their effects on the environment and the environment's subsequent effects on human health. If Gary Hirshberg's data is correct, herbicide use has greatly increased since the widespread growing of GMO crops began. These herbicides seem directly linked to certain diseases in the population. Yet I wonder how it is that GMO crops need more herbicides than non-GMO crops for their growth. One would think that one of the reasons for and aims of genetic modification would be to instill resistance to weeds that would make herbicides unnecessary. It is unclear from Hirshberg's presentation whether the increase in herbicide use would have continued if conventional crops had continued to be grown. To avoid crops’ rapid evolution of pesticide/herbicide resistance, it seems logical to plant multiple crops together rather than vast monocultures that are prone to destruction at the hands of a single resistant pest or weed. In our efforts to feed a growing population we cannot be so shortsighted as to increase out output of harmful chemicals onto our food and into the environment.
4) I enjoyed both of the Ted Talks, in part because of the opposing perspectives they presented. I was surprised to hear Hirshberg talking about the health effects of consuming GMOs. From what I have read, there seems no observable difference in the substance or direct nutritional safety of GMO vs non-GMO foods. They differ simply in what proteins are expressed, all of which get broken down in our body into the same few building blocks, I thought. Yet Hirshberg's mention of a certain herbicide remaining in the bodies of women and their fetal cords was unsettling. I would like to hear more about this issue. Is the residual herbicide acting on the body in dangerous ways once ingested? Or does it simply reside in the body without effect? The latter seems a bit much like wishful thinking, but other articles and the other Ted Talk were pretty adamant that there is no direct danger from eating GMO foods. I liked Borut Bohanec's focus on GMO crops as a mechanism for producing pesticide/herbicide-independent crops, as this has the noble goal of feeding more people with less environmental toxins used. I think this should be the focus of GMO crops rather than changing more aesthetic qualities to make them more appealing to consumers. It does bother me though that Bohanec does not mention the potential destruction of biodiversity this could result in, which is bad for several reasons, including that it homogenizes our crops in such a way that a single resistant pest or weed could destroy the entire crop and collapse our food supply if we simply plant monocultures.
I agree that we need to think more about what effects GE crops are having on the environment. Like you said, GMOs are developed for noble goals like ending world hunger and fighting vitamin deficiencies. However, their production is often implemented in a way that harms the environment (monoculture, etc) and detrimentally impacts human health. I agree that this seems very shortsighted.
DeleteI agree with you that we need to cut our food waste and overproduction and find new ways to bring food to areas with poor agricultural lands. I also agree with the fact that herbicides could be causing specific diseases that could be harmful to our health. I like your idea that adding in a gene that has resistance to herbicides could be the answer to the main problem with GMOs. I once read an article that stated there was enough food to feed everyone in the food yet there are 805 million people hungry in the world and since the population is rising, how are we going to be able to feed everyone when there are already so many people hungry in the world. The world needs to come together and every person needs to pitch in in order to cut food waste and overproduction and some how food needs to be reallocated to everyone on a fair basis. This is a huge task since 1st world countries eat a lot more food than second and third world countries and they might not want to give up some food. Therefore, in the future, GMOs could be the answer to our problems as long as they are proven to be beneficial to our health, do not harm the environment and are cheaper and easier to allocate to everyone in the world.
Delete1. GMO labeling would enable consumers to make informed decisions about the types of foods that they purchase. Without labeling, people who wish to avoid GE foods have no way of doing so because they do not know which foods have been genetically modified.
ReplyDelete2. One disadvantage of GMO labeling is that people often view labels as warnings. If we put labels on GE foods, then many people will automatically assume that these foods are dangerous/ unhealthy. Based on the two TED talks, the scientific community has not yet reached a consensus on GMO safety; labels may therefore send a message that is not 100% accurate. In my opinion, labeling is still a better idea that not labeling because it allows the consumer to make his/her own decision based on the available information. However, I can see how different stakeholders are worried about labeling sending an incorrect (or at least imprecise) message about GE safety.
3. Moving forward, I think we need to figure out a way to use GE technology more responsibly. The Bohanec TED talk showed how GMOs like Golden Rice can help solve major human health crises like vitamin A deficiency. I think that, as a society, we have a duty to use the tools available to us to make the world a better place. We have been using traditional breeding to modify our foods for millennia; GE technology is just an application of new technology to old goals. That being said, our new ways of doing things are a lot faster and more invasive than more traditional methods. The Hirshberg TED talk mentioned how introducing herbicide genes into crops has accelerated the development of herbicide resistance; this in turn has led to an increasing dependence on stronger, chemical weed-killers with detrimental environmental effects. For me, this data demonstrates the danger of over-using GE products more than it demonstrates anything inherently wrong with GMOs. New tools can help us to come up with better solutions, but they also come with new problems that we have a duty to think about ahead of time.
4. I personally enjoyed both of the TED talks very much. It was interesting to see two perspectives on the same issue. Both speakers had very clear agendas, so I would be interested in looking up more neutral information (eg: peer-reviewed articles not funded by GMO companies) about GE food safety.
I agree that we need to use GE technology more responsibly, and that this does not necessarily mean we should stop investing in GMOs. While GE technology is obviously an important tool that could be used to solve major world problems such as hunger, we need to find a way to use it that will not cause issues like extreme pesticide resistance, which creates the need to use stronger pesticides that could cause problems in humans such as ADHD in children. While the scientific community generally considers GMOs safe, there is less of a consensus about the safety of consuming foods that contain pesticides, especially in light of new research connecting it to ADHD. Eventually, as research and development continues, we can likely reach a point where GMO foods are being produced successfully without these externalities.
Delete1. One advantage of GMO labeling is that people get to see what is in their food and have the choice in deciding what food to eat and not to eat. However, recently there has been a shift in diseases from infectious to chronic diseases and this has to due with our environment and what we eat. It would be helpful for epidemiologists to know what exactly is in our foods so they can determine if specific chemicals or foods are causing the rise in chronic diseases or other illnesses including cancer.
ReplyDelete2. One disadvantage of GMO labeling is that this could cause the price of food to go up and thus create difficulties to farmers, food manufacturers and grocery stores. Also, some people might not want to buy the GMO food once they know it is a GMO because they fear the GMOs are harmful.
3. This is a hard decision. If there were enough research that proved all GMOs were not harmful and instead had beneficial health benefits, then I would have no problem with GMOs. However, this is not often the case. Some GMOs are safe, and have been proven to have beneficial qualities, but then there is the fear from the public. In one of the Ted talks we watched, we learned about golden rice and how that would save 10 million lives, however, maybe the reason why the golden rice was not introduced was because of the culture? Maybe they too were afraid of a food that they knew nothing about and didn’t grow it naturally. The issue with GMOs is that there is a lot of uncertainty surrounding it. If GMOs were labeled, then this could possibly help reinforce the fact that GMOs are safe and do not contain harmful chemicals or pesticides. Especially since recently, people are now in danger of developing chronic diseases over infectious ones and where infectious diseases have cures or vaccines, chronic diseases don’t. Thus, chronic diseases are causing even more problems and there are being caused by environmental factors including food. There is a good possibility that certain chemicals or pesticides from GMOs could be causing chronic diseases, but only labeling and more research could prove or disprove this. Another issue is that the patent companies and GMOs companies have a lot of power and it is hard to tell if they can be trusted. With more clarity on GMOs, more people would see how beneficial they could be. If they really have health benefits that could keep people living healthier and long lives, then GMOs should be here to stay. But, if they cause more issues, then another alternative needs to be implemented. Other ideas could be to find new ways to keep food safe from animals and insects and to keep them fresh longer. Overall, trust and the truth about GMOs are the only way to secure the future for GMOs if they truly are beneficial.
4. I enjoyed watching the Ted Talks and learned a few things. I thought it was interesting that there is research that links ADHD to pesticide exposure but how come this research is not better known? I wish that there were more information about this specific link in the Ted Talk. I also thought it was interesting that the other Ted Talk discussed the fact that there was a war involving GMOs and that it is a propaganda war and even though I had never heard this before I completely agree with him. The propaganda is saying that all GMOs are bad which might not be the case. Unfortunately, some of the research is questionable since they are from GMO companies themselves so there is a lot of misunderstanding which is causing this war to be even more confusing for everyone. One last thing that I never thought about was the fact that since GMO apples do not brown, you might not realize that they are bad. It is an interesting idea but I am wondering if GMO apples last longer and do eventually brown when they do go bad? Either way it was something I never really thought about since eating spoiled food is not good for you.
1. By being able to see every ingredient in your food, people will have access to allergen information and will be able to prevent allergic reactions to foods to which they are known to be allergic.
ReplyDelete2. Most likely, the majority of the public will not know what the chemicals actually are that go into GMOs, which can lead to public fear due to lack of knowledge of what the chemical ingredients could potentially do.
3. Since we know that GMOs are somewhat easy to develop, we should continue to invest in their research, yet it is important to have more rigorous testing for GMOs to ensure their safety. In one of the TedTalks, it was explained that there currently is no real testing of the products to see potential effects. This, to me, seems outrageous and must be remedied. GMOs should be tested the same way that any drug is tested.
4. I never thought of the fact that genetically engineered food must have a patent. To me, this make it seems like a product rather than food, causing it to be unnatural. GMOs should not only need patents, but they should also need FDA approval and rigorous testing to ensure they will not hurt people or the environment.
I agree that there should be more rigorous testing for the GMOs to ensure the safety so that people will be informed about what is going into their bodies. That this testing needs to be done so people can know the effects of these preservatives just like a drug is tested. Specifically the FDA should be involved with this process since they do the same for drugs. That GMOs should not be disregarded as something that is not just as important. People want to be educated on these ingredients and would hope that some form of testing is being done to ensure that it is safe.
Delete1. An advantage of GMO labeling is allowing consumers to see what exactly is in their food, and if they are curious/do care, they can do their own research into the effects of certain chemicals and the pros and cons of eating GMOs.
ReplyDelete2. A disadvantage of GMO labeling is the lack of knowledge of consumers as to what they are putting in their body and the possible health consequences. Just because something is labeled does not mean that people are going to understand what it means or know anything about the chemicals on the label. Additionally, not everyone is going to research the chemicals on GMO labels, which in the case that they do contain harmful chemicals, would be incredibly bad for the industry and also consumers.
3. I think that the concept of GMO is fascinating and incredible. To be able to determine the physical appearance, smell, taste, etc. of food is an ability that we used to see in sci-fi or fantasy movies growing up. I think the continued investment in research and development in GMO is important in furthering our technology/abilities as a species as long as we are able to ensure that GMOs are safe and beneficial for our health. To be able to do this, more research is required, so I think it's worth it.
4. I found the TedTalks very interesting, but I was surprised to learn that GMOs don't require FDA approval and also must be patented. It seems to me that if they require a patent, then it should be required that they be approved by the FDA, considering the fact that they're being consumed.
I agree with the advantage of GMO labeling allowing consumers to see what they are eating, but this may raise awareness of GMOs and cause more people to research about it. Thus, the disadvantage you mentioned may be counteracted or at least minimized with implementing this, only if people are actually curious enough. I never realized how fast paced and interesting this world is becoming until you mentioned how it used to be seen as an unreachable idea of modifying food. The point you brought up about the FDA not having to approve GMOs is in part why this is such a big issue within the public health world today. People might have a better attitude towards GMO if they go through the FDA requirements.
DeleteAlthough I agree that the new technologies for GMOs are fascinating and incredible, I am hesitant to fully support future funding and research because I think there is a line between helpful modifications and unnecessary ones that has not been drawn. Golden rice could save 10,000 lives a year and that is amazing. But, spending millions of dollars and introducing new potentially dangerous genes in an apple just to delay their browning? I find that an extremely unnecessary alteration of nature that only leads to superficial benefits. Eating spoiled food is dangerous, but once someone cuts and apple, they should just eat it before it turns brown.. If we fully support and fund future genetic testing and modifications, how can we ensure that our money is going towards only those projects that reap the overall most benefit?
DeleteAlthough I agree that the new technologies for GMOs are fascinating and incredible, I am hesitant to fully support future funding and research because I think there is a line between helpful modifications and unnecessary ones that has not been drawn. Golden rice could save 10,000 lives a year and that is amazing. But, spending millions of dollars and introducing new potentially dangerous genes in an apple just to delay their browning? I find that an extremely unnecessary alteration of nature that only leads to superficial benefits. Eating spoiled food is dangerous, but once someone cuts and apple, they should just eat it before it turns brown.. If we fully support and fund future genetic testing and modifications, how can we ensure that our money is going towards only those projects that reap the overall most benefit?
DeleteAlthough I agree that the new technologies for GMOs are fascinating and incredible, I am hesitant to fully support future funding and research because I think there is a line between helpful modifications and unnecessary ones that has not been drawn. Golden rice could save 10,000 lives a year and that is amazing. But, spending millions of dollars and introducing new potentially dangerous genes in an apple just to delay their browning? I find that an extremely unnecessary alteration of nature that only leads to superficial benefits. Eating spoiled food is dangerous, but once someone cuts and apple, they should just eat it before it turns brown.. If we fully support and fund future genetic testing and modifications, how can we ensure that our money is going towards only those projects that reap the overall most benefit?
Delete1. One advantage of GMO labeling is that the public would become aware of this rising issue if they did not know about it before. For example, people who may not have known what GMOs are will know look it up because of the labeling. In other cases where people do know about GMOS, they will be easily able to identify which foods are GMO free and which ones are not. This allows people to decide if they want to feed their bodies with GMOS and gives them a choice.
ReplyDelete2. One disadvantage with GMO labeling is that it can cause farmers to lose profit because many farmers use this to grow an abundance of crops and if more people opt out of buying produce labeled with GMO then overall farmers are in jeopardy of losing money.
3. As population continues to increase I think that we should continue to invest in research and development in GMO because this allows us to create a product that is able to feed many children that are dying because of malnutrition. However, the stigma attached to GMO labeling prevents many people from receiving the proper nutrition that they could achieve. Once the population continues to rise, we need to be able to provide enough food for everyone so therefore this is very important. Additionally, with more research and development, they can raise more awareness of the benefits of GMO within populations and start creating better GMO products that produce less harm as they advance in the field.
4. My initial reactions to the TedTalks were that these are very informative and educational. I never realized how big of an issue and propaganda that labeling itself has created within America, but across the Globe as well. It was very surprising to find out how many different countries actually support the I was also surprised by the propaganda video that the golden rice could have saved millions of lives, but protestors are affecting the decisions of the government as well. Something new that I learned is that 300 million pounds of herbicide usage was used this year and are now finding it within the air so now people are breathing it as well.
I liked your advantage for GMO labeling. Usually when I think of labeling, I think of it as providing information for that sole consumer, but you brought up the point that it would also provide information and bring light to GMO as a public issue. Some people probably don't even know they consumer GMOs today, so labeling would allow people to research the information they want so that they have the free will to choose whether they wanted to consume GMOs or not. I also liked your angle for your disadvantage because I only thought of the potential harms and scares that could come with labeling a food product. The food industry today really is a business though, so by labeling foods with all the information that consumers might necessary not want to know, they may choose to turn away from those GMOs and choose other alternatives, which would in turn, affect the GMO industry.
Delete1) The major pro of labeling GMO foods is that it provides consumers with the most information possible about the food that they’re buying and eating. It also allows for transparency between food companies and consumers. If GMO foods are safe, then there should be no reason not to include them on a label along with other ingredients.
ReplyDelete2) Unfortunately, while labeling GMO food alongside other ingredients should ensure consumers that they are safe, it will likely have the opposite effect. People may consider them to be warning labels, alerting them that there is something dangerous in the food that they should avoid. This could financially hurt companies that are working on developing new GMO technology, which could impede progress in this area. There is a lot of misinformation about GMOs and most of the public believes that they are unsafe (Funk & Lee, 2015), so labels on foods that contain GMOs could definitely lead to avoidance of them.
3) Moving forward, I think that we should continue to invest in research and development involving GMOs. The scientific consensus is that GMO foods are safe, with 88% of scientists in the American Association for the Advancement of Science holding this belief (Funk & Lee, 2015). This is even stronger than the consensus that human activity is mostly responsible for global warming, which is also very strong. GMOs have already been an important means of combatting hunger and nutritional deprivation, such as in the case of golden rice that was mentioned by Bohanec. As the global population continues to grow, food shortages are going to become an increasingly prevalent country, especially in the developing world where population growth rates are highest. The development of GMOs will create more sustainable conditions and can greatly reduce the burden of world hunger. It is also important to remember that there are people on both sides of this debate who benefit financially from their side winning out. A common argument against the development of GMO foods is that biotech companies are lying to consumers about the safety of GMOs and withholding information about them so that they can make more money, but it is rarely considered that there is a huge organic food industry that benefits from people’s fears about GMOs. These companies may spread information that is scientifically unfounded or disputed in order to turn the public against GMO food, making them more likely to buy organic products instead. It is healthy to be skeptical of the intentions of large biotech companies like Monstanto, which do likely engage in questionable business practices, but that doesn’t mean that the scientific evidence in support of GMOs should be ignored. Ultimately there is no conclusive evidence that GMOs are dangerous to human health and there is a strong scientific consensus that they are, in fact, safe for consumption.
4) I thought that both TED Talks raised interesting points about GMOS. I thought it was interesting that one of the first things that Hirshberg argued was that GMOs should be labeled regardless of whether they are dangerous to humans or not, because freedom of information is still important. I also thought his discussion of increased pesticide resistance due to the production of GMOs was important, and obviously this is an issue that needs to be discussed. I agreed strongly with Bohenc’s characterization of anti-GMO rhetoric as propaganda, as it seems like it is not entirely fact based and exists primarily to create fear. I also thought the case of genetically modified golden rice providing much-needed vitamin A to deprived communities, which could help to prevent blindness, was very interesting.
Shannon, I agree with your arguments. Though the videos are older than the recent publication that you incorporated into your response, noting that 88% of scientist American Association for the Advancement of Science have conviction that GMOs are safe is critical to this topic. I feel a parallel between the “debate” about global warming and GMOs. Were scientists have a definite conclusion on a trend, and the public has mixed anti-scientific evidence-based explanatory reactions. There’s this powerful propaganda movement that has a larger influence in public view than dose the facts.
