Consumers Right to Know - Essay Example

? 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