StudentShare
Contact Us
Sign In / Sign Up for FREE
Search
Go to advanced search...
Free

Consumers Right to Know - Essay Example

Cite this document
Summary
The paper "Consumers’ Right to Know" focuses on the fact that since the 1990s, mandatory labelling of genetically-engineered food (GEF) has been a heated debate among GEF and organic food companies, concerned public agencies, and consumer organizations…
Download full paper File format: .doc, available for editing
GRAB THE BEST PAPER95.9% of users find it useful
Consumers Right to Know
Read Text Preview

Extract of sample "Consumers Right to Know"

? Genetically Engineered Food: Consumers’ Right to Know versus Commercial Right to Speech and FDA Regulations 11 January Since the 1990s, mandatory labeling of genetically-engineered food (GEF) has been a heated debate among GEF and organic food companies, concerned public agencies, and consumer organizations. In the article, “The Right to Know What We Eat,” Bereano (1998) argued that consumers have the right to know what is inside the food they are eating. In a speech delivered to Statement before the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee of the United States Senate, Levitt (2000) countered and stressed that GEF do not need labeling because the FDA is making sure that GEF in the market are fit for human consumption. This essay presents and analyzes their arguments, where they have both provided compelling claims that promote their interests, although they committed fallacies that diluted the strength of their theses; furthermore, this essay believes that without widespread public action, mandatory labeling will not be applied in the near future, and organic labeling can instead sufficiently serve as a guidance for people who want to steer away from GEF, while they prepare for stronger advocacy efforts for legalized GEF labeling. Aside from religious and health concerns of some consumers, GEF is not yet proven to be fully safe for people and the environment, and so they must be properly labeled for the benefit of proper consumer information. Bereano (1998) asserted that religious and citizen groups believe that the government, through the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), should enforce mandatory labeling of GEF. They have a right to know because they need this information to make the right buying decisions. Furthermore, Bereano (1998) noted that the government is wrong to say that consumers do not have to know the process of food production, when other process labeling ways are practiced, such as having labels, which state that the food is kosher or dolphin-free. In addition, Bereano (1998) believed that because of the precarious nature of GEF, the “precautionary principle” must be applied (p.278). It is a precaution for people to know what they are eating, so that they can make informed decisions. Moreover, Bereano (1998) maintained that the commercial right to free speech is secondary to the consumers’ right to food information, especially when he emphasized that there are “material” differences between organic food and GEF. He reminded companies that, when they state that GEF have “substantial equivalence” to other food, it contradicts their need to patent their GE products because they are original and different (Bereano, 1998, p.278). Hence, Bereano (1998) underscored that mandatory labeling serves the information needs of the general public, particularly in line with the potential or real harms to specific consumers because of health, cultural, environmental, scientific, and religious interests. Another source ascertained that GEF are not dangerous to human/animal health because the FDA ensures their safety. Levitt (2000) provided an FDA study which examined the safety of the most-criticized GM products and findings showed that they were not dangerous to human beings (Levitt, 2000, p.282). He presented his own scientific studies to back up his claims about GEF. In addition, Levitt (2000) explained the laborious process of GEF approval that are based on FDA and US Department of Agriculture (USDA) policies, specifically their 1992 policy on bioengineered food/crops. He stressed that even GEF food additives are subject to FDA evaluation and approval. He is saying that through these efforts, the government can ensure that all GEF in the market are safe for human consumption. Moreover, Levitt (2000) asserted that the FDA works closely with bio-engineering companies in helping them comply with food production standards (p.285). Consultation is continuous and begins during the early product development process. Hence, Levitt (2000) felt that mandatory GEF labeling is unnecessary, since the FDA and related public agencies are using scientific ways to test and to ensure the safety of GEF, and if they have findings of material differences, they already require companies to label these differences. This essay proceeds to the critical analysis of the authors’ arguments. The strengths of Bereano’s (1998) arguments are that he successfully asserted the conflicting statements of companies and the FDA regarding the newness of GEF and the importance of right to information versus commercial freedom of speech. Indeed, companies of GEF cannot claim that their products are both similar and different from existing traditionally-made ones. If their products are different, then they must explain why and labeling can help on this issue. In addition, the consumers’ right to know can pre-empt commercial freedom of speech, if they have evidence that their welfare is at stake, which Bereano (1998) claimed that he and pro-GEF labeling groups have. GEF is based on a young technology, and the FDA cannot prove that these kinds of food have no long-term consequences to people and the ecology. Despite these strengths, Bereano (1998) have committed several fallacies that reduced the persuasiveness of his arguments. First, he committed the slippery slope fallacy. He claimed that the precautionary principle justifies the need for GEF labeling. However, he already assumes that GEF is different all the time to traditionally-made food, which is yet to