DeleteTouching base on the financial beneficiaries from each side of the GMO debate is also critical to examine. That is definitely something to question whenever such a strong divide exists when there’s a large body of evidence that favors one side, yet a debate is still happening.
1. One advantage of GMO labeling is that you would know exactly which foods are and are not GMO products. You would then be able to receive all the information that goes into making that product. As a consumer, I like to know what goes into my body and what it is that I'm exactly consuming. By labeling GMO food, you are giving the consumer the option to either consume GMO food or not.
ReplyDelete2. A disadvantage of GMO labeling is that it may instill unnecessary fear to the consumer and to the general public. When people see health warning labels, they immediately assume it is bad and harmful for the body, when really, it has not proven that GMO foods are harmful to the body. Many people may also have a lack of access to information or may not understand the labeled information in general, which could potentially lead to a scare or panic that could have been avoided if the GMO food were just left unlabeled.
3. As the population continues to increase, I think that we should continue investing in research and development in GMO. The reality is that the population is only increasing, meaning that there will come a time when water and food start diminishing. To be able to feed enough people, we need to come up with alternatives, and I think GMO is just the beginning. The statement that GMO cause negative impacts on health is unproven at this point, and since GMO foods are unlabeled, we could be consuming GMO food for all we know, yet we are still alive and well. I think until the results conclude otherwise, we should continue investing in GMO, not necessarily accepting it for what it is right now, but further improving it and modifying it is so that it is more readily accepted into society and so that it can be a stable option for the growing population in the future. Although GMO's are not necessary "natural", people seem to be skeptical, but all the "natural" resources will deplete at some point, so we need to create alternatives that come close to the original "natural" resource.
4. I really enjoyed the first TED talk (Why foods should be labeled) and see where he is coming from. It does seem unfair when you compare other products with GMOs because all other products seem to have a law that states that they must be labeled. He also claims that as citizens of the country ("We the people"), we have the right to know what we are eating and consuming by receiving the full story and all the information necessary to buy a certain product. As a general liberty, he feels that we should be able to have the option of choosing by having all the information presented to us, so that consumers can make the judgment call.
Alyssa,
DeleteI like your point about needed GMO foods to keep up with our growing population. The methods of farming that were used up until the late 20th century simply will not sustain the amount of people on this Earth. The global population is exponentially growing, while "natural" food supply is not. If we eliminated all foods that can potentially harm us, we would not even have enough food to support our population now. Forgetting about GMO foods and beginning research in alternative methods is not at all economical of efficient.
Hi Alissa!
DeleteI think your point about food labeling GMOs leading to stigma against them raises an interesting point. I do agree that this would likely be an issue, and that there will be a population of consumers who do not understand the concept of genetic modification. However, I do think that the label leaves the power of knowledge in the hands of the consumer, either to learn more about the product they are buying or to not buy the product at all, and I think that concept is more important than avoiding potential stigma.
Dear Alissa,
DeleteI liked how you brought up a point of how GMO labeling leads to a stigma, this could be an issue and influence people a certain way. But at the end of the day it allows people to make their own autonomous decision with regards to whether or not they want to buy. This is more important than the particular light in which GMO foods are portrayed.
1. One advantage of GMO labeling is that it respects consumers and their right to know what is in their food. According to Gary Hirshberg’s Ted Talk, most of the population wants to access to that information so that they are ultimately the ones in charge of making decisions on what to eat and buy. Labeling of GMOs would also help epidemiologists if they were performing studies of correlation between human consumption and disease.
ReplyDelete2. One disadvantage of GMO labeling is that it could cause customer confusion for those who are uneducated about GMOs. GMOs already scare people even though a lot of them, if not most, are not harmful. Labeling would also increase food costs to buyers.
3. I do think we should continue to invest research in GMOs, mainly to ensure that they are continuously being assessed to be safe. Some GMOs can have enormous health benefits (vitamin A in golden rice preventing 10,000 deaths a year). Lots of other GMOs (like the black tomato having anti-cancer properties) have been proven to improve human health and the environment. But, some modified foods don’t seem to be as helpful or necessary and I wouldn’t want our investment to go to the production of those types of products. For example, the CNN article on apples didn’t ‘wow’ me. So what if our apples go brown after we cut them? Is this genetic discovery really worth the millions of dollars that could have been spent on something else more beneficial to the human population.
4. In the first TedTalk, I was shocked to learn that 41% of Americans will be diagnosed with cancer and that some researchers associate this with an increase of pesticides/ GMOs. It is also always shocking to be reminded actually how much of our food is genetically modified (85% of our corn). If over half of the world mandates labeling, why doesn’t the US? I like how Hirshberg poked fun at ‘the land of the free’ in his talk. Another thing I learned from the first TedTalk is that there isn’t any significant difference in opinions of political parties, so the stereotypes about ‘democratic hippies’ is incorrect. Modified food is a universal issue and everyone wants to know what they are eating. TedTalk number two made me realize that people really need to be more educated in the importance and safety of GMOs. There are so many biases that are based on emotion-based, incorrect information.
I agree that further investments made in GMOs should be the development of ones that are more "useful" and produce health benefits like the golden rice example. I think you made a good point that GMO projects that are more about aesthetics, like the apples that do not brown, should not be invested in any further.
Delete1. Describe one advantage of GMO labeling
ReplyDeleteThe main advantage to GMO labeling is having the knowledge of the genetic composition of the crop. Since over ¾ of all soy and corn products are GMOs, and average consumer is unaware of this stat
2. Describe one disadvantage of GMO labeling
A prominent disadvantage of GMO labeling is the frantic ignorant reactions from consumers. The average American consumer still does not know the full implications of what GMOs are to the same degree this population is ignorant to what “gluten” is (and how if you do not have celiac or gluten intolerance, gluten poses no health harm to the body).
Knowing the GMO status of what’s in our foods still leaves much information to be desired about what we eat. Even if we were aware of which of the crops in the supermarket were GMO, we still wouldn’t know the soil and water quality of the region, what pesticides were used to grow them, and if any environmental dangers were in close proximity to the farm. GMO is just one part of what determines the quality and health of foods. GMO does not mean harmful, just as all-natural preservatives, additives, and processes do not mean healthy.
3. Moving forward, as the population continues to increase, do you think we should continue investing in research and development in GMO or do you want to propose alternative methods to support the food supply. Please discuss your ideas.
I am pro incorporating genetically modified organism into any nation’s diet.
We should continue to research and develop more GMOs. Not everything that is natural is good, not everything that is engineered is bad. People tend to forget that GMOs are vital to populations whose environment does not foster the growth of genetically unaltered crops. Incorporating GMOs into agriculture benefits the yield and nutrition of the crop either through creating drought-resistant, frost/freeze-resistant, nutrient-fortified, higher lifespan crops. There has not been conclusive evidence to insist that ingesting crops with GMOs are harmful to the body. I am not sure what the alternative could be. For the question of how the world will supply food to its soon to population of 10billion people, GMO/ or test tube food seems the only feasible means to reach this production quota.
4. What are your reactions to the TedTalks? Share something new you learned here.
The anti-GMO talk was presented by the Chairman of a well-known organic American yogurt company, Stonyfield Farms. Given Mr. Hirshburg’s predictable bias against GMOs, he brought up some concerning figures. Things of interest from his speech included the presence of BT in pregnant women, the 527 million pound increase in herbicide use since 1996, traces of herbicides in the air, the proclaimed lack of mandatory testing for drugs applied to crops, and over 1/3 of HT acres infested with 23-types of glyphosate-resistant weeds.
The pro-GMO speaker on the other hand is the head of the Department of Genetics and Biotechnology at the Biotechnical faculty at the University of Ljubljana, Borut Bohanec. Similar to the USA, the Slovenian public view on GMOs is negative. Though different than the political view, the government of Slovenia slapped heavy fines: 2,500 euros for self-producing GMO and 500,000 euro for company growing GMOs. Utilizing GMOs from snapdragon flower to tomatoe produced anticancer properties that could not be obtained through simple hybridization. GMOs are also seen to make food preparation safer, by reducing the need to smoke foods. Though critics of GMOs claim that GMOs are not tested for health effects, GMOs are claimed to be tested for health implication more than any other type of food. The most shocking piece of information that Mr. Bohanec presented was that Greenpeace spends $7million to protests GMOs. I feel that’s a lot of money being spent without great warrant to oppose something. There’s other environmental issues that deserve more funds and attention to than GMOs.
Chelsea,
DeleteI agree with your concern regarding the BT toxins that have been found in the cord blood of pregnant women. Mr. Hirshburg stated that scientists formally believed BT toxins were not detrimental to humans, given that they were instantaneously destroyed by our saliva before they could enter our digestive systems. Given that notion has since been proven to be untrue, this leads me to wonder how many people may believe in genetically engineered food under false pretenses.
1. An advantage of GMO labeling is that it provides consumers with the freedom to actively choose which types of food/food products go into their bodies. In the first TedTalk, it was stated that 92% of American consumers prefer to know about GMOs being present in their food, which is an overwhelming indication that they should be labeled. These labels would make consumers aware of the potential bacteria, proteins and allergens that may be present in genetically engineered food products, giving them the power of choice.
ReplyDelete2. One disadvantage is that GMO labels will most likely become stigmatized, leading people to believe these foods are unhealthy and far too dangerous to eat. Although these labels may simply serve as a guideline for consumers, they have the potential to instill high levels of unwarranted concern/fear.
3. I believe that we should continue to invest in GMO research and development, considering we do not have a strong basis to prove that they are beneficial or detrimental to our bodies. In the second TedTalk, Borut Bohanec presented us with a quote, “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” If the hype about GMOs being harmful to us is completely untrue, then scientists and researchers need to prove it. It is difficult to truly take a side in this argument when the main issue is that neither hypothesis has been entirely validated. After conducting more research, testing these foods, and educating the public, people will be better equipped to make a rational decision based on proven facts and solid evidence. If we do not invest more time and money into this research, we will never truly be able to know how these foods affect us as well as our environment.
4. I found the TedTalks to be intriguing, however I was most compelled by the first argument that demonstrated how genetically engineered foods are detrimental to our bodies. In many Sargent classes we have been taught that hormones being added to food is often linked to an increased risk of cancer, specifically breast and ovarian cancers. Although I cannot prove this is valid, I do tend to lean towards that argument being somewhat true. I was surprised to hear that the Journal of Pediatrics published a study that identified an absolute correlation between ADHD and pesticide exposure. When talking about GMOs, the main focus is usually cancer, so it was interesting to learn about another way that we may be negatively affected by GMOs.
I really liked your point about how if a lie is repeated over and over again people will begin to believe it regardless of the evidence. Research hasn't shown GMO's to particular harmful to the human body. No more so than many other things we tolerate in our society such as tobacco and alcohol. Both of these products carry labels and warnings for consumers though. Further development of GMO's is definitely necessary but their incorporation into our food shouldn't be a secret.
DeleteElizabeth,
DeleteI agree that we should also invest in GMO research, since the information that we currently have involving GMO foods is not strong enough to provide complete evidence about the effect it can have on our bodies and the environment in general. Until then, I am having an internal debate about whether or not the labeling would be advantageous. Although I think consumers have a right to know what is in the products they are buying, I also addressed how GMO-labeling can result in fear and probable avoidance of GMO-labeled products. If this is the case, it is likely that natural food supply production will not be able to keep up with the demands of the public. There is also a question of cost, in which millions of people may be unable to afford strictly organic or natural food products. However, until we have enough evidence about the possible health risks of GMO growth and consumption, I think it is important to address more sustainable ways for natural farming.
1. One advantage to GMO labeling is that it will open research possibilities so that definitive scientific answers can be obtained. For instance, in order to track the impacts of GMO foods on public health, the foods must be labeled to observe their effects.
ReplyDelete2. One disadvantage of GMO labeling is that it could possibly hurt the free market economy. When consumers see the label that it contains genetically modified ingredients, it may turn them off from buying the product because they just assume that its bad for the body.
3. I would like to keep the options open. I feel that its worth funding the GMO movement partially, but not all of the funds should be in one "basket". An equal portion of funding should be going towards alternative methods to help our food crisis. There is not enough information to completely discredit the idea of GMO's but there is also no better option put in place yet, so no complete decisions should be made.
4. The TedTalks were interesting, I have already written a paper on GMO labeling in another class and watched so many talks and articles on this topic that I feel very informed on this. What I found most interesting at first was how much of our food is already genetically modified without any consumers actually knowing that. Over 80% of our corn and soybeans are genetically modified and Cheerios are made with this GMO corn. Its astounding how common these products already are without knowing.
I agree with you Sarah! What I find interesting if how much GMO plays a role in our lives and how it is consuming the industry. I understand your point on splitting up investments but I believe that since GMO role is played heavily within our lives, whether we realize or not, why not just refine what we know and invest in the research and advancement of the GMO's to possibly feed and help others globally.
DeleteI agree with you that we should not stop funding GMO's, but rather we should not put all our resources into it. Rather we should take baby steps, and take our time researching GMOs.
DeleteSarah, I found it interesting to read your point on how much food we consume is genetically modified. Cheerios are a popular breakfast meal! I agree with you; a lot of the food we eat has GMOs and yet some people neither notice nor care. Most of our parents grew up in an era where there was no possibility for research of GMO labeling, and for the most part, seem to continue living a healthy lifestyle. If there was a definite finding to GMO research, perhaps I would feel differently.
Delete1. An advantage of GMO labeling would give the consumer peace of mind to know what is in their food and to give them the freedom to choose what products they would want to consume based on their knowledge of the ingredients
ReplyDelete2. One disadvantage of GMO labeling Is that it can cause massive amounts of consumers to mistrust the labeling because they may not know what it means nor what is involved within the product. This fear would cause a huge uproar within the masses and eventually widespread pandemic causing a crippling effect toward the agricultural economy.
3. In my opinion, I believe that we should invest in the research and development of GMO’s. We as consumes are so used to GMO’s in our diet that we may not even realize it completely. Almost everything we consume, excluding organic foods, contain GMO’s and there has not been enough backlash from the masses to change the way we operate and harvest crops. I believe that with research into improving GMO’s, the possibilities for what we can do with it are limitless.
4. The TedTalks are a always useful and interesting as they bring ideas into light in a new and exciting way. I am very confortable with the topic of GMO’s from my prior background from my biotechnology classes which introduced us into the biotech industry and the agricultural aspect of what it takes to make these products. Interestingly enough, I have learned that GMO’s are in everything from our childhood cereals of Cheerios and Frosted Flakes, to beauty products and house hold applicances. I admidred Bohanec's focus on GMO crops as a way to make pesticide independent crops because in the long run this would feed many more people without putting the environment at risk from the toxins involved.
Reuben,
DeleteI agree with your point on creating label mistrust with consumers. I really liked your point on how GMO's can be found in make up and household appliances, because its so true that not many people think about that aspect when they think about consumer GMO ingredients. I would definitely be interested in learning more about about the connection between biotechnology and GMO's.
Reuben, I like your point about about how much GMO consumption we have, and how we might not even realize it. I agree with you that we should continue are funding for GMO research and development in order to improve the quality of GMO products. Lastly, I appreciated your point where you mention Bohanec's focus on GMO crops as a method of producing more food to feed more individuals at a lesser risk of toxins.
ReplyDelete1. One advantage of GMO labeling is that it keeps the customer informed when making decisions on what to buy in the grocery store. This will make them choose if they want to buy these products with or without these preservatives.
ReplyDelete2. One disadvantage of GMO labeling is that it could potentially lead to an increase of household food costs of an extra $400 per household per year.
3. I think that it is important for us to continue research and development in GMO so that more people are aware of these products that are put in our everyday foods. If there is research in this area, then we will be able to know other preservatives that companies are putting into our foods that could be banned else where and we could look into the affects of these ingredients. That with more information about GMOs, more people will be educated and hopefully people/policy makers can make more informed decisions.
4. The TedTalks always prove to be useful and interesting. I was especially intrigued with the first one, especially when the presenter was saying how there has been an increase in herbicide crops due to GE crops. Since 1996, they have increased to about 500 million pounds. More specifically this is creating much more dependance which is creating more issues. For instance, now the chemical Glyphosate is found in 60-100% of rain and air samples--which means we are literally breathing in these chemicals.
I agree that a disadvantage to GMOs is the increased cost to each household, however, what about safety concerns? Would you rather pay a little more now and stay healthy, or have a chance at becoming sick in the future? I find the increase in herbicide use astonishing—500 million pound increase since 1996 is such a significant amount! I think that we definitely need to find alternative methods to mass herbicide spraying because like you said, it is causing lots of issues and resistance. Finding alternative methods to herbicide spraying should be a priority.
Delete1. One advantage of GMO labeling is consumer certainty and consumer choice. People are much happier when they know exactly how their food was produced. Labeling will allow consumers to decide for themselves whether or not to consume GMO foods. People who are worried about its effects on their children can take comfort in the fact that they can definitely avoid all GMO foods.
ReplyDelete2. One disadvantage of GMO labeling is that consumers may avoid food that could be beneficial to them. Bohanec gives two examples of how genetically engineering food could be beneficial. The black tomato has anti-carcinogenic properties and golden rice could reduce vitamin A deficiencies in millions of people. There is a potential of GMO foods to reduce risk of death and yet many consumers will avoid these products if they are labeled.
3. I personally do not think alternatives to genetically engineering food are necessary. GMO’s have been found to be generally safe, I do not think we need more studies proving that. Instead, I propose research and development efforts should go towards creating pesticides that are less harmful to the environment. Another idea is developing another method to inject plants with pesticides reducing possible environmental damage and reducing the volume of chemicals we may be breathing in. Potential health effects from eating GMOs should not be a concern. If we are worried about what we are eating, there are many other ingredients that are added to foods that are not approved by the FDA (these foods are called GRAS, or Generally Recognized as Safe), and while many of these ingredients actually are safe,
4. I found Bohanec’s Ted Talk to be more convincing than Hirshberg’s. I actually was fully in agreement with Hirshberg about the fact that Americans have a right to know what is in the food that is being sold. However, Hirshberg then went on to suggest that GMO’s are harming us and the environment. His example of the correlation between pesticides and ADHD was completely unconvincing. Correlation is not cause and effect. There have been other hypotheses to why ADHD is increasing in this country, such as over-diagnosis or previous under-diagnosis. I learned that there are over 1700 studies concluding that GMOs are generally safe. This argument was more persuasive than one study suggesting a correlation.
