Unit VIII Scholarly Activity: Food & Agriculture Field Study ✓ Solved

Unit VIII Scholarly Activity Food & Agriculture Field Study:

Unit VIII Scholarly Activity Food & Agriculture Field Study: GMOs For this assignment, you should perform research into genetically modified foods. Search the internet for news stories and other information for and against GMO foods. Visit your local supermarket or local health food store, and find foods that are genetically modified. Assignment Requirements: Re-write each question and provide your responses to all questions. Your paper should be written in APA style, and your questions and responses should be at least one page in length (not including the title page and references page). Use at least one source. Acceptable sources include the textbook, reputable news articles, organization websites, or scholarly articles. GMO Assignment Questions: 1) Were you able to find foods that were genetically modified at the store? 2) How do you know, as a consumer, if you are eating engineered foods? Is it clearly marked which items contain GMOs? 3) Does it matter? Should GMOs be labeled? 4) Why is there a debate over genetically modified foods? 5) What is your position on GMOs? Do you feel GMOs are safe or not safe to eat? Should they be banned? 6) Should there be laws governing the production or labeling of GMOs? 7) Do you feel we need GMOs to “feed the world?" Note: If you are unable to visit a store, you may browse online shopping sites for the shopping field study.

Paper For Above Instructions

Introduction and context. Genetically modified foods (GMOs) have been a focal point of public debate for decades, straddling issues of science, policy, consumer choice, and global food security. This paper follows the seven questions posed in the assignment and integrates research from regulatory agencies, independent scientific bodies, and reputable sources to present a balanced view of what GMOs are, how they are evaluated, and what their presence means for consumers and policy. A key aim is to translate the research into practical consumer insight while acknowledging legitimate uncertainties in public perception and scientific evidence (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2016; FDA, 2016).

1) Were you able to find foods that were genetically modified at the store? In many markets, GMOs are present in ingredients rather than as clearly labeled “genetically modified” whole foods. Common GM ingredients include corn, soy, canola, and sugar beets or products derived from them, such as corn syrup, soybean oil, and cited starches. The ability to identify GMOs by eye is limited unless the product label explicitly states it. In the United States, the regulatory framework historically did not require universal GMO labeling, though programs and voluntary disclosures have evolved; some products disclose bioengineered content, and many processed foods contain ingredients from GM crops even if the package does not explicitly bear a GMO label (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2016; FDA, 2016). Consumers often rely on the ingredient list and, increasingly, “bioengineered” or similar disclosures when available (FDA, 2016).

2) How do you know, as a consumer, if you are eating engineered foods? Is it clearly marked which items contain GMOs? Knowledge comes primarily through labeling and ingredient disclosure, which varies by jurisdiction. In the U.S., large-scale voluntary disclosures and state-level labeling laws have shaped how GM content is communicated to shoppers, but many products still do not use explicit GMO labeling. International guidance and regulatory agencies emphasize safety assessments rather than labeling alone as proof of safety (FDA, 2016; World Health Organization, 2005). Consumers can check the ingredient lists for known GM crops (e.g., corn, soy, canola, sugar beets) and look for bioengineered labeling where required by law or policy (Pew Research Center, 2016).

3) Does it matter? Should GMOs be labeled? The labeling issue centers on consumer autonomy and perceived transparency versus the practical considerations of supply chains and food marketing. Proponents of labeling argue that consumers have a right to know how their food is produced and to make informed choices, especially for those with lifestyle or health concerns. Opponents highlight that labeling may imply risk where scientific consensus does not support it and could create unnecessary stigma. The scholarly consensus, drawing on diverse regulatory reviews, supports the safety of approved GM crops while recognizing that labeling policies are a separate policy choice that affects consumer information and market dynamics (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2016; EFSA, 2013; WHO, 2005; Pew Research Center, 2016).

