Would you continue to eat foods that have a history of causing health issues, such as cancer and Alzheimer's disease, if you discovered that you had been doing so all along? Any food containing GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) poses a risk of this kind. Unfortunately, GMOs in the United States lack or are not required to have a label that recognizes them as genetically modified organisms. For the most part, they are goods whose genetic composition has been tampered with unnaturally; the aim of changing the genetic structure is to achieve the desired characteristics. These senior citizens, who frequently suffer from mental illnesses, are often neglected by society, including their families. Social morality dictates that sick people should be cared for by their immediate family. 

 In spite of the fact that there are various approaches to get rid of GMO food produce, on a few of the approaches can be used adequately. The first thing is to involve the partners or stakeholders while making decisions. A fraction of stakeholders who deal with GMOs are either customers, suppliers, farmers, the FDA (Food and Drug Administration), specialists, and relatives that have friends and family who eat GMO products routinely. The other fraction of the stakeholders is made up of factors which aren't human, for example, plants, soil, natural creatures, and all the more particularly, bees. Plants get influenced by GMOs on the grounds that they will regularly be sprayed with insecticides to help avoid dangerous insects from destroying the plants and help them to avoid making foods grown on earth uneatable. The same applies to all other animals kept at home which ingest GMO food. The of eating genetically modified foods is the same kind of health threats for humans and animals. Though GMO foods claim to be healthier as other foods, people should avoid ingesting them as they put their health at danger.

A couple of answers for what should be done to GMO foods have come up; either entirely stop their production or make them healthier. They have labeled GMO food produce, executed several techniques for product rotation, eco-farming, and supporting natural farms and deciding not to ingest any food which is not as natural as could reasonably be expected. FDA's top priority should be to label any GMO food products available in the market. In the U.S., it isn't on account of it's feared that individuals will turn out to be more informed about what it is precise that they are ingesting into their bodies and will no longer purchase the products. Labeling GMO foods in the U.S. is discouraged which is not the case in The Europe where they have to be labeled.  The reason why FDA and USDA don't expect GMO foods to be labeled is because they would prefer not to "recommend or suggest" that the foods are different when compared to non­GMO foods, as indicated by an article posted in the New York Times (Bittman, Mark).  Regardless of the GMO foods being supposed to have a label expressing that, still there would be no assurance that the majority of the ingredients which are genetically modified would be represented. The same article further revealed that GMOs aren't listed, and for now, you could purchase natural foods, which by law can't get composed of over 5 percent GMOs, yet these days, not even that approximation is dependable.

Crop rotation is another approach which can be utilized in managing GMO food production. Crop rotation is capable of controlling a variety of pests as compared to one or two bugs type. As defined by the USA’s Union of Concerned Scientists, crop rotation is when decides to come up with some system of determining the crop to plant where when yearly (“Genetic Engineering Risks and Impacts”). The approach in most cases is utilized in increasing the fertility of soil, minimize the chances of bad soil-born insects breeding, and guarantee pesticide resistance is avoided throughout. Though crop rotations might be considered to be a better approach to managing GMO crops, it at times may turn out to be costly and cumbersome for the farmers to plant every crop in a new place yearly and as a result, they may be discouraged to embrace it. Usually, farmers adopt approaches that are cost efficient and safe as they go about their crop management; despite crop rotation may being good, it does not give the best-desired outcome.   

Ecological Farming can be compared to crop rotation; it is usually referred as Eco-farming. According to the Greenpeace Research Laboratories, Eco-farming guarantees the production of healthy food and practice of healthy farming approaches through the conservation of soil, water and climate, advocates for biodiversity, and doesn’t pollute the surrounding with inputs of chemical or alteration of genetic material.  With time Eco-farming would be in a position to give all people in the world a healthy and viable food from a food source that is dependable for a long time, though it will be at a cost. The cost as a result of Eco-Farming can be paid easily for by the consumers in case there exist other cheaper options. Despite the likelihood that the option is to be a convenient approach for food provision to many individuals, majority are very unlikely to be willing to exchange their affordable alternatives for it and in this manner, it would not be the best answer for constraining GMO product production and sale.  

Another solution will be deciding to support organic farms through buying only food products that are natural with the objective of eliminating companies that produce non-organic products out of business. In reality, as other proposed solutions have indicated, the decision to always eat all organic food is likely to be expensive. In today’s society, majority of the people are likely to decide continue ingesting cheaper and less natural foods as compared to eating healthier and expensive diet that has organic food. Therefore, despite entirely supporting organic farms which will serve as a simple and easy approach that is likely to encourage GMO food producers limit, or rather avoid the production of the products due to their low demand. The chances of this happening are low due to the costly costs to be incurred by individuals to basically ingest meals daily.

Proposing a prohibition on glyphosate; an herbicide applied on the leaves of plants with an objective of eliminating plants and grasses with broadleaf (National Pesticide Information Center). It is likely to be a suitable method for entirely doing away with GMOs or constraining the health hazard that result. Glyphosate is recognized as a dangerous and harming method used to kill weeds, and as such, in the event it was to be restricted from all business utilization in the U.S., then the result will be reduced risks from GMO food products on its consumers.  Forbidding glyphosate is likely not to cause increased costs for either the farmer or the recipient of the farmer’s products. The main thing that might get changed is the herbicide product used on the harvests. Numerous nations, for example, the Netherlands and Mexico, have prohibited the utilization of glyphosate in light of the fact that it has been recognized to bring about medical problems. As indicated by evolution.com, some of the issues include defects at birth, damaged nervous system, Alzheimer illness, Parkinson illness, various cancer types, and failure of the kidney. By avoiding the utilization of glyphosate and rather utilizing a more secure and healthier option, for example, other herbicides that are in existence. Then GMO products would end up noticeably healthier compared to what they currently are at a similar cost, or individuals would change to non­GMO products on the grounds that there would never again be any kind of distinction between the two.

Conclusion

From the numerous solutions that have been proposed for establishing a healthier and more feasible society by restricting GMO food production, introducing a prohibition on glyphosate is by a wide margin the most legal and sensible to the society today. In the U.S. prohibiting glyphosate, it is unlikely to add on costs incurred by either the consumers or farmers or the products; therefore, the outcome will be making the world populace healthier. Due to all the possible health concerns as a consequence of GMOs, it is not justified, despite any potential benefits to keep producing them because the heath of people should be put first.    

Works cited

Bittman, Mark. "Why Aren't G.M.O. Foods Labeled?". Opinionator, 2017, https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/15/why-arent-g-m-o-foods-labeled/.

"Defining Ecological Concepts." ​Nature​ 227.5255 (1970): 313. ​Ecological Farming​. Greenpeace Labratories. 2017, http://www.greenpeace.to/publications/defining-ecological-farming-2009.pdf.

"Genetic Engineering Risks And Impacts". Union Of Concerned Scientists, 2017, http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering/risks-of-genetic-engineering.html#.WOoTM2mGPIU.

"Glyphosate." National Pesticide Information Center. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Apr. 2017. http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/glyphogen.html

Pusztai, Arpad. "Genetically Modified Foods: Are They a Risk to Human/Animal Health?." Actionbioscience. org. June (2001).