Hey Jordan!
DeleteI agree with you on the research and development of less harmful pesticides. I don't necessarily think GMOs are 100% safe but you are right in saying that these health concerns are not completely valid, or at least not worthy of the extreme amount of attention they are receiving. I do think that a focus on less harm to the environment and less chemical influences on our foods is crucial. Besides, it would probably be a more reasonable approach than let's say shutting down all GMO crops or looking for a completely new way of producing foods that is equally efficient.
GMO labeling will alleviate the concerns of consumers who believe they have the right to know what their food contains. In turn, GMO labeling will restore consumer confidence and transparency to the American food system. We live in a free market economy and consumers need to be able to make educated and informed decisions. Without GMO labeling, it is difficult to make such educated and informed decisions about which foods consume.
ReplyDeleteOne disadvantage of GMO labeling is that it could force some GMO foods off the market. If there is a sudden and significant decrease in purchases of certain foods once labeled as GMO, it could in the future push those products off the market. In turn, this would negatively affect those employed by businesses that produce or are involved with GMO foods.
I support continuous research and development of GMOs. The demand for food is increasing due to the increasing size of the world’s population. Climate change is also going to make it increasingly difficult to feed the world, and without GMOs our future food-wise looks pretty dire unless GMOs are in the picture. I believe that we need to continue research and development on GMOs because just because something is “made” and isn’t natural, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it is bad. Unfortunately, we do not have endless natural resources, so we need to plan before the natural resources diminish. The biggest priority for scientists should be to show conclusive evidence on the safety of GMOS. For a lot of consumers, safety is the biggest priority and it is imperative to the GMO industry that safety is checked periodically. Golden Rice, a GMO, has done wonders in preventing vitamin A deficiency (VAD), which causes 500,000 cases of irreversible blindness and up to two million deaths each year. Unfortunately, some countries with the highest rates of VAD ban the use of Golden Rice due to safety concerns (http://www.goldenrice.org). These safety concerns need to be addressed in order for GMOs to be accepted worldwide as an “alternative” to natural foods because in the future, the vast majority of everything we eat will be a GMO. It is important to always be researching and developing methods to tackle the food supply in order to find the best solution to the problem, even if that happens not to be GMOs.
In the Ted Talk about labeling GMOs by Gary Hirshberg, I learned that the US does not require GMOs to be labeled. I assumed prior to watching these Ted Talks and reading the articles that all GMOs were required to be labeled. Like the Ted Talk stated, the EU, Japan, Brazil, Russia, and even China require GMO labels, so I find it shocking that the US does not. For such an advanced, western society it seems ridiculous that the FDA/US government hasn’t mandated labels. I was also really surprised to hear that 75% of the food we eat is a GMO. With such a high percentage of our food being GMOs I believe that it is important for the FDA to listen to the voice of the consumer and publish labels on GMOs, even if this leads to higher costs for food.
1. One advantage of GMO labeling is that it would allow consumers to choose if they want to purchase a GMO food item. Some consumers have very strong opinions about GMO food so they should be allowed to make the decision to eat it or not.
ReplyDelete2. One disadvantage of GMO labeling is that it will increase food costs for consumers. In addition, if the regulations are state by state, it will make it more difficult for farmers, manufacturers and grocers to comply with them.
3. I think that we should continue to use resources to research GMOs, but that we should be very selective about the projects we invest in. If we continue to work on projects that have a more aesthetic goal, like the apples that do not brown, then it may be a slippery slope to adopt a number of other projects that will waste resources that could be used on much more valuable projects.
4. I had no idea that 90% of soy in the U.S. is now genetically engineered. However, I found it more shocking that 85% of corn in the U.S. is now genetically engineered. So many of the things that make up our diets have some sort of corn product involved in their production so this genetically engineered corn is present in 75% of the processed foods we consume.
I really like your point concerning GMO research and being selective in the projects we choose to take part in. I agree with your opinion about the browning apples. When I read the piece all I could think about was that I don't care about whether or not my apples turn brown. I think projects like this could cost the consumers money, and specifically I think it could cost the consumer even more money than simply labeling the GMO foods. I didn't connect the fact that most of our corn is genetically modified which means that a lot of the food containing corn has GM ingredients so I'm glad you pointed that out.
Delete1. One of the primary advantages of GMO labeling is providing valuable information to consumers. This allows consumers to make their own choice about whether or not to consume GMO foods. The CNN article brought up a great point that “we don’t want to be the guinea pigs” unknowingly for new food technologies.
ReplyDelete2. The main disadvantage of labeling GMO foods is the cost to the suppliers and producers of food products. Farmers, food manufacturing, and distribution would all suffer additional regulatory costs and thus pass these on to the consumers. Labeling of safe products with GMO labels could also cause stigma towards these products and cause undo fear within the population.
3. I think that GMO’s are going to be an essential element in feeding our ever-increasing world population in the coming decades. Without GMO’s the world will face increasing food shortages and famine. The disadvantages of potential harm from by-products are vastly outweighed by the dangers of starvation. At its core this question is a rather morbid “lesser of two evils” debate but humanity is already pushing the carrying capacity of the earth and without these technologies we will not be able to sustainably support our population. Obviously alternative methods should be vigorously researched as well but turning our back on things like Vitamin A producing rice and pest-resistant corn out of fear of potential health concerns is naïve.
4. I found the Ted talk given by Gary Hirshberg interesting and persuasive. I was unaware that so many other countries had mandatory labeling laws when the US did not. His comparison to irradiated food was also powerful in showing that proving safety is not the object of labeling. The miscommunication between the US patent office and the FDA was also a great example of the government can send mixed messages when pressured by big business.
I agree with your views in response to the third question. I think GMO food are going to be crucial to maintain a sustainable food source of our large population. The dangers or not so much that they can't be overcome by the benefits of harvesting GMO foods.
Delete1. One advantage of GMO labeling is that it provides buyers with important information about the products that they are buying. Consumers should be given the right to know what is in their food and what it is composed of.
ReplyDelete2. One disadvantage of GMO labeling is the cost. By labeling GMO products, manufacturers and distributors would have to pay more leading to an increase in cost for the buyers and consumers.
3. GMO's are definitely important for our increasing population. They provide millions of people with food and increase our food supply. We should continue using resources to increase GMO products, but we should also be selective in our research. As the population continues to increase, we are going to need to increase our research and make the most of what we have.
4. Hirshberg's talk was extremely interesting, however he ruined it in the end. He said that GMO's in the US does not require them to be labeled. Also, he states that the majority of food in the US are GMO grown. For example, 90% of corn in the US is genetically modified which is a huge number. I disagree with Hirshberg when he said that GMO's are hazardous and affecting our health. GMO's are essential, but maybe not to this degree.
I completely agree that GMO products are crucial to sustain our growing population. While it would be nice to support local farms and less monopolized businesses I do no think they have to man power or resources to supply our growing population. I also agree with the disadvantage that labeling will be extremely expensive for producers. I remember when a few years back there was a huge uproar when the FDA wanted to change the appearance of the nutritional info. To effectively be accepted by the public I think researchers need to determine potential health outcomes (positive and negative) to determine if labeling would be worth the cost
DeleteWhile there are many, one advantage of labeling products with GMO information is that it allows consumers to make healthier decisions when shopping at the grocery store. Perhaps if one knew a certain product had preservatives they would not purchase it in order to make a different lifestyle choice. Knowing exactly what you are feeding yourself or others is extremely important in the American food system. However, GMO labeling is extremely costly. Consumers pay more at the grocery store because producers pay more for food manufacturing and supplying such products with labels. This could lead to a decrease in demand of GMO labeled products, which negatively affects farmers and food suppliers whose livelihoods rely on consumer demand.
ReplyDeleteAs a society, I believe that it will be beneficial to continue researching about the GMO movement and development so we can gain more knowledge on what is detrimental to our bodies and what is not harmful at all. Before the GMO movement, people consumed food with preservatives because that was the only option. Personally, GMOs don’t seem to be as harmful as other substances that people consume, such as cigarette smoke and excessive amounts of alcohol. That being said, more research needs to be done in order to solidify the harmful consequences of ingesting food with GMOs.
I have read a few articles on GMO research in my Sargent classes, but something new I learned from Bohanec’s Ted Talk was how much money is going into protest against GMOs. Greenpeace spent $7 million dollars on such protests, and while I applaud them for their energy and compassion toward the subject, $7 million dollars is a lot to spend on protesting something that may or may not be harmful. That kind of money can be used toward projects which have valid and definite conclusions from research.
While reading through many people's comments (including my own) we said that GMOs should be invested in because it would help with food supply. I like that you took a different route and advocated for GMOs in terms of research. Many people oppose GMOs because it is unknown what they do to our bodies, but how will we know what they ultimately do if we don't consume them to find out? Eating GMOs and seeing results later is no different to a new drug being tested on humans approved by the FDA (except for the fact that GMOs don't need to be approved by the FDA). There are many drugs that have been passed by the FDA and recalled and in the case of GMOs we might have to wait and see if they will be "recalled". Overall, your research perspective is refreshing and I think it's really important to focus on this view just as much as the "feeding populations" view.
Delete1.
ReplyDeleteAn advantage of GMO labeling is that consumers are provided with the option of choosing whether or not they want to purchase or consume GMO foods. It gives consumers an indication of which foods are modified vs. not modified and this provides consumers with increased freedom in choosing what foods they would like to eat.
2.
A disadvantage of GMO labeling is that it can cause individuals to fear purchasing genetically modified foods. The individuals might not understand what GMO foods are and may abstain from purchasing them. Additionally, if they believe that GMO foods will cause negative side effects in the body, they will be less likely to purchase those foods.
3.
I think that as the population increases, and there is need for an increased food supply, it is important to continue to fund GMO research and development. Through investing our resources in GMO foods, we can increase the amount of food we produce, and at a higher rate in order to adequately support the population. Through increased research and funding for GMO foods, more individuals will also be educated about genetically modified foods.
4.
I found the TedTalks very informative and interesting. I found Hirshberg’s TedTalk particularly interesting. I don’t have very much experience with the topic of genetically modified organisms/foods, but I was surprised to find out that the United States does not require GMOs to be labeled. I would have assumed that labeling would be a required component of selling those foods, and was also surprised to find out that countries such as Russia, China, Brazil and Syria require labeling. Lastly, Hirshberg also mentions that the data indicates that the average U.S. citizen is unaware of the extent to which genetically modified foods contribute to our diets. I found this fact very surprising, but knowing that the U.S. doesn’t label the GMO foods, it is understandable that the average citizen would be unaware of this.
I think you point about the disadvantage of GMO is very interesting. I agree with you that if people see a GMO able they might be less likely to buy because they don't understand that GMO food is safe or else it wouldn't be able to be sold. I think some people would play into the propaganda around it and decrease the sales of GMO foods.
DeleteI think the point you brought up about education is extremely important; so many people are afraid of GMOs because they don't understand exactly what it means. yes, there may be consequences, but there has also been a lot of research supporting their safe use. We need the genetically modified traits to help with feeding the growing population, so it's something we will have to teach about and do the best we can.
Delete1) One advantage of GMO labeling is that it would allow the consumer to know more about the food they are consuming. Just as some people want to know whether their food is organic or not many people want to know whether their food is genetically engineered or not.
ReplyDelete2) One disadvantage of GMO labeling is that it will take companies more time and money to go through the labeling process. This could result in higher prices for the consumer in order to cover the cost of labeling the food and the extra time taken. Seeing as how so many foods are genetically modified, this could cost a lot.
3) As the population increases, not only in the U.S. but worldwide, I think that we should continue investing in research and the development of GE foods. In his TED Talk Mr. Bohanec showed that some GE foods don't need to be sprayed with as many chemicals because the plants have been modified to resist whatever may be trying to damage it. He showed the GE foods can save resources like water and grow in conditions that non-GE may not do as well in (e.g. drought). He also showed that GE foods that have been enriched with certain vitamins/nutrients/etc. and can help in places like third world countries where many people lack these vitamins and ultimately suffer in cases where GE foods can he helpful and lifesaving. The fact that GE crops yield more is also helpful in the case of third world countries, and elsewhere with growing populations, because you will get more food for less money as opposed to non GE crops that yield less. I also support the continuation of research and development of GE crops because, so far, they haven't shown to be detrimental to health. (While they haven't shown to be particularly good, they also haven't shown to be particularly bad).
4) I liked both of the Ted Talks. Initially I thought that the speaker of the first Ted Talk Mr. Hirshberg was talking about refusing GE foods, but then I realized that he was simply talking about labeling the foods so that people know what they are buying and consuming. I think this was important to notice because there is a huge difference between rejecting GE foods and just saying that they should be labeled. While I did like both, the second talk by Mr. Bohanec was more appealing to me. I liked that fact that he talked about how GE foods are good because so many people automatically think that GE foods are a negative thing. I also think it was important that he talked about the testing of GE foods so much because this is one of the major things opposers of GE foods target (that they aren't tested when they are). Something I learned was that GE foods can be patented by the company that altered it and that a lot of the food we already eat is genetically modified (~75%). I do wish that there was more in these sources about genetically modified animals. I think that GE animals should be more of a concern than GE produce.
I found the disadvantage of GMO labeling you presented to be very interesting. I had only thought of the effects it would have on the consumers and not so much regarding the costs incurred by the suppliers. And I do agree with you that we should continue to invest in research and development of GMO products. Currently there are so many benefits of GMO products and not enough evidence on the possible risks to necessitate other forms of food production.
DeleteNatalie,
DeleteI had also assumed that Hirshberg was arguing the need to ban genetically modified foods from the public market before realizing he was more chiefly concerned with their proper labeling. I think you bring up a great point when you say "there is a huge difference between rejecting GE foods and just saying that they should be labelled" - you leave open the possibility that genetically modified foods can be a part of our future, as long as they are adequately labelled. I fully agree with this, too - labeling creates a level of trust between the consumer and producer. The consumer is given the power to decide what they want to consume, and what they do not, and the producer is providing important information without deception.
1.An advantage in labeling the food is that it provides the consumer with all of the facts. A consumer should be able to know if they are eating genetically altered foods and be able to make the choice to put in their bodies or choose a more natural food.
ReplyDelete2.The main disadvantage of labeling the GMO is the extra costs that the producer, distributor and consumer has to pay to have the labels on the food. They need to pay an increased cost to do the research for the safety of the GMO and the actual creation of the GMO, which increases the cost on the consumer.
3.I think that we should continue to fund research and development for GMO. I believe that the benefits of having the genetically engineered food that will be more sustainable outweighs the safety risks that they may be posing. I'm not sure that I would go as far as something like removing the ability for an apple to brown, but I think as a whole, genetically engineered foods make our country a more sustainable food source.
4. I was a bit shocked that 90% of soy isgenetically engineered. As a vegetarian, I eat a lot of soy-based products and was unaware of just how much my food content could be genetically engineered. I am not worried about it being unsafe, but I think it beings me back to the first question, meaning I wish the food was labeled so I could make an informed decision.
I don't think genetically modified foods make a more sustainable food source. I think the problem with hunger not just in the US but across the world is not that there is a shortage of food but that there is poor management and distribution of food. Tons of food is thrown out because of inadequate storage methods and as waste. In america so much food is wasted daily that could be given to hungry people instead of being trashed.
DeleteI agree that countries show poor management and distribution of food sources, especially in the United States! Food is often times wasted and thrown out which is partially responsible for the food shortage that will more commonly be faced. I also feel that in America, we take food for granted sometimes and forget that people are dealing with hunger and starvation in other countries. However I do believe that GMO could help address this problem, if of course it can be proven safe and effective.
Delete
ReplyDelete1. An advantage of having all genetically modified products be labeled is that it would allow the informed consumer to decide whether or not they want to buy these products. Not all consumers will have read up on GMOs yet there are a number of us who have valid opinions backed by things we’ve read, seen or heard. Whether or not they are safe, there are many people who intentionally choose the organic or naturally grown products simply for the fact that they believe natural is better. Without labeling, these people feel less confident in the products they buy. Also, the fact that the FDA does not have to approve products for human consumption may not prove they are unfit to eat, however we should allow the consumer to decide whether or not to take that risk.
2. A disadvantage of requiring the labeling of genetically enhanced products first off would be the literal cost to the farmer’s and companies who must work around the laws. Next, the labeling of these products will produce a stigma against genetically modified products. Consumers will assume that if it is specifically but on the label that the product is bad, which is not necessarily true.
3. I think that the potential benefits of research on genetically modified foods is so vast that it would be foolish to abandon the cause. Hypothetically, if we could find a way to safely produce better, more sustainable, longer lasting food products, why would we not!? Yes, I believe there may be some products which have not been tested enough to be distributed to the public, however I also believe there are researchers who are genuinely interested in helping solve world hunger and are not just in the business for the potential monetary profit. I think honestly that many of the protesters are in fact uneducated on the science behind GMOs and many may have just jumped on the bandwagon. This propaganda war assumes that only one side can prevail and it is not true. Just because a product is labeled natural or genetically modified does not deem it good or bad, the result is relative.
4. To be honest, I have not done sufficient research on GMOs yet if you were to ask me what connotation it has to me, I would say somewhat negative. I actually enjoyed Borut Bohanec’s Ted talk because it was a new perspective to me. At first I felt he was just a researcher who was hired by a GMO based research company to clear the name of genetically enhanced food products. However, after listening to him, he was objective at times, admitting that people may choose as they please but science has the answer. I did not realize that there were so many peer reviewed articles supporting GMO research. At the end of the videos and articles I am still neutral on the subject. I realize that one GE tomato may be perfectly safe compared to another genetically enhanced product which is less safe. It is research I’ll have to pursue in my own time.
I think you point about the disadvantage of GMO is very interesting. I agree with you that if people see a GMO able they might be less likely to buy because they don't understand that GMO food is safe or else it wouldn't be able to be sold. I think some people would play into the propaganda around it and decrease the sales of GMO foods.
DeleteI agree that sales may decrease, however labeling will not "produce a stigma" because the stigma already exists, like it or not, from the debate over GMOs since their introduction to the market in 1996. Consumers deserve to know what's in their food and if labeling does decrease sales, then corporations can fund education campaigns to combat the impact of the stigma.