be proven. Second, Bereano (1998) poisoned the well without adequate proof. He asserted that, since the National Academy of Science showed findings that using antibiotic-resistant genes in crops can lead to antibiotic-tolerant disease bacteria, GEF are materially different and potentially harmful to consumers and the environment. The findings of one organization are not always sufficient to bring the safety of all GEF into question. As for Levitt (2000), the strengths of his argument are his convincing explanations that the FDA, in particular, and the government, in general, is regulating GEF already in the same way that they are regulating other traditionally-made products, and they have even added extra measures, and the FDA is listening and responding to various stakeholders to ensure the safety of GEF. Levitt (2000) provided detailed explanations of the policies and processes made for GEF assessment and approval, which seeks to guarantee that they are as safe as other food products. He effectively emphasized that the FDA is presently actively regulating GEF. Furthermore, Levitt (2000) noted that the FDA is doing everything they can to know more about GEF and how they can be made safer for human consumption, through their close consultation with companies, from the early product stages to actual testing and assessment of their final products. Hence, Levitt (2000) has a strong case in saying that the FDA is regulating GEF and labeling may no longer be needed. Levitt (2000), nevertheless, committed the fallacies of appeal to authority and red herring. First, he is saying that the FDA is the authority on this matter and that it is doing everything it can to ensure food safety for all GEF. He is asking the public to have faith in the FDA as the FDA. The problem with this is that authority is not always the same as veracity. The FDA needs to provide actual independent studies to prove that in the long-run, GEF truly do not have any negative effect on people and the environment. Second, Levitt (2000) committed the red herring fallacy because he focused more on what the FDA is doing than addressing the consumers’ demand to know GEF through labeling. He does not directly respond to this argument at all. This essay is concluded with my final thoughts, where I agree that people have the right to know what is in their food. I would also like to know if I am eating GEF because I hold aversive feelings towards it. I prefer organic food over GEF, although I will not judge consumers who eat GEF. I believe in freedom through options after all. But given the recent defeat of Proposition 37 in California (Pollack, 2012), it is highly improbable for GEF labeling to be pursued in the near future. Proposition 37 aims for GEF labeling, but the majority of the Californians voted against it because of the costs and complexities involved. Without the GEF labeling, I examined the existing options of consumers. First, consumers have the right to know and they can demand companies to label their GEF through petitions and the use of traditional and social media. They must use numbers to affect companies, if they want voluntary labeling at the very least. Otherwise, without a consolidated call from the target markets, companies will not make any move in labeling GEF. They will not see any profit or interest in voluntary or mandatory labeling, since the people are divided on this issue. As for religious groups that need to know GEF labels for dietary and religious purposes, I believe that with the practice of organic food labeling, this is enough to inform consumers which foods are organic and which have possibly genetically modified components. The USDA, for instance, has policies and standards in labeling organic food (Labeling Organic Products, n.d.) and this can be enough to differentiate organic food from traditional food and GEF. I am concerned that some GEF products can have lasting negative effects on human beings, and even the environment, plants, animals, and ecosystems included. For me, GEF is not yet completely proven to be safe in the long-run. However, people cannot see the implementation of mandatory GEF labeling, unless they have a stronger organizational network that can influence lawmakers, GEF companies, and the public, in general. Still, while GEF labeling remains an advocacy effort, people have other options, such as buying organic food and petitioning GEF companies to label their products. Through these efforts, they can influence labeling behaviors, and soon, they might get mandatory GEF labeling into law. Let the power to buy settle the issue of mandatory GEF labeling. References Bereano, P.L. (1998, October 11). The right to know what we eat. In L. Newton, E. Englehardt, & M. Pritchard (Eds.), Taking Sides: Clashing Views in Business Ethics and Society (12th ed.) (pp. 276-281). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 2011. Labeling Organic Products. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELDEV3004446&acct=nopgeninfo Levitt, J.A. (2000, September 26). No. In L. Newton, E. Englehardt, & M. Pritchard (Eds.), Taking Sides: Clashing Views in Business Ethics and Society (12th ed.) (pp. 282-292). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 2011. Pollack, A. (2012, November 7). After loss, the fight to label modified food continues. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/08/business/california-bid-to-label-genetically-modified-crops.html?_r=0 Read More
Cite this document
  • APA
  • MLA
  • CHICAGO
(“Should We Require Labeling for Genetically Modified Food Essay”, n.d.)
Should We Require Labeling for Genetically Modified Food Essay. Retrieved from https://studentshare.org/business/1465857-should-we-require-labeling-for-genetically
(Should We Require Labeling for Genetically Modified Food Essay)
Should We Require Labeling for Genetically Modified Food Essay. https://studentshare.org/business/1465857-should-we-require-labeling-for-genetically.
“Should We Require Labeling for Genetically Modified Food Essay”, n.d. https://studentshare.org/business/1465857-should-we-require-labeling-for-genetically.
  • Cited: 0 times

