Currently, GMO (Genetically Modified Organism) foods in the United States are not classified differently by the FDA and do not require labeling. Although no reports of ill effects from GMO foods have been documented, advocacy groups such as Greenpeace and the Organic Consumers Association argue that past studies cannot be trusted because they were sponsored by pro-GMO companies and do not measure the long-term effects on humans, the environment, and nature. Opponents argue that labeling adds an unfounded stigma over organic foods and that if a nutritional or allergenic difference were found, current FDA regulations would already require a label.
84% Yes |
15% No |
74% Yes |
12% No |
7% Yes, consumers have a right to know what is in their food |
3% No, we have selectively bred crops for thousands of years and labeling just adds an unfounded stigma to the science |
2% Yes, I trust the science of responsible food engineering but I don’t trust the motives of the food companies selling them |
1% No, GMOs are the most promising solution to ending world hunger |
1% Yes, but I would prefer to ban GMOs |
See how support for each position on “GMO Labels” has changed over time for 9.3m America voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
See how importance of “GMO Labels” has changed over time for 9.3m America voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Unique answers from America users whose views extended beyond the provided choices.
@5C68SLV3yrs3Y
GMO's- Do some research! GMO's aren't typically bad. Insulin that diabetics inject themselves with, is a GMO. It's a genetically modified organism. Modifying organisms goes all the way back to Egyptian times. Tomatoes are genetically modified, Cherry tomatoes are what tomatoes used to be until people started modifying them. So tell that to everyone who thinks their tomatoes should be left alone... and then give them cherry tomatoes and see how they feel. It's ridiculous that people have such strong opinions without doing any research themselves. They ask doctors about vaccines or vegans about GMO's... how about you do research from both sides and actually look at the facts to base your opinion off of. Don't have an opinion based off of someone else's opinion.
@57QNQ7P3yrs3Y
it's too late. How long have we that are over 50 been exposed? the effects are already in process. So, I think the point is mute now
@58CWKS73yrs3Y
Frankenstein food should be outlawed. How many gov. Officials have been purchased by the Evil of Monsanto?
@58WCY6W3yrs3Y
The anti-GMO advocates are paranoid. Popular Mechanics magazine points out the about 70% or more of our processed foods are GMO's and have been for decades. There are so many thoroughly false rumors about GMOs, and people believe them. I lived on a farm and we grew crops with "engineered" seeds, and they grew very well with no ill effects on man or animal.
@592ZY9Z3yrs3Y
Pretty much all food produced today is genetically modified. We used to do it through selective breeding, now there are other ways of modifying our food. Oversight is obviously required for all food production, but as long as it does not present a public health danger I see no reason to single out one method of manipulation over another.
Explore other topics that are important to America voters.
@ISIDEWITH3wks3W
In a series of developments that have stirred the political landscape, former President Donald Trump has publicly endorsed the presidential bid of independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., describing it as 'great for MAGA.' Trump's remarks came after Kennedy announced his vice-presidential pick, further intensifying the political discourse. Trump, in his characteristic style, took to social media to express his views, labeling Kennedy as the 'most radical left' candidate in the race and highlighting the liberal credentials of Kennedy's running mate, Nicole Shanahan. Despite his criticism of their political stance, Trump views Kennedy's candidacy as beneficial for his MAGA movement, suggesting it could potentially divide the Democratic vote.Kennedy, a figure who has long been associated with controversial views, particularly on the rule of law and established science, has drawn criticism and concern from various quarters. His decision to run for president and the subsequent endorsement by Trump has sparked a flurry of reactions, with some seeing it as a strategic move that could impact the Democratic Party's chances in the upcoming elections. Allies of President Joe Biden have expressed alarm over Kennedy's bid, fearing it could siphon off crucial votes from the left, thereby posing a significant threat to Biden's reelection efforts.The political dynamics surrounding Kennedy's candidacy and Trump's endorsement underscore the complex and often unpredictable nature of American politics. As the race for the presidency heats up, the strategies employed by candidates and their supporters are coming under increased scrutiny. The potential impact of Kennedy's run on the Democratic vote is a topic of much speculation, with analysts and political observers closely monitoring the situation.Trump's support for Kennedy, despite their ideological differences, highlights the former president's tactical approach to politics. By endorsing a candidate who could potentially weaken his opponents, Trump is playing a strategic game, aiming to maximize his own chances of success. This move has not only added a new dimension to the political landscape but has also raised questions about the future direction of both the Republican and Democratic parties.As the United States gears up for another presidential election, the emergence of candidates like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the reactions they provoke from figures like Donald Trump are indicative of the shifting sands of American politics. With the electorate increasingly polarized, the outcome of the election remains uncertain, and the strategies adopted by candidates will be crucial in determining the path forward.