Delete1. GMO labeling is advantageous because it allows consumers to make informed decisions when purchasing food. Without labels, there is no way for people to differentiate and avoid GMO products.
ReplyDelete2. A major disadvantage of GMO labeling is the resulting discrimination toward the products. Although the health effects of GMO products is a very controversial topic, there have been no solid evidence that prove an association between the consumption of GMO and increased health and environmental risks. Labeling could falsely imply risks and reduce the demand for the products when there is technically nothing wrong with them.
3. I support the further research and development of GMO products. With the global population on the rise, I believe it is important to keep increasing the efficiency of food production in order to meet and keep up with the demands. However, I also believe that there should be more research on the health and environmental risks of GMO products before they are approved for agriculture and consumption. I don’t believe that alternative methods of food production is really necessary unless we discover risks of GMO products that are unfixable by further genetic alterations, which I believe is rather unlikely.
4. I found the TedTalks to be very informative and thought provoking. A very interesting point that was presented by Borut Bohanec at TEDxLjubljana regarding genetic engineering of Camelina plant containing omega-3 fatty acids. There is so much talk about the possible risks associated with GMO products that it was refreshing to hear about a health benefit of GMO. Although I believe in further research and development of GMO products, I agree wholeheartedly with Gary Hirshberg regarding GMO labeling. Consumers should have the right to make informed decisions on whether they want to ingest GMO products or not, whether it be for health, religious, or environmental reasons. What particularly shocked me was that the US has fallen behind countries like Russia and Syria in mandating GMO labeling. I strongly believe that the US should follow suit as soon as possible to allow and respect consumer choice.
I agree with your comment that labeling could falsely imply risks, especially with how the media tends to twist information, as we had seen in the genetic testing video in class about the "cheating" gene. I feel that if labeling is done, companies will have to do a lot of advertising to combat the negative media that is already out on GMOs.
Delete1. An advantage of GMO labeling is that it grants consumers the ability to choose what types of food and what material they want to consume. The first TedTalk mentioned how many religious communities are opposed to GMO’s and 92% of Americans say that they’d prefer to know if the food they are consuming has been genetically modified. It is the right of the consumer to be able to be informed on what they are eating, and this is an advantage of GMO labeling.
ReplyDelete2. A disadvantage of GMO labeling is it may result in unnecessary distrust and boycotting of potentially beneficial food products. Many people see GMO’s as a dangerous and impure product that should be avoided, and as a result, many food products that could benefit the public health of a community are not able to be on the market because of its negative connotation associated with being labeled as a GMO.
3. I do believe that we should continue investing in research and development in GMO. GMO’s have the potential to benefit communities greatly, providing the necessary nutrition that could prevent disease and disability. An increase of research on these beneficial GMO’s could greatly benefit the world’s public health. Furthermore, if more research is done on the safety and benefits of GMO’s and this information becomes accessible to the public, this could help reduce the negative stigma that prevents potentially beneficial GMO’s from being sold on the market.
4. Both the TedTalks were very interesting, however, I was more convinced by Bohanec’s talk then that of Hirshberg’s. I appreciated Bohanec’s acknowledgement of the benefits brought about by GMOs. I was interested to learn about the power of protestors in keeping GMOs off the market, even when they could help lessen the incidence of disease. There is a negative stigma attached to GMO’s that tend to overshadow the huge potential they hold in the field of public health. However, I did agree with Hirshberg’s argument that GMOs should be labeled because consumers do have the right to know what they are consuming.
I really agree with the idea that stigma and ardent protests that come with GMOs overshadow what they actually can offer. I think this is possibly a harm to public health, so I was interested to learn this in the TedTalks also.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteVermont is a maverick in that it is the first state to enact a law requiring the labeling of food that has genetically modified ingredients; and they have even set an effective date in which manufacturers must begin doing so. Other states like Connecticut and Maine are beginning to follow suit despite some restrictive caveats, and a total of 28 US states have had some sort of GMO labeling legislation pending in 2014 (although none of these bills have passed). So why are some states pushing for GMO legislation? This is because GMO labeling puts the power in consumer’s hands to decide whether they want the food they, or their family, eats to be genetically modified, or not. For example, Vermont’s new labeling laws would require retail foods that have been in some way produced by way of genetic modification to have a label with the words “produced with genetic engineering” directly on them. These foods would not be allowed to bear the label of “natural” or “naturally grown.” This gives the consumer power and autonomy to make their own choices without being deceived by deceptive or unclear packaging or advertisements, and is a real advantage to the consumer. While GMO labeling may seem like a no-brainer to the consumer, it has its disadvantages, too. Those that oppose GMO labeling cite that these types of labeling requirements could ultimately cost consumer households a good deal of money (around $400). It would be unreasonable to think that this level of extra labeling would not be costly. Also, these new requirements could create hardships for farmers, grocers, manufacturers, and other producers who are having to comply with many sets of legislation at once.
ReplyDeleteIf genetically modified foods can be proven as a nutritious, cost-effective, and most importantly safe alternative to naturally-grown food, I have no reserves about investing in its continued research. As the world’s population continues to grow, it is inevitable that our food supply and resources will dwindle in the coming years. While I think the development and consumption of genetically modified foods is seen by the general public as something to consider in the distant future, I believe we should begin funding its research now, before it’s too late. However, I don’t think genetically modified foods will be our only option in the future, so it is important to continue to develop other techniques to help conserve, reuse, and create a more reproductive food supply.
The two TedTalks were both eye opening and alarming in their own ways, despite arguing converse and different points about genetically modified foods. In Gary Hirshberg’s talk on the importance of labeling GM food, I learned that there is a correlation between pesticide exposure and ADHD – a growing epidemic in our society. I also learned that there has been an explosion of herbicide resistance, and that we are constantly breathing in dangerous herbicides and consuming them through our drinking water. Gary’s main concern was not that GM food may be unsafe to our health, but that by modifying our food, we are introducing new bacteria, organisms, toxins, and allergens to our environment that would not have naturally occurred there otherwise. In Borut Bohanec’s talk about science and public fear in relation to genetically modified food, I learned that GM food is actually tested more than any other food, omega 3 fatty acids found in fish and plants can have numerous health benefits and can be found in genetically modified foods, and that there have been many acts of vandalism against GM crops and plantations in Europe, and there remains a lot of resistance to GM food there.
Clare,
DeleteThe relation between pesticide use and ADHD is frightening indeed! The harmful effects of pesticides and some other GMOs makes us wonder why we even have them in the first place. Unfortunately, pesticides and other GMOs are mostly used by producers as a means of supplying either more or better goods. Those suppliers perpetuate the use of them, and we as consumers don’t do nearly enough to stop them. It may sound simple to just stop buying GMO products, but because of the lack of GMO labeling, we either become unaware or ignorant shoppers. And all too often, we would choose the cheaper good, even if we know it *might* be a *bit* harmful to us because we don’t want to pay more for the seemingly same good.
1) An advantage to GMO labeling is giving consumers the right to know what they are buying and therefore giving them a choice of what kinds of food they want to consume. People have a right to free will and not disclosing the full information on their food would be a violation of that will.
ReplyDelete2) A disadvantage of providing GMO labeling is it drives up the price on non GMO items and possibly could give off false ideas about GMO products. Normally things that are required to be labeled by the FDA give off a negative connotation, which isn’t necessarily true about GMO products.
3) Moving forward, as the population continues to increase, I think we should pursue a combination of ideas. I think that research in GMO products should continue but we should not only depend on that we should look into alternate methods to support food supply. Without listening to the ted talks, in my opinion I generally think that for resources we can’t depend on one source of income. And furthermore, if research is done on GMO’s we can find out possible benefits of them and lower the price.
4) I thought that both the videos were interesting however I was intrigued by Bohanec’s idea regarding genetic engineering of Camelina plant containing omega-3 fatty acids. he was objective at times, admitting that people may choose as they please but science has the answer. I did not realize that there were so many peer reviewed articles supporting GMO research. I was also shocked to find out that 90% of soy is genetically engineered. It made me laugh a little because I know all the health guru’s love soy and its very popular in grassroots stores such as wholefoods which I found very ironic. It really reinforces the idea that you should read labels and you shouldn’t just shop somewhere because of a stigma or what “people say”. Get the facts before you make a life change such as going vegetarian or only shopping at whole foods.
I really like your idea of a combination of ideas to move forward. I think that there is a lot of potential with continued research into GMOs, but as you mentioned it is also important to look into alternative, cheaper methods
Delete1.) One advantage of labeling the Genetically modified foods in our grocery stores is to better identify causes to disease and illness in our populations. When a person goes to the doctor, it would be much more helpful for that doctor to find the root of a problem if the patient provides the diet they eat, especially if they are able to identify if the foods they ate were genetically modified or not. There is no proof that genetically modified organisms cause disease, but they are given new DNA, and that produces new proteins that were never supposed to be in that organism may be causing issues when digested in the human body.
ReplyDelete2.) A disadvantage of labeling the GMOs is that while it isn’t definite the GMOS are harmless, there is many ways we know they are beneficial. They help our food stay fresh so we throw out less food, it helps us get all our vitamins when our foods are fortified, and some of them are now grown bigger which allows us to enjoy more of the nutrients from those specific foods. Since “GMO” has in many places a negative connotation, and If we label all of the foods that contain genetically modified organisms with the current culture we have around them, those many people who do not respond well to the “GMO” label may not buy those foods and will not be getting the benefits of the GMOs that are not easy to get otherwise.
3.) Since our population is growing, I think that more testing should be done on the GMO foods, so we can make sure they are safe. We need to do tests on how they affect the human body. Then there should be a massive educational out bursting of how they affect people and explain the benefits and harms that are possible and then let people make their own choices.
4.) I was shocked to learn that as the number of food organisms becoming GMO increases, there was also an increase in herbicide use. Which is the opposite of what the goal was. But there was a decrease in the use of insecticides. I was wondering what the reason for this was. The point of GMOs was to make them perhaps unnatractive to other plants or to insects, so they wouldn’t be bothered by them. So why is it there is more need for herbicides, and less need for insecticides?
1. An advantage of GMO labeling is that it opens possible research opportunities so that we can finally answer long-asked questions both definitively and scientifically. For instance, we can observe the effects of GMOs in foods on public health by labeling the food.
ReplyDelete2. A disadvantage of GMO labeling is that it could possibly have a negative impact the United States’ existing free market economy. When consumers can obviously see that a certain food contains GMOs, it may turn them off from buying the product because they just assume that its bad for the body. They may be more inclined to pay a little bit more for non-GMOs, which could be both an advantage and a disadvantage.
3. I think that we can continue to research and progress GMOs, but in a safe and environmentally-friendly way. One huge disadvantage to GMOs is that some food species are actually going extinct. If producers and scientists worked together to produce better goods in a way that does not harm the species or us, then there is huge opportunity to produce more food and solve many global issues.
4. I thought that the TedTalks were interesting, engaging, and informative. While I did know some basic information about GMOs from high school, there was a lot that I realize I never knew, especially when it came to the GMO testing and labeling process. I was shocked when Gary Hirshberg said that genetically modified pharmaceutical drugs are not required to go through certain tests like animal testing, carcinogenicity tests, and detrimental fetal and neurological impact. It makes no sense to me that other drugs must go through such extensive testing, while GMOs do not, and I think that is one thing that definitely needs to change.
Stephanie,
DeleteI never thought to look at the disadvantages to labelling GMOs in consideration to the price of the product. I only considered the consumer's preference when it came to labelling GMOs, but I do think there is a valid point of looking into the price change. People I believe would be more inclined to pay more for a GMO and companies would most likely take this into consideration when they are pricing their products in comparison to products that are not GMOs. There are both disadvantages and advantages to this and I believe that because of these facts there is a good argument for not labelling a GMO.
Hey Stephanie,
DeleteI completely agree with your advantages and disadvantages to GMO labeling. I also agree to your point about to continue research towards GMO products. To add on to your argument, with the exponentially growing population in the US, scientists need to figure out ways to prevent food shortages in our country. Once we figure our own problem out, we can then expand globally and help food shortage in developing nations. People do not realize how much we may rely on GMO crops in future as our population grows and yet there is still a negative stigma towards it. Thanks!
-Kelvin
1. An advantage of labeling GMOs is that it would inform the public of what they are eating. People should be able to reserve the right to know what they are consuming, so it would simply allow consumers to make their own decisions on what type of product they choose to eat.
ReplyDelete2. A disadvantage of labeling GMOs is that it is not proven that they are unsafe, and it inherently gives the impression that it is harmful. But the truth is, we do not have evidence they are unsafe, so an uneducated person may choose not to purchase a GMO simply because of the labeling.
3. I believe we should continue investing in research of GMOs. I think this should be done because there are a lot of potential positives, such as building omega-3 or vitamin A into foods. GMOs also offer higher yields because they have pesticides built into them. In the US, there are few food shortages, but in developing countries shortages are a huge issue. By turning down these larger crop yields, it is potentially cutting off a possible solution to much hunger in the world. But, I believe that there should be more money put into the research of the effects of GMOs. If there were papers widely circulating that definitively showed there are no adverse effects, then more people would be far more confident in the crops.
4. When watching both of the TedTalks, my first reaction was that I needed to try to keep an objective eye. Both speakers were very confident in their viewpoints, so I noted the bias. But, I did learn some new things, specifically one thing that interested me was that the US gives out patents for GMOs. I thought this was interesting because if it is patented, then it shows they are different which made me more in favor of labeling GMOs. This also made me aware of how something that could help global public health in general may be prohibited due to a patent lawsuit, which is alarming.
Hey Kerrin,
DeleteI enjoyed reading your response, particularly your last paragraph. I like how you mentioned the confidence of the speakers themselves, rather than only mentioning the content as most of us (including myself) did. You also point out bias, and I think it’s significant that Gary Hirshberg is a former president and CEO of Stonyfield Farm, an organic yogurt producer. Obviously he wants to promote organic, non GM food! Similarly, Bohanec is a biotechnologist, so it makes sense for him to sing the praises of biologically engineered products. While these traits make the presenters more qualified to speak about the subjects, I wonder if there’s any conflicts of interest because of it.
Your comments about patents also reminded me of what we learned about BRCA1 testing and Myriad Genetics. Do patents make things more accessible to consumers financially, or do they put too much censorship power in the hands of the companies and courts?
1. An advantage of GMO labeling is the ability to give consumers the knowledge and choice of what they are eating
ReplyDelete2. A disadvantage of GMO labeling is that it is expensive to label the products and thus will slow the commercialization of the GM products.
3. I think we should still be researching GMO’s because the fact is there is no conclusive and long-term evidence that shows that GMO are dangerous to our health. What I think the US government should do it ensure that GMO food are labeled and the public is made aware, the GMO companies should be transparent so that if something is wrong it can be easily checked and corrected. Because there are benefits of GMO we just need to determine if the risks are worth those benefits and give people the option of whether they want to eat GMO’s or not.
4. I think the TED talks were very informative. I particularly like the first one by Gary Hirshberg. He was very engaging and made the TED talk light and funny. I think one of things I was shocked to learn about was that tour use of herbicides has actually increased with the use of GMO’s. Which is contrary to what we had been told that GMO’s would help tot reduce the use to herbicides. I enjoyed the Gary Hirshberg Ted talk because he was more objective about the GMO’s he wasn’t saying we should label them good or bad. He jus wanted consumer to be able to have the information to know what they are eating. Where as the TED talk by Bohanec did not talk about labeling the foods and giving people the option to chose and now what’s in their food.
While I agree that labeling GM foods obviously creates a greater expensive for these companies, I also believe that they can easily afford this. The GM food industry is rapidly growing (in over 75% of processed foods in the US) and is the future of food production with the growing population worldwide. If they are so confident that their products are safe then they can only save themselves time and effort debating these topics by labeling their foods.
Delete1. One obvious advantage of GMO Labeling would be that it would give the consumer knowledge exactly where their food came from so they consumer can make their own choices about what they want to eat.
ReplyDelete2. A disadvantage of GMO Labeling is that because the effects of eating modified foods is not very well known labeling them could increase a negative stigma and deter people from eating this food that might not be all that bad.
3. As the population increases I think that increasing the development of GMO is a viable option for affordable food. As of now genetic modification is allowing for the mass production of crops the population needs without the high expenses of growing traditional crops. It is an affordable way to ensure the majority and maybe less economically stable portion of the population will be able to get food.
4. I was very surprised by how many other countries require the labeling of GMO foods while the US is not. In today’s age a majority of the modern US diet is processed foods 75% of which said to be genetically modified. I was so surprised by this because that is an enormous number and I had no idea that a majority of what I was eating was genetically modified. Even though knowing a food is genetically modified probably would not deter me from buying the product. By not having it shown it gives the public a negative perception that genetic modification is bad for you.
I found it very interesting that you mentioned the negative stigma that could come from labeling GMO's. Although there are suspected negative outcomes that could come from eating such foods, research has not yet determined the actual health effects of this technology. I think for this reason a negative stigma comes from this idea and that labeling could decrease sales of these products. I also found it very interesting that you would increase funding for GMO's with the increasing rise of the world population. Typically individuals think of this technology as harmful and dangerous, but I do agree with you that at this time, this type of farming could be the only efficient way to feed the entire world. As for future issues with food shortages, I do believe that research and funding should be invested in other types of safer techniques so that individuals know that they are consuming beneficial crops.
Delete1) A positive of GMO labeling would be that for those who object to the concept of GMOs or see them as “God moving over”, they could more easily exercise their right to freedom of religion when making grocery purchases.
ReplyDelete2) A negative of GMO labeling is that GE company sales could decrease since such a stigma has been built around the word GMO by both informed parties and less informed, bandwagon consumers. Additionally, companies claim price increases due to packaging revisions would cost each family about $400 extra per year. (However, the GMO phrase would only have to be added once and then would just be a default part of packaging in following years so wouldn’t that $400 increase only be experienced once?)
3) The problem with the US’s agricultural system overall is that it’s depleting and polluting our resources faster than necessary because it’s driven by big corporations wanting to make money. If a future GMO would help feed an increasing population while requiring less irrigation and fewer chemicals then I might support it. However, it is unlikely that the cycle of “chemical inflation” will stop and chemical use will decrease because many developers of GMO crops are also insecticide/herbicide producers like Monsanto (http://modernfarmer.com/2014/03/monsantos-good-bad-pr-problem/). They’re not going to shoot themselves in the foot by designing a plant that would require a decrease in sales of their other products.