4) Why is there a debate over genetically modified foods? The debate arises from multiple dimensions: science and risk assessment, environmental impact, agricultural productivity, corporate control of seeds, and consumer values. Scientific bodies generally conclude that approved GM crops are as safe as conventional crops, with benefits such as increased yields, reduced pesticide use, and potential for improved nutrition in certain crops (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2016; Brookes & Barfoot, 2020). Critics raise concerns about ecological balance, long-term health effects (even if not supported by current evidence), and the socioeconomic implications for farmers, especially in developing countries (Klumper & Qaim, 2014; Pew Research Center, 2016). Policy questions about labeling, oversight, and approval processes intensify the debate (EFSA, 2013; FDA, 2016).

5) What is your position on GMOs? Do you feel GMOs are safe or not safe to eat? Should they be banned? The scientific consensus is that currently approved GM foods are as safe as their conventional counterparts for consumption, with no credible evidence of inherent risk when properly evaluated and regulated (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2016; WHO, 2005; FDA, 2016). A blanket ban would likely hinder potential benefits in areas such as crop resilience and nutritional enhancement, especially in regions facing food security challenges, though robust oversight and transparent labeling are prudent to maintain public trust (Brookes & Barfoot, 2020; Klümper & Qaim, 2014). Personal stance varies, but it is reasonable to emphasize evidence-based risk assessment and to support policies that improve transparency, safety, and access to diverse agricultural options.

6) Should there be laws governing the production or labeling of GMOs? Yes, many scholars and policymakers argue for a framework that balances scientific risk assessment with consumer rights and agricultural innovation. Laws governing labeling, traceability, environmental risk assessment, and product approvals help ensure safety and informed choice without stifling beneficial technologies. The European model emphasizes precaution and robust oversight, while U.S. policy has emphasized risk-based assessments and, in some contexts, labeling requirements. International bodies advocate harmonization of safety standards and clear communication to consumers (EFSA, 2013; FDA, 2016; ISAAA, 2020; Pew Research Center, 2016).

7) Do you feel we need GMOs to “feed the world”? The debate about feeding the world is connected to agricultural productivity, climate resilience, and nutrition. GM crops have contributed to increases in yields and efficiency in many regions, and technology development aims to address nutrient gaps and drought tolerance. However, technology alone cannot solve global food security; compatible policy, infrastructure, and access to resources are essential. Meta-analyses indicate positive yield effects and potential reductions in pesticide use for many GM crops, though results vary by crop and region (Klümper & Qaim, 2014; Brookes & Barfoot, 2020). In sum, GMOs are a tool with potential benefits for food security when integrated with sound agricultural practices, governance, and equitable access.

Conclusion. The GMO debate is nuanced and requires careful evaluation of scientific evidence, regulatory safeguards, and consumer values. A balanced stance recognizes the demonstrated safety of approved GM crops, the potential environmental and economic benefits, and the need for transparent labeling and robust regulatory oversight to maintain public trust and ensure ethical, equitable deployment of biotechnology in agriculture (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2016; FDA, 2016; EFSA, 2013; ISAAA, 2020; Brookes & Barfoot, 2020; Klümper & Qaim, 2014; Pew Research Center, 2016; WHO, 2005).)

References

  • National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2016). Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
  • U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2016). Questions & Answers on Genetically Engineered Foods. Retrieved from https://www.fda.gov/food/food-labeling-nutrition/questions-answers-genetically-engineered-foods
  • World Health Organization. (2005). Genetically Modified Foods: What are they? Retrieved from https://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/en/
  • European Food Safety Authority. (2013). Safety assessment of genetically modified crops. EFSA Journal, 11(11): 340.
  • International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA). (2020). Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2020. ISAAA Brief No. 52.
  • Brookes, G., & Barfoot, P. (2020). GM crops: Global socio-economic and environmental impacts 1996-2018. GM Crops & Food, 11(2), 217-238.
  • Klümper, W., & Qaim, M. (2014). A meta-analysis of the impacts of genetically modified crops. PLOS ONE, 9(8): e111629.
  • Pew Research Center. (2016). Public attitudes toward GM foods. Pew Research Center.
  • World Bank. (2014). Biotechnology and food security: The role of GM crops. World Bank Report.
  • Nature Biotechnology. (2016). The global status of GM crops: 2016 update. Nature Biotechnology.

Related Assignments