CHECK THESE SAMPLES OF Consumers Right to Know

Difficult Relationship with Food

The paper "Difficult Relationship with Food" highlights that apart from solving the problem of congestion the food grown in vertical farms is more protected against environmental hazards such as earthquakes because it occupies a lesser surface area and is not dependent on climatic conditions.... ...
8 Pages (2000 words) Essay

Management: Consumer Protection

The paper "Management: Consumer Protection" highlights that the foremost ethical principle concerning the consumers' right to know has been addressed in the movie in which several flaws have been shown in the domestic trading system due to the absence of this principle from the commercial markets.... The foremost concern that the chapter highlights in favor of the customers are their 'right to know which has been very beautifully shown in the movie....
5 Pages (1250 words) Essay

Food Labelling Constitutes

ven while conceding to the fact that GM foods may very well be safe, the fact remains that legal and ethical principles dictate that such foods must be labeled, thereby allowing consumers to exercise their right to choose.... In two independent reports, Eubanks (2002) and Cherry (2007) contend that the very nature of their production positions GM foods as a potential risk to the health and well-being of consumers.... The implication here is, as both Eubanks (2002) and Cherry (2007) emphasize, is that genetic alterations imply that these foods contain composites which may produce severe allergic reactions among some consumers but, to the extent that they are largely untested, or novel, their effect is unknown....
6 Pages (1500 words) Term Paper

Food Labelling Policies

Food labelling is mandatory in most countries and is rationalised by the consumers' right to know, on the one hand, and health and dietary reasons, on the other.... There are several reasons for the mandatory labelling of food products, the majority of which derive from the notion of the right to know and from health issues.... As regards the first, consumers have a right to know the composition of the food products they are purchasing so that they can make an informed purchase decision....
6 Pages (1500 words) Essay

Patients as consumers

Idea of the Week: A Health Consumers Right to Know," Democratic Leadership Council, June 8, 2001 ... atients have a right to know of the extent of finances provided by health insurance agencies.... 6 -The Patients right to know ... LC , Model Initiatives , July 10, 2006- Patients right to know ... A practitioner has a right to recommend but the ultimate right to make a final decision lies with the consumer....
2 Pages (500 words) Essay

Consumer Marketing - High Involvement and Low Involvement Purchases

Another characteristic of a high involvement purchase and complex buying behaviour is when the large differences among brands or products require the buyer to know a significant deal of information regarding the product to be purchased.... The perceptions of consumers with regards to luxury brands are influenced by the degree of commonality that is usually associated with brands that are mass produced and marketed.... consumers are in a heightened state of emotionalism, thereby leading him/her to purchase more goods or services that not only satisfy physical needs but also emotional needs as well....
10 Pages (2500 words) Assignment

Ethical Consumerism: Ethically Labeled Products, Ethical Retailers

This assignment "Ethical Consumerism: Ethically Labeled Products, Ethical Retailers" discusses ethical issues (ethical neutrality and ethical awareness); analyses possible approaches of consumers when deciding whether or not to buy ethically labeled products.... Consumerism being the 'movement seeking to protect and inform consumers by requiring such practices as honest packaging and advertising, product guarantees, and improved safety standards' (The Free Dictionary)....
6 Pages (1500 words) Assignment

Genetically Modified Foods

This paper ''Genetically Modified Foods'' tells that it resulted from the science of biotechnology, and most consumers feed on these foods.... Several have been put to ensure these foods are safe, thus their acceptance by many consumers.... Therefore, the world cannot be denied the use of this modern-day technology, and though most consumers have accepted the foods, caution must be taken.... Several other arguments have come up, and consumers are left to decide whether to use genetically modified foods or continue with the usual natural foods....
5 Pages (1250 words) Statistics Project
sponsored ads
We use cookies to create the best experience for you. Keep on browsing if you are OK with that, or find out how to manage cookies.
Contact Us