We need to return to more sustainable farming practices that won’t exhaust the soil, pollute the air or our dwindling drinking water sources, or result in mutant weeds from accidental cross-pollination. We need to increase biodiversity by not depending so heavily on soy and corn and by using a wider variety of species of each crop. This may require decentralization (aka removing or restricting corporations like Monsanto) of the entire US food system and reestablishing small farms and eating locally or at least regionally.
4) Even prior to this, my personal theory was that GMOs are like accelerating evolution, but there’s a reason evolution takes so long; it has to work out a lot of quirks and how do we know if we accounted for all of them when we only take a decade to change a species rather than 100 years? Also, the human body has not been altered at the same rate as these GE food sources so it’s possible our bodies don’t know how to properly process them.
Despite keeping an open mind, I reacted very strongly to these videos. Regardless of which side is right, I disagree with Bohanec’s presentation tactics of generating fear and sympathy for the anti-labeling cause by associating his opposition to completely different subjects like the hated Nazis and the tragedy of children dying in one of the most disease burdened regions of the world. Drawing these associations with unrelated causes is distracting and brings unnecessary emotion into the GMO debate.
In regards to Bohanec’s claims about the GMO, Golden Rice solving the problem of vitamin A deficiency, there are cheaper, less controversial methods like droplet campaigns that have been implemented in that part of the world already and been widely successful for only $1.25 per child per year (http://www.cgdev.org/page/case-4-reducing-child-mortality-through-vitamin-nepal). Additionally, through vitamin A droplet campaigns, large corporations would not be profiting off the health of the poor from the use of their patented plant.
There’s not enough room for my other reactions and questions (like who funded the 1700 studies that Bohanec referenced—maybe not all but some were likely funded by the GMO patent owners).
Logan, I like your comment on the need to diversify the U.S. crop and food supply as that was not something I originally considered. I do agree that corn and soy are too heavily relied on in this country, so perhaps adding new foods to the food supply can help shift the balance towards a more sustainable food system. I also like your idea about having more sustainable farming practices and I think it's bold that you suggested we decentralize the farming practices and big agriculture regimes in this country. I like the idea of returning to a "simpler" time with small, home town farmers. There has been a big push lately for that kind of farming, especially locally, so I hope this is a trend that can continue and grow. If the consumers advocate for it, then it can happen.
DeleteI like your point about there being other ways to get efficient nutrients without resorting to GM products. I think the media makes it appear as if GMOs are the only way to successfully feed the population but this clearly isn't so.
DeleteLogan, I think you make a great point that others overlooked when talking about the benefits of labeling GMOs. Whether or not there is any real nutritional difference, people still have a right to know whether or not they are consuming food that they consider to be "God's work." In a similar manner, we respect others who only eat Koshered or Halal food, and not taking religious beliefs into account could be considered a violation of religious freedom (since their choice would be taken away).
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAdvantage to labeling GMO's - labeling foods with GMO's allows consumers to make their own decisions on which foods they purchase. Hopefully it would encourage more knowledge sharing about what GMO actually means and what the benefits are
ReplyDeleteDisadvantage to labeling GMOs - they aren't necessarily "bad" for you, and many people would limit their intake of many foods because they see the GMO label and wrongfully assume they are.
Yes, I believe there should be continued research in the area of GMO's. Whether or not there are more that are introduced, most of the crops consumed are already modified in some way. It is important to continue to study these and what the long term results and effects could be. However, that doesn't mean that alternate methods cannot be explored.
I learned that there are crops that can survive climate changes! I wasn't aware that there were modifications that could prevent crops from dying in extreme heat, etc.
Though I think that there should not be excessive use of GMO, I think you are correct that there is so much modification crops anyways it may be counter productive to attempt to go back to a less modified food source. However, I think more traditional farming techniques might be safer in the long run because there is not the risk of possible creating a malicious combination between two crops.
Delete1. An advantage of the GMO labelling is that consumers can make their decisions to buy naturally grown or genetically modified food.
ReplyDelete2. A disadvantage of the GMO labelling is the safety that comes with genetically modified food. In the CNN link, it states that there are not enough human studies with genetically modified products. This lead me to think that the GMO labelling can be a threat to our health.
3. I think we do not need genetically modified food at all. I simply do not see the significance in having them. In the CNN link, researchers made a big deal about apples that do not turn brown, and lower risk of pest. I agree that it is good that the risk of pest is lower than natural apples. But I just cannot understand we have to involve technologies to everything. Before we had these technologies to create genetically modified food, everything was natural, and it is not true that there were horrible problems with health because we kept eating natural food. I understand that genetically modified food are made for good reasons, but I just think this is just another way to create new market to make more money. Especially farmers who grow natural food are affected, and I think that says it all. So, I do not think GMO is something we have to have.
4. I was surprised that 70% of our consumption of food are partially genetically modified. In addition, i was also surprised that it is not required to show mandatory animal trials, human trials, carcinogenicity, checking for allergy, etc. This makes it difficult for epidemiologists to figure out if there are any influences to health that comes from GMO.
The topic of genetically modified foods is very controversial worldwide. Are they safe? What is in them? How are we supposed to know what is in them? The scary part is that most of these questions can generally be applied to the complex food industry in the US, excluding GM foods, and rather focusing on just “normal” food. The E. coli scare in 2006-07 brought the issues of the US food industry to the public’s attention and this was the first time that people began to wonder what they were actually eating. Now with new genetic material being scientifically introduced into foods, these questions arise again, but on a far more controversial stage.
ReplyDelete1. In terms of benefits of GM labeling, I believe one of the greatest advantages that could come of labeling would be to allow the public to come to terms with what is in their food. I would have to guess that in most cases, many people would not even recognize anything on the labels or even read them for that matter, but the controversy created by few would be put to rest with simple labeling. I mean if these foods really are safe and all evidence points towards this fact, what is the harm in putting a label on them? These chemical companies who own the GM crops should have nothing to hide if they are preaching the safety of their foods. By labeling, these companies would save themselves the hassle of the so-called “war” (Bohanec) they are going through.
2. In terms of negative effects, I believe one of the disadvantages that could come of labeling is that perfectly accepted foods that line the shelves of grocery stores across the country would be looked at differently by consumers if they were referred to as GM foods. Looking around my kitchen, after hearing these Ted talks, I would have to guess that at least 70% of the foods are genetically modified based on the statistics in Hirshberg’s talk. None of these foods have the ever-so-daunting GM label on them and therefore to the majority of the population, they look like perfectly “normal” foods. The GM label could cause people to have an adverse opinion to these foods.
3. Moving forward, I believe that it is crucial to continuing investing time, money, and effort into developing GM foods. As the population increases, the supply of food will naturally decrease if traditional growing methods are practiced. There are less farms and more skyscrapers and that’s just the reality of the situation. GMO technologies are this world’s future and without these technologies there will be massive food shortages worldwide.
4. I found both of these Ted talks interesting and brought my attention to aspects of GM foods that I had not formerly been aware of. Hirshberg’s statistics that 90% of soy and 85% of corn is genetically engineered, which therefore leads to over 75% of processed foods being genetically modified. I also found it interesting that Hirshberg concentrates on the fact that these foods need to be labeled solely because new material is introduced rather than because people wonder if they are safe or not. Hirshberg’s discussion about herbicides and insecticides actually frightens me because of the simple fact that if plants can become resistant to these chemicals and the response is to increase the amount of chemicals, then isn’t that going to be a never-ending cycle? Bohanec’s comparison of black tomatoes grown with GE techniques versus ones grown with traditional techniques makes one wonder why GM foods are thought about with such resistance. The GM black tomatoes were tested, had 2 genes, and it was found they had anti-cancer properties whereas the non-GM tomatoes were not tested and contained most likely hundreds of genes. He believes that “humankind never invented such a fantastic technology that would help us a lot to provide better food, make it sustainable, and to protect the environment” (Bohanec). Thinking about GM foods in these terms, it is hard to wonder why they are so controversial if they are also so beneficial.
1. Pros of GMO labeling
ReplyDeleteThere is transparency in labeling use of genetically modified organism; people are aware of what they are consuming and are given the liberty to choose otherwise. By not labeling people are, in a way, not given the option to autonomously make their own diet, and as many of these GMO’s contain new bacteria and other genetic matter people should know that there might be possible risks to consuming the food that they are consuming.
2. Cons of GMO labeling
GMO has been very successful in the American diet and there has not been much push back on labeling from majority of the population. A con that might occur due to gmo labeling is that less people may choose to eat foods containing GMO’s which might cause a shortage in non-gmo food. This could lead to a switch in farming styles in the United States and a complete reform of food manufacturing might be necessary to adjust to this new attitude towards GMO’s.
3. I think that although gmo’s help Americans maintain a stable (and for the most part) nutritious food supply, I do think that more focus should be placed on less technical farming methods. With the current high prevalence of obesity in the United States, I think many individuals will benefit from eating more organic foods. Also, I think that going back to traditional farming might open up more job opportunities for unemployed Americans, so in general I think we should not pursue GMO as the main source of food production.
One interesting thing I learned from Borut Bohanec’s Ted talk is that the genetically modified “black tomato” has anti-cancer properties. I think that this is a positive aspect of GMO is that they might generate new treatments for existing diseases, which is something I had not thought of before seeing these Ted talks.
I agree with your point about high obesity in the U.S. - I didnt think of that originally when I wrote my post but perhaps more organic foods would be best. However i do have to disagree with the more job opportunities part because i think research into GMOs and producing GMOs also opens up a new field and opportunities.
Delete1. One advantage of labeling is that people will be able to know exactly what they are consuming and decide if they still want to eat. GMOs introduce a lot of new bacteria and other material that some of us may not want to digest so labeling let’s us know exactly what we are putting into our bodies and we can make a more informed decision about whether or not we want to eat the food.
ReplyDelete2.
One disadvantage to GMO labeling is the public reaction to it – a lot of people have come to believe that GMOs are automatically dangerous and something that they don’t want in their diets so it could deter them from purchasing any genetically modified products even if they are just as safe. People will look at the food differently if it says that it’s been genetically modified and be far more hesitant to buy it most likely.
3.
As the population continues to increase I think we should continue investing research and development in GMOs. The population grows at an exorbitant rate and sooner or later we will run out of a lot of our natural resources- perhaps even agricultural land. As more people inhabit our earth we pave way for more housing and other necessities which can greatly reduce the amount of agriculture produced to sustain us all. GMOs can help with lots of food shortages and provide alternative methods for us to acquire all the nutrients we need – especially with the rising population.
4.
I learned a lot from the tedtalks. The newest thing I learned was that Genetically modified food didn’t have to be labeled. I thought for sure they would have been. I feel like it should be required since everyone likes to know what they’re eating. It shocked me a bit to hear that it really wasn’t required at all yet. That means I could have been eating a lot of genetically modified food and not even realizing it! I guess it’s not really that terrible but I still would prefer that it was required.
I agree that there needs to be more research done regarding GMOs especially as the population increases but there has to be many regulations placed. If too much research is conducted and too many products are modified it will cause for the environment to adapt and possibly cause some insect resistance. There could be many negative effects in the long run though in the short term it has many benefits. I also thought that genetically modified foods would be labeled, that is something that I would like to know when buying food.
DeleteI also feel that GMO labeling should be required and was shocked to hear that it was not required at all prior to now. If an ingredient is not naturally in a food but added to it in the process of either growing or manufacturing it, I believe there is no option but to inform consumers through labeling. I agree- we all could have been consuming foods containing genetically modified organisms for years now! Someone could potentially have a life-threatening allergic reaction due to a GMO product in food they ate simply because they were not aware of everything that was in it.
DeleteOne advantage of GMO labeling would be that it allows individuals to understand the types of foods they are consuming so that they are able to make educated decisions about what they eat and what they feed their children. In the article written about GE apples and how they have been altered to stay fresh and not get brown, Tinker mentions that although it has not been proven that GMO organisms are dangerous, there has also not been enough research on this subject. Since this technology is still very new, our generation and future generations including our children are going to be the test subjects for GE foods. Hundreds of years from now scientists may be able to determine that GMO’s are extremely dangerous, but until that point individuals need to be given enough information on the technology so that they can make educated decisions whether they want to participate in expertise or not. With the addition of labeling on food sources, individuals will be able to gain this knowledge and have a say in what they are consuming.
ReplyDeleteIn Hendrick’s blog about passing GMO labeling in Vermont, he states that labeling would increase food costs by as much as 400 dollars per house hold every year. Not only would labeling increase the economic burden for consumers, but it would also make it extremely difficult for farmers and food sellers to adopt these new notions for specific states. For venders, this would decrease the amount of products being sold in their stores, and for farmers, they would now need to worry about introducing labeling into their companies and the additional costs this would include.
Although it has not been fully proven that GMO foods are dangerous for consumption, at this point in time there is not enough evidence that can show that these foods should be eaten as a main nourishment source. It is for this reason that scientists need to start investing in other ways to feed the world instead of using GMO’s. Although this technique has been the top choice for many farmers, with the addition of funds for other types of research, new safer methods could be created. In addition to this, many regions of the world could cut back on the amount of food consumption that happens in their country. For example, the United States is known for large portions and over eating. If cutting back on food intake happened at multiple levels including at the farming, manufacturing and individual ranks, food shortages could be avoided.
In the Ted talk by Gary Hirshberg he mentions that it is a breach of the FDA not to mandate labeling of GMO’s and it is also a major break for health officials not to look into the long term effects of this technique. I found it really interesting that the FDA does not recognize GMO’s at different than normal crops because they smell and taste the same as well as have the same nutritional values as non-engineered foods. I also found it very interesting that the FDA is required to label foods that differ from normal due to interventions by outside sources even if it is in a healthy way. Although there is speculation that GMO’s are dangerous, whether or not this is accurate, they should be labeled so that the public understand what they are actually consuming.
The advantage to knowing that a food product is a GMO is being able to know what exactly is in the food that you eat and being able to make an educated decision based on this knowledge. A consumer should have the right to know exactly what they are putting in their body, especially when it comes to food that has not had enough testing to see the longterm effects of it. With this there is also a disadvantage to labelling GMOs. I have found that there are many misunderstandings when it comes to public knowledge about a GMO. There are many that think that GMOs are hazardous to their health because it is a genetically modified food that they are putting into their body. It could potentially have a negative effect on consumer consumption of this good. With all of these points being said I am for the continued use of GMOs with the growing population. I do believe though that there should be more research into GMOs and the FDA should be involved in regulating and testing them. The safety of the public comes first when it comes to the use of GMOs and if there is sufficient evidence in the future that GMOs are harmful, then we should seek other alternatives to feed the growing population. I found it interesting in Gary Hirshberg’s TedTalk that there no labelling requirement for GMOs. I was shocked to find out that there is no mandate by the US to label GMOs. I think the general public should have the right to know and decide whether they want to consumer GMOs.
ReplyDeleteI like how you focus on education based decisions because I think thats her important. However, I agree with you that I think there is not a lot of education about GMOs. I think the general public does not know a lot about them, just tidbits of what they hear from the news. I also agree that the safety of the public comes first, but to that point i do not think that GMO research should continue, until the long term effects are known.
DeleteOne advantage of GMO labeling is that it provides the consumer information on what they are eating. Ultimately, the consumer makes his or her decision whether or not they want to eat GMO foods or not. People may feel comfortable or respected if they are given more information about the food that they consume.
ReplyDeleteGMO labeling may have a disadvantage to both consumers and producers. People may not want to consume GMO foods, thus, sales in GMO foods would decrease which would be bad for producers of these goods. With this in mind, the prices for non-GMO foods may rise as the demand for these crops are higher since people may rather eat non-GMO crops than GMO crops.
I think we should continue investing in research and development in GMO crops as the population continues to grow. Personally, I think that the US is going to rely on GMO foods to be able to feed the increasingly growing population. Without it, I think there will be major food shortage and these GMOs are the only way to be able to feed the entire population. To add on, with the increase of these foods, the prices for the non-GMO products will be lower as well. In turn, food could be more affordable for lower-income families to be able to purchase food. There is a negative stigma of GMO crops and people don’t realize that our population relies on it in order avoid food shortages. Also, GMO has not been proven as a negative health impact currently. All in all, with further research and development, scientists can make sure GMO crops are healthy for consumers and the environment as well as ensure that our population has enough food to avoid food shortages as the population continues to grow.
I really enjoyed these TedTalks. One thing I learned was the enormous amounts of vandalism to GMO crops, which goes unprosecuted. It was a real eye catcher to me as people are going to the extremes to prevent GMO crops released to the public. He also points out the negative stigma towards GMO crops which influences many people giving them false and unproven information. Many people listen to what’s going on in the media but they do not specifically look at the “science” or research papers relating to GMO crops. People need to be better educated about GMO crops before doing extremes in this measure. I don ‘t think that they realize that many of the food that they consume are probably GMO crops and many people around the world may rely on it as the population continues to grow.
An advantage to GMO is that it can cause the food to last longer or grow faster, for example, AquaBounty Technologies added a gene to salmon that made it grow faster and year around. This can help when a country needs more food and using these techniques can help feed the poor. One disadvantage is that the more it is used the more negative effects it can have in our environment. Insects can build resistance against the plants and then the plants would have to be modified once more.
ReplyDeleteMoving forward I believe that more research should definitely be conducted with GMOs but only to a certain extent. An apple should not be modified just so it won’t turn brown when opened. It should only get to that point when the food that is being modified will actually have a greater impact on those consuming it as compared with the possible risks. As the population increases there can be a law made where only places that really need those extra nutrients can make use of GMOs. In the U.S there should not be so many genetically modified foods. They should at least be labelled so people know what they are consuming. The law that Vermont is passing in 2016 would help this have more transparency.
The TedTalks were very informative. I was shocked to learn that the US does not mandate labels of GMO. In the US they are identifying new forms that can be owned they have been patented. 90% of soy is genetically engineered and over 75% of food we are eating are genetically engineered. Insecticide in corn called BT, which were said to not survive in our digestive system but have been present in core blood of pregnant women. There is no mandatory testing needed yet most of Americans would like to know what it is they are consuming. There are a lot of changes that need to be made. The other TedTalk spoke mostly about the positive results of using this technology including making omega 3 fatty acids more available. I thought that this is great but also thought that this could potentially have negative effects if used too much.
