The article chosen deals with the types of labeling used by USDA on GMO foods. The article written by the Center for Food Safety states how they filed a legal appeal against the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which calls into question the methods/loopholes used when labeling GMO/GE foods, which were then placed upon shelfs of various marketplaces.
One detail which helps frame what side/kind of story the article is made out be is who are made out to be the good/bad guys. The CFS article makes themselves out as good while the USDA is made out as bad. Specific words such as “challenged" or “unlawful” are used against the USDA’s side in order to further say who’s right/wrong.
Another detail which helps framing is considering the aspects of what parts of the story was/wasn’t covered. The CFS article is about how the USDA tried to avoid clearly labeling GE products and the processes done in order to improve and/or challenge the hidden labeling. It fails to mention, however, whether or not the change and improvement of the labeling process could affect sales. An article written for the Chicago Booth review provided evidence for how sales would be affected through the use of NielsenIQ Retail Scanner Data which focused on GMO-heavy cereal foods. The article stated that when Vermont’s labeling mandate dropped, there was, “no statistically significant change in demand for non-GMO foods…” (Reedy, 2022).
The kind of ideology used by the CFS is one that revolves around the dangers of GMO foods and how they shouldn’t be used or, at least, labeled properly and clearly for the general public to see. The larger food-related issue here is GMO/GE foods in general. There are articles like one written for Healthline, however, which provide insight into the pros/cons of GMO foods which can help form a reader’s opinion. Examples include how GMO foods can offer advantages to the grower and consumer, some including fewer pesticides, improved food survival and greater yield (Raman, 2024).