Hi Claribel,
DeleteI like that you specified conducting research with GMOs to a certain extent. I definitely agree with you that in some situations it is unnecessary, and in others it can cause groundbreaking research. Sometimes we get carried away and depreciate or attempt to fix things that are perfectly fine, like an apple. A browning apple is a natural sign that it is rotting, which doesn't usually happen until we bite into it, eat it and let it sit. You mentioned implementing GMOs in health-poor and nutrient-deficient nations which is the right direction I think the research should be going into. It can definitely answer the question of how GMOs can contribute and positively impact areas where there is a lack of access to the foods containing the necessary vitamins, nutrients, and proteins are bodies need to function successfully.
Claribel,
DeleteI commend the fact that you have a strong stance on the future of GMO research and find that I agree with your views. I definitely see the point on not doing researching simply so that an apple can 'last longer' but rather do modifications that could enhance the nutritional value if we were to modify. I do think that it is hard to differentiate areas that may need 'more' nutrients, but if you were to base it off of population and concentration area, I could see how packing more punch with a product but still getting the same amount through GMO could be useful. Lastly, I agree that foods should be labeled so that people know what they are consuming to create more awareness.
1) One major advantage of GMO labeling is that proper labeling gives consumers the autonomy to choose whether they want to eat GMO foods or not. With accurate labeling, people are more knowledgeable of their choice in food and can avoid trying out GMO food products.
ReplyDelete2) A disadvantage could be that labeling a food product as a GMO food carries such a negative stigma in many cases. Even without proper evidence or sources in mind, people tend to think of GMOs as a negative thing and believe they can be harmful to health. This could negatively affect the producer of the foods and create a change in price for those who actually do want to buy the food. The general public is not educated enough on genetically modified goods and don't know the potential risks/benefits.
3) I support investing in research and the development of GMO. I don't think there is enough evidence on whether it is harmful or not, but since it could potentially help address the issue of food disparity, I believe it is worth further research. The population is growing and the demand for food is growing as well. Resources are limited, many becoming exhausted in certain parts of the world. This gives us reason to use GMOs but perhaps we should invest effort into alternatives as well. What if we were to try to create a healthier/less damaging type of pesticide? Also raising awareness/education about GMOs, healthy food choices, and the effects of the growing population is something to look into. The research and efforts currently being done would be more effective if more people were knowledgeable about them.
4) I always learn a lot from Ted Talks, even on topics I think I know a lot about, I always seem to end up learning surprising facts. For example, I wasn't aware that crops could be modified to be able to survive in extreme climate changes. I also wasn't aware that products were not necessarily required to labeled for containing GMOs. It's surprising to me that it isn't mandatory, since their is so much uproar and uncertainty behind the topic!
Junior, you bring up some very good points. If we are going to combine modern technology and agriculture, it is important that we do it responsibly. Agriculture is essential to humanity, and it translates to a macrolevel and microlevel. It is important that the benefits always outweigh the negatives regarding this, and that the primary thought is consumption and its effects on the consumer. Therefore, it is important that we try to create less damaging pesticides if we must use them, raise awareness and education about GMOs and healthy food choices, and to discuss the effects of the growing population to handle modern technology's effect on agriculture in the most responsible way.
DeleteJunior,
DeleteI agree that further research on GMOs would provide improved solutions and more concrete conclusions about the benefits and/or damages that GMOs bring into this world. Also you are right, the resources toward GMOs are not infinite. Other investments allocated into alternative ways to grow and supply food and definitely education to farmers and consumers are important ideas to consider and implement.
An advantage of GMO labeling is allowing consumers to make a more informed choice about the food they decide to consume. It is true that GMO testing is a relatively new field of science, so if consumers feel uneasy about that they should have the right to know what they are putting in their bodies.
ReplyDeleteA disadvantage of GMO labeling is increasing food prices for consumers. CNN reports that GMO-labeling could increase a consumer’s grocery costs by $400 per year, which is not insignificant, especially when healthy food is already so sparse in certain areas.
As our population continues to grow exponentially, I think it is vital we continue investing in GMO due to the increased crop yields and disease resistance that genetic modification can confer. Further research can only increase our knowledge of the scientific processes and their effects in both the short and long terms, which is a great thing, especially as our research increases in complexity and scope. However, I also propose concurrent research into alternative methods, especially cheaper ones, as the GMO option tends to be expensive and there is little regulation from governmental agencies, at least in the US. We must ensure that our population is fed, but the food we do produce should not put people at risk.
I really enjoyed Gary Hirshberg’s talk. I found him articulate and engaging, and I liked the way he presented the material. I was surprised by a number of facts throughout the two videos, the most significant being the use of pesticide 2,4-D, which is 50% of Agent Orange. I knew Agent Orange was an herbicide, but my primary knowledge of it involved its use in Vietnam and its subsequent devastating effects on the Vietnamese people and U.S. veterans. I had no idea that it was being used on crops on the U.S., and while I don’t have the background on the science and rationale as to why it’s being used or of its effect on humans in the concentration used for crops, it still makes me uneasy. I also found it interesting to learn from Bohanec that certain plants produced Omega-3 fatty acids (which I always associate with fish), and that there have been 80 acts of vandalism against GM food in Europe since 1997. Given the controversial nature of GMOs, I wonder if this number is relatively small compared to what it could be, or if it should be much smaller.
1. An advantage of GMO labeling is mainly so that consumers can know what is going into the foods they purchase. Having labels on these foods will allow consumers to make informed decisions about what they want to purchase or not purchase when at the store. They can then make their own decisions on what to buy versus being left guessing what is GMO and what isn’t, The consumer needs to be in “the know” so they can make the healthiest and best decision for them and their families. One of the TED talks mentioned how consumers have a right to know to know what they are eating, and labeling GMO foods would drive this point home.
ReplyDelete2. Both TED videos touched on some disadvantages of labeling foods as GMO or not. The main takeaway here was that labeling GMO food could potentially turn away consumers from purchasing that food. There is a strong stigma and claim that if a food is genetically modified, then it is not safe. Currently, there isn’t the research to support that GMO food is or is not safe for consumption. What we do know is that there is a strong social stigma associating GMO food with being unhealthy, carcinogenic, etc. So if the average person in the grocery store were shopping for apples and saw one brand that was “traditional and natural” and another brand that was “genetically modified”, then it’s safe to say most consumers would be turned off by the GMO apple and would opt to buy the traditional apple instead. For the most part, GMO food is nutritionally the same as its counterpart, but still people have a stigma against it.
3. Moving forward as the world’s population increases, I feel we should continue to pursue GMO foods for several main reasons. To start, GMO food is nutritionally and functionally the same as its traditional counterpart. I think there is a huge potential to help correct nutritional deficiencies with GMO foods. For example, one of the TED talks mentioned a Black Tomato that was being grown in Italy that had genes from a Snapdragon plant in it. This tomato although GMO was tested in rats and showed to be anti-carcinogenic in nature when compared to a traditional tomato. Another example that was pointed out was a plant that was being developed in England that had omega-3 fatty acids in it. Omega-3’s traditionally are only found in fish, and with a large subset of the population not particularly enjoying fish, inserting the omega-3 fatty acid into plants can provide that nutrition to people who otherwise would not be getting it. These are just two examples of huge health advances that we can make with GMO crops and foods. Obviously, I feel that safety protocols and testing should be done as we continue to introduce more and new GMO crops into the food supply, but it is also important to note that most “traditional” foods don’t get tested for carcinogenic effects. So to me, it’s odd how people will automatically assume traditional foods or food cooking practices like smoking for example, are safe, but will instantly dismiss GMO as non-safe. Meanwhile, it is known that smoke and smoking is mutagenic and carcinogenic in nature and has been done for thousands of years, yet no one bats an eye at the practice.
4. The first Ted Talk with Gary Hirshberg was really interesting in that he focused not on the safety of GMO foods, but the fact that people just do not know what is genetically modified and what isn’t when it comes to the foods they eat. I really loved the second Ted Talk with Borut Bohanec as he touched on the fact that the public immediately assumes all GMO food to be bad for you when there isn’t scientific basis to support these claims. I thought his work on the Black Tomato being anti-carcinogenic was really intriguing, yet I found it sad that foods like these won’t see the market as the public deems them “unsafe” or requiring further testing. When on the other hand, traditional crops like an average red tomato are never tested for safety.
An advantage of GMO labeling is empowering consumers with the knowledge and understanding to decide whether or not they want to consume genetically modified foods for a plethora of reasons, such as allergy, ethical, religious or other concerns. GMO labeling allows consumers to have the choice in their decision. However, GMO labeling is not mandated in the US so people are unknowingly consuming processed foods that are genetically modified and altered. GMO labeling would raise awareness of what we are introducing to our body, and increase a person’s consumer choice in knowing the material of the foods we eat.
ReplyDeleteDisadvantages of labeling genetically engineered foods are the associated fear and doubt of not knowing whether or not that food is harmful or beneficial. There is controversy of whether or not environmental or health implications exist, yet there is no solid evidence to support either claim. The FDA has mentioned that genetically engineered foods are not that different from their natural counterparts, resulting in an absence of GMO labeling. GMO labeling would also affect consumers by increasing food costs of organic goods making it more difficult in accessibility and affordability, as well as create difficulties for manufacturers and producers who have to comply with different requirements in branding the goods.
As the population continues to increase, so does the need to ensure that food is appropriated effectively to feed an ever-growing population. Farmers, producers, and manufacturers can control and manipulate the food supply to outcomes favorable to them. Continuing research and development in GMOs will allow us to create foods in new forms, but with similar nutritional characteristics and a guaranteed freshness that natural foods essentially lose after some time. Especially in the mass growing and production of these foods, introducing crops that are genetically bred to resist and survive herbicides, insecticides, harmful bacteria and contamination and have longer “shelf-life are way more advantageous than foods that spoil before reaching the grocery market. If today’s innovative research can continue to discover positive outcomes of GMO and close the gap of difference between GMOs and non-GMOs, why not push the development forward. Essentially, we all want to nourish our bodies and know that what we are consuming is more beneficial than harmful. Investing in this groundbreaking research will allow us to answer those questions and understand if genetically engineered foods can potentially be safe for us to consume.
I enjoyed learning both polarizing spectrums of the advantages and disadvantages of GMOs. I found it interesting that almost all processed foods we consume are genetically modified and we are unaware of it. I think we as consumers are taught to invest in natural and organic foods aside from “normal” foods, yet to some extent both ends are processed, altered, or preserved in some way-we just do not know it. There is a lack of awareness and education of where the foods we eat come from and their effects they have on our bodies and the environments we live in. The same BT insecticide that is believed to not survive in our saliva is found in the bloodstream of pregnant women. Above all, I was surprised to learn that many countries mandate the labeling of their GMO foods, yet the US does not. If drinking and breathing herbicides are as normal as it is portray to be, why are we censored from it?
1. One advantage of GMO labeling is that we will be able to choose whether we want to consume the product or not. Also, we will be able to be made aware of the fact that we are eating a GMO.
ReplyDelete2. One disadvantage of GMO labeling is that it could affect food cost, farmers, manufacturers, and grocers negatively.
3. Moving forward I do not think we should continue investing in research and development in GMOs. A lot of the problems in our society have been caused by man going against nature, and manipulating it for faster production. This has had serious impact on our environment and humankind.
4. The TedTalks reminded me that corporations run and control our society. The fact that we eat foods that are not labeled shows this. Our own rights to know what we are consuming is being denied. One thing I hadn’t previously considered is that through the introduction of these GMO’s to our bodies, we might be impacting our own genes and consequently, health, as they interact. As Hirschberg mentioned, we have a government for the people, and it is important that they act accordingly for the benefit of our environment , health, and safety .
Continuation of 3: Farmers and corporations should be getting together to discuss ideas on how to maintain natural production of our food. Food production is seen more from a monetary perspective than a benefit for humankind perspective, as we live in a capitalist society, and its unfortunate and unacceptable.
DeleteContinuation of 4: The second TedTalk raised interesting points regarding the positives of GMO's, and we do not have enough evidence to support its unsafety. However, as the CNN article stated, I do not want to be a guinea pig for this products.
1. One advantage to GMO labeling is the knowledge that consumers are granted in regards to what they are purchasing and putting into their bodies. As Gary Hirshberg argues in his Ted Talk, it should be a basic human right to decide exactly what you put into your body, and in order to fully do that you must first have complete and accurate knowledge about the foods being consumed.
ReplyDelete2. A disadvantage to GMO food labeling is the potential increased cost that is associated it. It is estimated that labeling could significantly raise the average cost of food, placing a struggle on families when money food is already sometimes a hardship. It would also raise production costs for farmers and manufacturers, which would likely place a greater burden on small-scale farms.
3. Personally I feel as though the concept of GMO foods offers a lot to society. In a time when the population is growing at exponential rates and food is in short supply in many areas, I think GMO foods offer the best hope so far to solving, or at least lessening, the hunger crisis. I think continued research and development in this area will not only produce new and improved GMOs, but also lessen the stigma surrounding them as more and more long term research unfolds. This is not to say, however, that I don’t think there should be regulations and standards in place for GMOs and their companies.
4. My reaction to the Ted Talk was positive. I thought it was interesting that Gary didn’t immediately take a side for or against GMOs themselves (although eventually he did), but rather put the focus on the human right for people chose for themselves (in the form of labels). What struck me the most I think was seeing how many other countries around the world have standards in place already for the labeling of GMO foods, and the US does not. I do support the further development of GMO foods, I do think that this concept of transparency from the GMO companies is important.
1. One advantage of GMO labeling is that it gives the public information about the products they are buying and consuming; everyone has a right to know what truly is in their food and drinks. Knowing whether or not GMO’s are present in one’s food allows consumers to make more informed decisions, especially in the case if they are concerned about an allergy.
ReplyDelete2. One disadvantage of GMO labeling is that it could result in an increased prices of groceries because the manufacturers are going to have to spend more money and time to test their foods and create new labels. Another disadvantage is that labeling can be misleading to consumers. Does a food that has a label saying “This food does not contain any genetically modified organisms” could imply that other foods that don’t have a label specifically like that on them do contain some type of GMO? The answer to this question is wondered among some consumers.
3. I think we should continue investing research and development in GMO. While we are aware of some of the benefits and harms, I believe there are more to be discovered. As population increases, so does the need for food. GMOs may be necessary to provide and keep up with the high demand for food if it means food will be more readily available and in larger quantities, but I do think professionals could do it in a more cautious, safer way (perhaps test their crops multiple times for toxins).
4. After watching the TedTalks, I realize that more of the community around us should also watch them. According to the first TedTalk with Mr. Hirshberg, it is shown that the average citizen knows nothing about the topic of GMOs. Considering the tole they could have on our health, I don’t think that it is a very good thing. I was shocked to hear that over 75 % of the processed food we consume contains genetically engineered materials. I knew that processed food had to contain some type of artificial additive in it in order to preserve it, but I never thought that that much of the processed foods we eat would contain them.
I would have to agree that there is a lack of research pertaining to the health effects that GMOs may cause. There are a lot of speculations without any real proof which leads me to think if they actually have such a negative impact. Further research would be in high demand and will shed light on such an under investigated topic. I would have to agree that crops should be tested multiple times before being put on the market but quick and efficient methods are required to answer to the growing demand of the food supply. As of right now, with such a lack of hard proof I would have to say that the pros outweigh the cons.
DeleteAn advantage of GMO labeling is that consumers will become aware of what they consume. Various food products are consumed on a daily basis and labeling will ensure that the consumer has the freedom to pick and choose to support or deny GMO products.
ReplyDeleteOne disadvantage of GMO labeling is in the realm of economics. The controversies with GMO products will without a doubt have an impact on their sales. This would result in a higher demand for non-GMO products, thus driving the price higher. The food market would encounter disequilibrium in both demand and price.
I believe that GMOs are essential to answer to the growing demand in the food supply due to the exponential growth of the world population. GMOs not only appeal to the consumer by cosmetic look (Ex. Green apple not turning brown) of a product but they also create properties that elongate shelf life. This results in a greater overall supply of food thus driving the price down. Furthermore, food will become more available to less fortunate populations. The negative stigma around GMO products has only been a new and emerging topic, yet little does the population know that GMO products have been around for decades. The world relies on GMOs to be able to answer to the food supply. There is already a food shortage, can you imagine if all GMOs were banned?
I really enjoyed both of the TedTalks. I found it interesting that the FDA does not acknowledge a GMO product as any different than normal crops but after listening to the reasoning I would have to agree. GMOs do not change the nutrition facts or taste but rather simply enhance the product and make it more durable to various environmental conditions. What really struck me was the Borut Bohanec references all the articles revealing positive views about GMOs as compared to the lack of articles directly linking GMOs to health issues. This brought me to question the anti-GMO movement. I do believe that GMOs should be labeled but it is up to the discretion of the consumer to choose whether to buy the product or not.
I completely agree that the primary disadvantage with GMO labeling would be in economics. You make a really good point that the higher demand for non-GMO products would cause their prices to increase, instead of producers who sell GMO products only losing profits.
DeleteI disagree with the idea of the FDA looking at GMOs no differently than normal crops. The chemicals in the food may just be there to help sustain them in environment conditions, but they need to at least make sure there aren't any long term effects on the human body after consuming these chemicals.
Delete1) An advantage of GMO labeling is that those who are purchasing or considering purchasing these foods are fully aware of what the food contains. This can allow that person to make the decision as to whether or not they want to eat this food. They have all the information as to how this food was produced, and will know exactly what they are putting into their bodies.
ReplyDelete2) A disadvantage of GMO labeling is that some producers may be protested or blacklisted for using these products. This could damage the revenue these producers receive, and also create negative connotations associated with both the producer and GMO foods in general.
3) I believe that GMO research should continue. There is a mixed consensus on the safety and possible benefits of food that has been genetically modified. Many studies have shown conflicting results, with some stating that GMOs have no negative effects on health after long term consumptions, and others that state that the opposite has been observed. If more time goes towards researching the outcomes of ingesting genetically modified foods, there is a better chance that there will be a solid answer about the safety and health effects of consuming genetically modified foods. If it is determined that GMOs are safe and beneficial, there will be an answer as to how to increase the world’s food supply.
4) The TedTalks were very informative about GMOs. The fact that GMOs in the United States are not required to be labeled as being genetically modified, or tested for their safety and possible negative effects. Many other countries have already mandated the testing of genetically modified foods and require them to be labeled, and it was surprising to learn that the United States and FDA have not made this a requirement.
I also thought that it was surprising that the US has not mandated FDA approval of GMOs. I think that it is crazy that there could be toxins in what we eat that could have been avoided. Maybe it's a money issue, or a supply and demand issue, but I think that the FDA should be testing for harmful substances.
DeleteOne advantage of GMO labeling is it allows people to know when food is a GMO. GMO’s have alternate materials- bacteria, genetic material, etc. than non-GMO food. Some GMO’s contain insecticides which can remain in the human body. This is a problem because we do not know what the effects of these insecticides in the body are.
ReplyDeleteOne disadvantage of GMO labeling is that enforcing GMO labeling will increase food costs. Also, it will cause difficulties for farmers, distributers and grocers who will have to go through extra processes for states where GMO labeling is required. It also, causes a distinction between GMOs and non GMOs, even if they are the same food. This could cause people to avoid buying them.
I do not think we should continue investing research and development in GMO. I think that, for now, there should be a grace period where we can see what the effects of GMO’s are. That way we will know what affects these new bacterias have on the human body, and can make sure they are 100% safe. However, if safety and long term effects can be proven, then I believe GMOs could be the solution to many problems.
I was very surprised by the Ted Talks. From the one that was anti-GMO I learned that because of such of a large increase in the use of herbicides, it is now present in the air. People are becoming addicted to these because they are present in the air and food. The effects of this were shocking, the first one being that doctors predicted an increase in cancer because of this exposure to pesticides. Second, they have noticed a direct correlation between pesticides, which people are ingesting from the air, water and food, and the development of ADHD. From the pro-GMO Ted talk, I learned that some GMOs are amazing. The omega fatty acids that were taken from the fish and put into a plant seems like something that is extremely helpful.
I really like your point about holding off on GMO production until we are aware of the full effects. Even though it can help support our growing population I agree that it isn't worth it to risk having a public health crisis down the road from potential reactions to consuming these GMOs.
DeleteI believe that one of the most important advantages of GMO labeling would be for the consumer to have proper knowledge about what is in their food – or more specifically, what has been done to their food to make it what it is. As a consumer, each individual has a right to know what he or she is purchasing and should have an informed decision about what is put in his/ or her bodies and the affect that it may have on health.
ReplyDeleteA disadvantage of GMO labeling is the affect that it may have on food infrastructure. Some crops, such as soybean and corn, are mostly grown as GMOs. For example, if GMO labeling was required and consumers decided to avoid the purchase of GMO corn, there would be an extremely high demand for non-GMO verified corn. The demand could therefore outweigh the supply and non-GMO farmers and corn-growers wouldn’t be able to keep up with consumer purchase.
As the population grows, I do support research about GMO products. However, this does not mean that I support non-labeling of GMOs. Although there is a decent amount of research about the GMOs, I don’t think society has enough evidence to show that GMOs can have long-term impacts on health, such as the role that BT can have in the human body. I believe that research should continue over the course of years to assure consumers that the GMOs are safe for consumption. In the meantime, it is important for agricultural industries to find a more sustainable way for food production, such as crop rotation, in order to fulfill the needs of a continuously increasing population.
I am frequently a fan of TedTalks, and these talks were no exception. Prior to watching the talks, I did not know much about the debate between GMO labeling and non-labeling. There is more to the debate than simply the right for consumers to know, such as the impact that it can have on health, the environment, and food production worldwide. Something I learned that I thought was interesting was that pesticides are linked to ADHD. For a country like the United States where there are high rates of ADHD and the rates are only increasing, it makes me question whether or not the pesticides are solely to blame. I think it would be interesting to note the areas in the country with the highest use of pesticides and see if it correlates to a high prevalence of ADHD.
1. One particular advantage of GMO labeling is that consumers are allowed to make their own choice of whether or not they want to consume GMO food or not. Labeling allows us to choose and make our own autonomous decision, and this would be affected by other ethical or religious reasons too.
ReplyDelete2. One disadvantage is that they are potentially some negative environmental effects, even if there is no evidence to support this. Along with this the nutritional content of GMO food could differ from foods made conventionally, and GMO labeling would have to show this.
3. I believe we should continue investing and support GMO development. Eventually, after substantial research, GMO will be proven a safe and effective practice and way of growing food. As the world’s population is steadily rising increasing the demand and strain on food supplies the importance of food supply, increased crop yields and farming efficiency is becoming of more importance. GMO food should develop even more.
4. In Borut Bohanec’s talk I liked the attention to GMO crops as a method for producing pesticide independent crops, as this would be able to feed a greater number of people with less environmental toxins used at the same time. I also found it interesting that GMOs don’t require FDA approval; I believe that they should need to reach a particular FDA approval and certain target before the production and sale of GMO foods in supermarkets is allowed.
I also found the point about GMOs not needing FDA approval kind of shocking. I think that this should be a step in the long process they take to make a GMO ready for the public. I think this should be something they include in the policy that they are trying to pass for GMO labeling.
Delete1. Describe one advantage of GMO labeling:
ReplyDeleteI believe that GMO labeling is a good thing because it gives the consumer the opportunity to decide whether they want to buy or use GMO products. People should be given the right to decide and without the label it takes away some autonomy from the consumer. Some people have very strong beliefs against GMO products and without that distinguishing factor, what are they supposed to do?
2. Describe one disadvantage of GMO labeling
I think that obviously with any movement, cost is an issue which could result in losses for companies and losses for shareholders. This would also in turn bring higher food costs for consumers. I’m not necessarily sure how much extra cost, but it is definitely something that could pose as a disadvantage to GMO labeling.
3. Moving forward, as the population continues to increase, do you think we should continue investing in research and development in GMO or do you want to propose alternative methods to support the food supply. Please discuss your ideas.
There is no conclusive research on the health effects of GMO food products or meat products that have been fed GMO food products. Until we can prove the negative effects that it has on our health, I think we can continue to do research with GMO food products. I also think that alternative ways should be looked into as well, but we shouldn’t settle for just one plan of action until we are sure that it is completely sound.
4. What are your reactions to the TedTalks? Share something new you learned here.
One thing I found interesting was the fact that they mentioned how a lot of other countries had implemented GMO labeling laws and how the US hasn’t been able to settle the debate and get things going with that. I am pro-labeling because I think we should have a choice, but I’m not really against GMO food products.
I also found that the time that it takes to create a GMO food product is very substantial which I think is good because they need to be well thought out before introducing something like that into the public.
I agree with your points about labeling GMO food products. I thought it was unbelievable how other countries were so easily able to come to a compromise on this matter, yet the U.S. is still having major difficulties with this controversy. I think labeling may mitigate some anti-GMO problems.
Delete1) Labeling GMOs would allow people to know what is in the food they are looking to purchase and eat. People have a natural right to know what they are putting into their bodies. People need to be informed so they can make decisions whether or not to eat a certain food.
ReplyDelete2) A disadvantage of labeling GMOs is that it will increase the price of groceries for consumers. Not only will it affect the price for consumers, but it will also affect the profits of the farming industry. Another disadvantage is the public will view the chemicals in GMOs and perceive them as dangerous because they may not know much information about what those chemicals to do the body if they do anything at all.
3) As population increases on Earth, there is very little space left to grow enough food to sustain a large human race. With this being said, I support the idea of genetically growing food that can grow in areas that may not be as fertile as they once were before a large population existed. I think that after this stigma with GMOs pass and enough research and facts lay down a solid foundation for the strengths of genetically grown foods, then will the public realize that is an abundance of benefits to this new way to grow food.
4) The TED talks were both very informative and both of them brought clarity to view of GMOs. I knew an ample of amount of information about GMOs before watching these TED talks, but I was surprised to find out that eighty percent of our corn and soybeans are genetically modified and a lot of people do not know this. Most people do not even know that some of the food that they are eating contains GMOs. As much as GMOs may be safe to the extent of adding them in foods people buy, the public still needs to know about what they are consuming.
I like that you mentioned that the price to consumers would increase. I was focusing more on the loss for the GMO companies but that is a good point. Labeling would cost money so they would want to compensate by bringing up the price of the foods.
Delete1. One advantage of GMO labeling is that it allows food purchasers to have all relevant information when deciding on what products to buy. Informed consumers are able to make their own decisions in terms of what they wanted to buy rather than being manipulated by large product companies.
ReplyDelete2. One disadvantage of GMO labeling is that it may significantly increase food costs due to the extra hoops producers must jump through in order to provide this labeling. Additionally, it may create compliance issues for farmers, manufacturers and grocers. This may in turn cause economical issues as well.
3. I think that is it important to continue to invest in the research and development of GMOs. There are so many questions revolving this topic that need answering, which can only be answered through further research. Although we know that there are supposed non-target effects of GMO usage, we do not know enough about them to even say what these effects really are. We do not know for sure whether or not GMOs are really dangerous, so I believe further research should be conducted to specifically answer that question. Additionally, GMOs are currently a part of people’s diets without them even realizing it due to lack of labeling, so maybe we should start with labeling items to make people informed, while continuing research.
4. I learned a lot about the GMO labeling debate from the TedTalks. According to Borut Bohanec, the media seems to spin the issue to show protests against GMO foods. This makes it appear dangerous, cause uninformed citizens to decide they are against GMOs. Lack of shared information is furthering this heated debate over GMOs in the wrong direction. I agree with Gary Hirshberg that we have the right to know what is in our food, but I also believe there it a necessity in transparency of research so that the public can be informed on this whole controversy.
1. One advantage of GMO labeling is that consumers will know, without a doubt, whether the product is produced with genetically modified ingredients.
ReplyDelete2. One disadvantage of GMO labeling is that consumers may avoid products that are perfectly safe and/or nutritionally enhanced because they see a GMO label.
3. I have done a decent amount of research on GMOs, which has led me to my current opinion. I do not think that we should invest more in GMOs. While they have their advantages and the media may be able to sway them into a positive light, the people and corporations behind it leave a lot of important information out. Monsanto has been known to have employees in and out of government and judicial positions enabling them to follow through with their plans almost unhindered. If the issue of GMO crops was not surrounded by a sea of corruptness then my opinion might be a little different.
4. I was surprised to learn how other countries have been dealing with situations similar to ours. I did not know that genetically modified foods and the controversy on labeling were issues in other countries as well.
From a general standpoint, individuals have the right to know what they are putting into their bodies, especially if they have concerns that specific agents and ingredients will be harmful to them. For that purpose, mandatory GMO labeling will allow consumers to identify and steer clear from certain food products they wish to avoid.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, there will inevitably be a high economic impact due to the costs of said GMO labeling which will be imposed on all consumers, even those who do not care about having them. This type of change in food distribution costs will have an impact on lower-income families who are already struggling with the current prices of food products.
I understand the public's concerns when we talk about genetically engineered foods and the search for alternative methods of food production; it is in fact conceptually bizarre to think of our foods as "made" for us rather than "grown". We become obsessed with the idea of getting rid of anything that isn't natural, organic, or in its purest form. However at the same time, the food industry has been trying to accommodate a growing world population and GMOs are considered our only pathway towards satisfying its needs properly. Until now, there hasn't been consistent evidence that GMOs have the potential to harm us rather than save us, which is why ruling them out completely would be premature and unnecessary.
I hadn't realized that 75% of the processed foods we eat today have been genetically modified, and I won't deny that this fact scares me a little. But the fact stands that it shouldn't, scare me or anyone that is. The only thing that should be thought about at this point is avoiding further harm to the way we mass produce food. For instance, the proven link between using these crops and increasing chemical use is a problem, which again means that the use of GMOS is not the issue but labeling them is a good (and necessary) compromise.
Zeinah, your point about foods being "made" rather than "grown" I think is interesting and offers insight into how we are culturally conditioned to believe things need to be done a certain way and are not open to alternatives, even when they show potential to help us solve a problem and benefit society. It truly is premature and unnecessary to rule them out completely, as the evidence is incomplete (and actually in fact does not show any real reason for alarm).
DeleteThe advantage of GMO labeling is that it gives the consumer control to make their decisions regarding their diet. They have the information to make an educated decision regarding if they would like to use the product. Most GMO products are scientifically modified to mitigate common diseases found in natural products of which can be beneficial to a consumer.
ReplyDeleteA disadvantage to GMO labeling is that it might harm the overall GMO market. If a consumer is aware of a products modification, he or she may have hesitations against purchasing such a product when Earth has a natural version. Not to mention, GMOs take a long time in research and development, which is directly proportional to the price per product, which in turn requires a large consumer base to balance the upfront costs of the company. With GMO labeling, consumers may choose against supporting a modified product which financially inhibits GMO companies.
I believe there should be more research in this field because there is a lot of potential with creating modified, more resistant products in the market. However, it seems that there is not enough research backing long-term health consequences of ingesting these lab experiments. Especially when there have been reports of developing cancer from GMO products.
What I found interesting was that people believe that GMO products cause cancer. Scientific studies show that GMO products don’t actually cause cancer. I think that it’s really interesting that people don’t know the truth and don’t have proper education about GMO foods and they don’t exist.
Talia,
DeleteI also had no idea that people believe that GMOs cause cancer! Studies need to be done either proving or disproving this claim through case control studies or others to get research and prove or disprove an association. I think education about GMO foods can go a long way in decreasing public fear and stigma surrounding GMOs.
One advantage of GMO labeling is that consumers will know what they are choosing to buy and be able to make a conscious decision about what they want to consume. It may also create a market for non-GMO foods similar to the organic food market that an create opportunities for non-GMO food companies. A disadvantage to GMO labeling is that it will drive up grocery prices overall because all foods will have to be tested for GMO’s which will raise costs. Labels themselves would also have to be made and put on all foods, which will drive up costs. I think that GMO foods are a good investment in creating more food because they are more efficient than traditional food for a growing population with a longer shelf life and decrease the amount of pesticides used that are damaging the environment. I think research in all different areas of food production is necessary to have the best food production available in the future, but GMOs are definitely still worth pursued research in as well. I agree with Borut Bohanec from University of Ljubljana that the public needs to learn more about GMOs and not just fear. I also learned from him that since GMO foods are tested and developed, they can sometimes be safer than their natural counterparts. I think that GMO foods are a great technology, and that food production research needs to continue in general, for GMO research and others.
ReplyDelete1. GMO is labeling so that consumers can make purchases based on if something is genetically modified. To some, it does not make a difference but I personally choose to not eat GMO foods, so it is something I would appreciate seeing.
ReplyDelete2. An issue with GMO labeling is that it could harm the market for GMOs. Not only will it discourage some people from purchasing them, it will also be an added expense for producers to add this label, in turn increasing the retail value of these foods and putting a strain on consumers.
3. I think we should continue to invest in GMOs. With an increasing population we are running out of viable farm land and need to come up with an alternative method. I do however believe that we need to continue looking for ways for it to be as safe as possible and not have any harmful affects on humans.
4. I thought he raised a lot of really interesting points, and I was surprised to hear how little testing is done on GMO foods. I think for it to be a viable option to support our population in the future a lot more regulations and testing procedures need to be put into place.
1. One advantage of GMO labeling on products is that it allows consumers to make educated decisions on what they are buying to eat. For example, a consumer who may have heard about GMO testing and additives but has not done much research on it themselves might hesitate to buy a GMO product at the store until they are more informed. This allows consumers to make their own educated and confident decisions about what they put into their bodies.
ReplyDelete2. On the other hand, one disadvantage of GMO labeling is that there may be consumers that are ignorant and don’t take the time to research these products thoroughly. There may be a wave of fear triggered by the word GMO when consumers will correlate them with the foods being unnatural or dangerous.This would negatively affect the market.
3. I believe that the integration of GMO products to aid in increasing the food supply for the growing population is something that can still be improved, and I support investment in the continued research and development of GMOs. I think the main aspects that can be improved are the potential toxins and GMOs, cost effective pricing for products, and increased crop yields. Although there are numerous areas to be explored in the future developments of GMOs, not all investments should be put solely into GMOs to try and help overpopulation. Money should be allocated to alternative solutions as well.
4. I found the TED talks to be informative and easy to follow. Both were engaging speakers and I felt that Hirshbeg really made we think twice about the regulation of labeling. It is a huge process for any pharmaceutical drug to enter the market, yet the testing done on GMO products in the US are still something not closely mandated. This reminds me of all the different fitness and nutritional supplements that athletes and exercise enthusiasts like to take. There are so many different products are the market and none have much sound study evidence behind them. This all really made me look at the problem that surrounds the fact that companies are withholding information from consumers about what we put into our bodies.
I agree that we should not be solely focused on GMOs to aid with food supply and that we should focus on other alternatives as well. The alternative that I mentioned in my posting is about interior farming. There is an interior farm in Japan that grows food 100 time more efficient than traditional farming. This farm controls the temperature and humidity and other aspects of mother nature so the condition for growth is optimal for these plants. I think that is a safer solution and an immediate solution that we can look deeper into.
Delete1. Describe one advantage of GMO labeling
ReplyDeleteConsumers will be able to make an informed decision on what they choose to buy and eat. People should have the choice of what goes into their bodies. I know I unknowingly eat GMO foods every day, however, if there was a label telling me that the food was genetically altered, I may think twice before purchasing it.
2. Describe one disadvantage of GMO labeling
The sales of GMO foods may go down if consumers know that the product they buy has been genetically altered. Whether GMO foods are safe or not, many people do not understand what it means for food to be altered and therefore may fear it would harm them.
3. Moving forward, as the population continues to increase, do you think we should continue investing in research and development in GMO or do you want to propose alternative methods to support the food supply. Please discuss your ideas.
As the population increases the demand for food goes up and yet the supply of land for growing crops, for example, is limited. Therefore, the thought that we, as a population, may run out of food someday is feasible. For this reason, I think that more research must be done on GMO foods to ensure that they are completely safe, without a doubt, and that these foods pose no harm to both human populations and animals. I feel like generations pass and people are getting taller faster and looking older than their age. ADHD is also on the rise in the US and some other areas and I think that a lot of what happens to us developmentally is due to the effects of what we eat and how the food market has changed over the years so it is important to know what we are putting into our bodies.
4. What are your reactions to the TedTalks? Share something new you learned here.
I enjoyed the Tedtalks. I was surprised to learn that countries such as Russia and Syria mandate GMO labeling and yet the US still has no regulation regarding labelling. You would think that the US government would want to give their people more freedom of choice than those other governments, however, it seems the US is more concerned with capitalism and profit.
1. One advantage of labeling GMO products is that consumers know what the food they are eating is being made from. Consumers are informed if there is any kind of chemical, pesticide, or unnatural product used in the manufacturing of their food.
ReplyDelete2. One disadvantage is that many GMOs are being passed over even though they are perfectly safe to eat. If the food is outright dangerous to be consumed then it would be taken off the market. Therefore, labeling may cause consumers to pass over the products labeled as GMOs simply because of the stigma surrounding the process.
3. Moving forward I definitely believe that we should keep researching GMOs because in many circumstances there is a huge food shortage. In order to keep up with demand farms are forced to use GMOs in their products. The more knowledge we gain from research, the more we know about how to make GMOs safe across the board so that we can ensure we do not run out of food.
4. The Ted talks were really interesting. I was surprised to hear that the FDA does not mandate allergen, toxin, fetal side affect testing in the crops that include GMOs. I would think that since these crops are being distributed around the country to various populations, that the farmers and the FDA would ensure that they were 100% safe to be consumed, and to avoid food poisoning.
Katherine,
DeleteI agree with you that GMO labeling would make consumers feel like they are more informed. However, I think you should still keep in mind that there might be some biased to these studies that say that GMOs are "healthy" and "safe" because they are funded by the GMO companies themselves. I'm not saying they are or they aren't (because who am I) but I just think we should all be skeptical and not just believe everything we are told.
1 and 2. Describe one advantage of GMO labeling and describe one disadvantage of GMO labeling.
ReplyDeleteAn advantage of GMO labeling is that it gives people accountability for what’s in their food, especially if they want to be proactive about knowing exactly what they’re eating. With this information, they can make decisions based on their values rather then be in the dark. However, a disadvantage is that consumers might interpret the information in a way that is problematic. Just because they are given the facts, or label, does not mean that they know how to interpret them. What could otherwise be good foods to consume might instead have a negative connotation, and over time, serious cases such as the vitamin A deficiency in populations could occur.
3. Moving forward, as the population continues to increase, do you think we should continue investing in research and development in GMO or do you want to propose alternative methods to support the food supply. Please discuss your ideas.
Moving forward, although I believe that research and development in GMOs are important and worth delving further into (especially after watching Borut Bohanec’s talk), I believe that we should also focus our efforts to alternative methods. An example is addressing the amount of pesticide being used on crops and researching a way to decrease the chemicals being used btu still have the same effects. There has been an increase in chemical use due to weeds becoming increasingly more resistant to pesticides over time (seen in Hirshberg’s talk). This specifically worries me especially after learning about the BT insecticide and toxins present in the blood of pregnant women where BT was thought to die before becoming digested. There is still much to learn about GMOs since there is much uncertainty, but one thing we do know is that there is a direct relationship between increasing crop use and increase in chemical use, therefore we should address the safety behind this.
4. What are your reactions to the TedTalks? Share something new you learned here.
Overall, I was very surprised by the new information that I’ve learned from the TedTalks. From Gary Hirshberg’s I was surprised to learn that 90% of soy is and 85% of corn is genetically engineered but that the average citizen knows nothing about this. Also, it was shocking to know that countries such as the majority of the EU, Russia, China, and Syria have mandated GMO labeling but the US has not. Furthermore, there was also a study linking pesticide exposure to ADHD, and I’m curious to see what further research could bring and if there is a potential tie between eating or not eating certain foods to prevent ADHD.
1. Describe one advantage of GMO labeling
ReplyDeleteAn advantage of GMO labeling is that consumers will be fully informed of what they’re purchasing. It is important to educate consumers so that they can make the best decisions for themselves. If someone is opposed to GMO’s, they should have the freedom to make that choice and be able to recognize which products on the shelf are genetically modified and which are not.
2. Describe one disadvantage of GMO labeling.
For those who are less educated about GMO’s, the choice may be made to avoid purchasing a product based simply on the fact that it says GMO on it; whereas the consumer may never have thought twice about it. This can hurt the market for GMO’s and create an aversion to certain products that probably are just as good as, if not better than, their non-GMO counterparts.
3. Moving forward, as the population continues to increase, do you think we should continue investing in research and development in GMO or do you want to propose alternative methods to support the food supply. Please discuss your ideas.
I think that as the population continues to grow, it is important to continue researching and investing in GMO’s. The earth does not produce enough food to naturally provide for and sustain a population size of what we are headed toward.
I am a proponent of GMO’s, and will continue to be until research shows any kind of significant health concern associated with it.
4. What are your reactions to the TedTalks? Share something new you learned here.
I found that the TedTalks were both informative and entertaining. I think it was interesting to hear about the labeling laws implemented in other countries. I would have figured the US would be ahead of the curve with settling this debate and would have implemented regulations on this already. I do, however, understand why there is debate, and am not sure if it would be a good idea to require labels on GMO’s. There needs to be more research on the topic, and the public needs to be educated and made aware of the reality of any need (or lack thereof) for concern. If it can be officially concluded that there is no significant risk, labels may be unnecessary. That being said, it could be equated with labeling things like “grass-fed” or “cage-free.” Consumers like to know what they’re buying, so once the public is well educated on GMO’s, it could be a good idea to include labels to help mitigate the anti-GMO movement.
Chris,
DeleteI agree that we should continue funding research and development of GMOs mainly because we are still trying to eradicate world hunger. If we cease development, then the total amount of food available would decrease substantially and this would lead to our goals being set back. I was also very surprised that the United States had not mandated GMOs to be labeled on their products.
In his TED talk, Gary Hirshberg pointed out multiple reasons of GMO labeling. One of the advantages he highlighted is that by labeling GMO on products, the consumers will be better informed about what they are buying and eating. The consumers of these products might be researchers who are trying to figure out the effects of the different GMOs on the human body. Little research has been done of GMO since they were introduced to the public in 1996 and there are an increasing number of GMOs on the market along with natural products and consumers have no idea. Although the FDA states that GMOs are inherently the same as the natural grown judging from the taste and texture, among other physical characteristics, there have not been enough studies done to prove so. By labeling GMOs, not only are consumers more aware about the food they are eating, it also makes it a lot easier for research to be conducted on these products.
ReplyDeleteI believe that until more research can be done on the effects of the different types of GMOs on the human body, we should not continue to fund development of GMO. GMO are potentially harmful to people and it may cause permanent changes in the human the long run. It may also beneficial to the human body but we cannot know that unless more research are conducted on the effects of the GMOs. A potential immediate solution to support food supply is to build interior farms such as the one in Japan. These interior frames manipulate the natural variables such as sunlight, humidity, and water supple. The farm has proven to be 100 times more efficient than traditional farms. This option is definitely a good alternative to GMOs while studies can be conducted on them.
The TED talk raised questions that I didn’t think of previously. Gary Hirshberg pointed out issues surrounding GMOs while trying to stay unbiased. After listening to the presentation, I got a sense that GMOs are under-researched and are potentially harmful to humans. I am worried now that the food I have been eating, the fresh produce, is actually bad for me. I would like for GMOs to be labeled so I can choose whether to take the risk by consuming them or not.
I forgot to include disadvantages:
DeleteA disadvantage of labeling GMOs is that by differentiating GMOs from natural products, the prices of these products may increase. The public might make the assumptions that GMO products are better and the producers may take advantage of that and increase the price of GMO products simply based on an assumption. If it is proven later that GMOs are actually not as good as natural products, the price of natural products may increase which means that consumers have to spend more money on the same products they have been buying before
1. One of the many advantages to GMO labeling would be a restoration in consumer confidence. Customers would feel liked they are being provided the necessary information to make informed decision about the food they purchase for personal, religious, moral, cultural, health, environmental and economic reasons. This sense of transparency to the food system could also have great economic benefits because people would trust the food companies more.
ReplyDelete2. On the other hand, providing GMO labels could just intensify the misconceptions of the already paranoid public. The labels might just further confuse or worry people and make them think that there are harmful toxins in the food when this has been proven otherwise in test. It might make people feel like they cannot buy any food item labeled as a GMO even though it is just as good as any other food.
3. This is not a black and white issue so it is difficult to answer this question in such a way. Theoretically, GMOs are efficient in providing large amounts of food for a greater amount of people. Studies have been done that imply the safety of GMOs and back up the global use of them. However, in the public’s eyes this is still some weird man made, chemically induced for of food that could possibly be causing diseases and other illnesses. People will continue to be skeptical even with the scientific negation of all the misconceptions about GMOs. I think people need to see more research that maybe even shows some type of health benefit associated with these foods. There should definitely be more research done because that is the only way to prove or disprove if certain chemicals or pesticides from GMOs are the cause chronic illnesses. But for now there is too much uncertainty. Who knows, maybe it could be causing something we haven’t discovered yet. We need to also be mindful of who is doing and supervising these studies because they can maybe even be biased if they are funded by the GMO companies themselves. If GMOs are proven to be safe and just as healthy as other foods, then I would say they should continue to be developed.
4. I enjoyed the TedTalks especially because I feel like I learned a lot of new things. I was really surprised at the fact that the U.S. does not label these foods while many other countries like Syria and Russia do label GMOs. I was shocked to hear some of the health effects associated with consuming GMOs. I’ve only seen studies that state that GMOs are not harmful in any way and can be considered with the same regard as regular foods. After hearing Hirshberg’s statements, I can say I am much more paranoid now than previous. I will be doing more research about GMOs and the effect they can have on me. His comments about the effects of herbicides that remain in women’s bodies really disgusted me. Why don’t more people know about this? Granted I don’t know much about this topic, I've never heard of anything directly having an effect on the body before this TedTalk. Overall I get the general sense that GMOs cause more bad than good and the bad is being swept under the rug.
One advantage to GMO labeling is that small farmers may become more competitive and can advertise the all-natural side of their products.
ReplyDeleteOne disadvantage to GMO labeling is that since more consumers may stop buying GMO foods, companies producing GMO crops may have to decrease price of their products in order to incentivize people to buy them, incurring additional costs to the company.
Realistically speaking, I don't think many people will make the switch to small farmers because we have been using GMO products all this time, and people only think short-term. Since in the short-term most people have not had anything bad happen to them when consuming GMO products, they will continue to buy them even after it has been labeled. Since GMO's have been relatively effective, I think that the best thing to do is to continue research on GMOs and make them even safer to conusme.
I was surprised to find out that many other countries do require GMO labeling. It makes sense why the US has not had GMO labeling though, since our country is very individualistic and business and economically oriented rather than health and community oriented.
As the controversy over genetically modified organisms continues in the United States and across the world, many people are putting pressure on state and national governments to regulate labelling of products that are genetically modified or contain GM ingredients. While not everyone agrees about the safety of GMOs, many people are pushing for better labelling practices. I think that one of the advantages of GMO labelling is allowing people the autonomy to choose their products and providing people with information that is necessary for them to make informed decisions. Because GMOs could technically be introducing new bacteria and proteins, and therefore may theoretically be introducing new toxins, labeling is in fact important and people should have the right to know. I also think that one other major advantage of GMO labeling is for epidemiological purposes. Labeling of GMO products will allow people and scientists to know for sure when they are exposed to GMO products and therefore make possible links between GMOs to diseases and disorders.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I would say that a major disadvantage of GMO labeling is changing the way the food system in the United States works. Because so many people are hesitant to buy or consume GMO products, I think labeling will drastically change our food economy and infrastructure. So many corn and soy products are genetically modified, and so many food products are then built off of those GMOs, that I believe that labeling will create a lot of immediate problems with food production and create shortages of non-GMO products, making them unaffordable to all sorts of people.
As we move forward, I absolutely believe that we should continue investing in research and development in GMO. Right now we are already struggling to feed our rapidly increasing population, and because I do not think enough people will change their eating and dietary habits, the world will not be able to produce enough food for the population without GMOs that provide additional nutrients and result in higher crop yields. While I do believe that there are huger problems with some GM crops, corporations, and the GMO food industry, I believe that the fear of GMOs is highly irrational, and that it is mainly due to a lack of knowledge by the general public about GMOs.
I found the Ted Talks to be very interesting, and one thing that I found to be surprising was that the Food and Drug Administration is not required to approve genetically engineered crops for consumption. Because this is such a heated issue related to food, I would have figured that the FDA required some type of testing about the safety of consumption of GMO foods in the United States.
1. The main advantage of GMO labeling is that all the consumers purchasing these items will be well informed on how their foods are being made. They will know exactly what is going into their bodies and if they have any doubts on their purchase, they have the option of selecting another option. The consumers should know that GMO are used so that higher yield of food is available and that added nutrients are beneficial for our health. In addition, the consumers now have the ability to research more in depth the potential benefits and negatives of genetically modified foods.
ReplyDelete2. The main disadvantage of GMO labeling is that various individuals would make a blind decision on not selecting these items because they are genetically modified. The two words are ominous and consumers will hesitate or immediately assume they are bad because they are not naturally made from earth. This will set off a chain of events that include a decrease in GMO market, large protests against GMOs because individuals will only see the negatives, and potential law suits. Most people will not invest their time to do all the research on both the benefits and negatives of GMOs.
3. I support the continued research and development of GMOs for various reasons. First, the world is continuing to grow yearly, and with the increase in population leads to increased demands for food. There are many countries today that suffer from hunger, and by decreasing the total amount of food, we are denying future help to developing countries. One of the millennium goals is to eradicate hunger, but if we are ceasing research in developing a plethora of accessible food, we are stepping several steps backwards. Many studies are still being investigated of long term GMO usage, but I believe continually conducting research on GMO will provide a higher supply of food and safer options.
4. The TedTalks are always educational and eye-opening to listen and digest the information presented. The main thing that stood out from the talk was that various countries, except the United States, have decreed a law where all products are to be labeled if they were GMO. We saw communist countries without freedom of speech, such as China and Russia, mandate these laws. The United States needs to catch up and inform the public of the foods they are eating!
1. Describe one advantage of GMO labeling
ReplyDeleteOne of the general advantages of GMO labeling is the ability for consumers to make a conscious decision about the food they are purchasing.
2. Describe one disadvantage of GMO labeling
Contrasting to the point above, the general disadvantage is that even if foods are labeled as GMOs, people may have ungrounded biases against GMOs, keeping them away from consuming something that may be more beneficial to them.
3. Moving forward, as the population continues to increase, do you think we should continue investing in research and development in GMO or do you want to propose alternative methods to support the food supply. Please discuss your ideas.
If we are to support the idea of unrestricted population growth (despite any risks associated with reaching a point of maximum capacity for the planet that may lead the world into some sort of apocalyptic extinction due to high competition for resources or a massive migration to different planets or space ships) GMOs will play an important role that will make their research and development essential to life. GMOs take fewer resources to grow and produce higher yields. GMOs would allow using space more efficiently and requiring less maintenance costs. This will in turn help in keeping the costs of food at a reasonable level (until the demand skyrockets).
4. What are your reactions to the TedTalks? Share something new you learned here.
I’m not surprised that there was opposing opinions based on different information gathered from each side and that there may be cases where food products fail to meet minimum safety standards. However, a good compromise would be to ensure the FDA does test all food products and publicly publish its results (if it doesn’t do so already) and label food in a way that people are aware of the contents of what they consume.
I was surprised to learn that over 55 nations require GMOs to be labeled as such, while in the US it is not required.
I agree that research should continue in the future. I do think though that regulations also need to be added to make sure the research done is not rushed in order to provide more food whether or not it is safe. If research progresses too quickly I worry that the countries which need more food will become essentially test subjects for the researchers to see how safe GMOs are and cancer rates and disease rates will sky rocket in populations that are given GMOs.
DeleteI agree that GMO research should continue, however I believe it should be done consciously. Laws need to be set up to ensure that products are not approved too quickly and that the products are not given the impoverished countries without enough regulations to prove that they are safe. If GMOs are produced and released too quickly the research may not be sufficient to see long term affects of the food and this will cause increases in cancers and other diseases.
DeleteAndros,
DeleteI completely agree with you that it is surprising to hear that more than 55 countries have GMO labeling but the US has yet to follow suit. I was very intrigued to hear and think about both sides of the debate and what will happen in this field in the future. I think that there is still a lot of research to be done and clearly a lot of people are not aware or educated on this topic. I do think that the FDA should test all products and publish the results.
1. GMO labeling provides transparency for consumers. If GMOs are labeled, buyers can make the choice whether to consume GMOs or naturally produced food. It stops people from eating food blindly and keeps them informed. While labeling does not show safety of the food, it give the person more information. Although GMO’s can be perfectly safe, a person should be able to control whether they want to eat GMOs or traditionally grown food.
ReplyDelete2. One disadvantage is labeling GMO seeds can increase the number of law suits by large companies on smaller farms who accidentally experience cross contamination. It will force small farms to be bought out by patent holders and they will lose most of their income. As much as farmers try to keep their own seeds uncontaminated, contamination is inevitable if a large-company farm is near them. The wind and animals will spread the seeds between farms and the small farms will fall the victim to the large farms, without ever purposefully breaking the law.
3. I think that as the population increases we should continue GMOs but these studies need to be very long term and the products should be very slowly introduced into the population and labeling should be present. Consumers should remain informed about the food they eat, but as the population grows natural crops will not produce enough food for the population. By providing GMOs to impoverished countries, populations can get food that they otherwise not have access to. These GMOs should be shown to be safe, and contaminated food should not be fed to these people that are impoverished. Just because developing countries have less money to buy food, does not mean that they should be guinea pigs to be exposed to food that is unsafe and could cause problems in the future.
4. I learned that although GMOs have claimed to lose their pesticides during consumption in order to be safe, this is not the truth. This makes me believe that GMOs have been introduced to the population too early. These pesticides correlate to increased levels of many diseases such as cancer and ADHD. This makes me believe that GMOs are not safe so labeling is essential for people to make that choice whether they want to take the risk and consume GMOs or to abstain from buying and consuming them.
Your article is extremely good. I love to read your blog's posts every day and I got huge help from your blog and developed a new app dr. ryan shephard you can check. Thanks for the amazing blog.
ReplyDelete