Why Companies Do not Label Genetically Modified Organisms - Essay Example

Why Companies do not label Genetically Modified Organisms GMOs Apparently, the world has experienced one of the most heated debates pertaining to food consumption in the global market for a substantial period. Basically, different schools of thought have contented over the issue of whether genetically modified organisms ought to be labelled or not. According to Bertheau (156), genetically modified organisms are best described as organisms that are genetically engineered from plants. Common examples of genetically modified organisms include corn, sugar beets, brawn among other products that are available in the global market. Consequently, technological advancement and the modern lifestyle have continuously influenced the growth of genetically modified organisms in the global market. According to Editors (Para 2), fourteen states have gone through the toughest period in determining whether to pass legislation that compels genetically modified organisms (GMOs) foods to be labelled in order facilitate consumers with options in products that emanate from genetic engineering and those that are natural. Moreover, the state of California has become the latest in buying the concept of labelling GMOs. In fact, consumers in United States have claimed that they are entitled to know what ingredients have been incorporated in products during purchase. Nevertheless, the school of thought affiliated to the argument of not labelling GMOs agree to the fact that the only products that might require labelling are those that are highly likely to cause harm to the consumers and as such the labelling serves as a warning piece of information. Bertheau (124) articulates that contrary to what majority of people across the world believe; genetically modified organisms have only one major difference from their counterparts; that of it is easier to determine how safe for consumption they have scientifically been proven to be as opposed to the natural counterparts. Additionally, the concept of genetic engineering have paved way to the development of plants that have less tidies work such as use of less amount of water for growth, growing in harsh environmental conditions, and those that are less carbon dioxide. As such, genetic engineering has enabled the production of cheaper food in greater quantities and in more sustainable way. Of importance to note is that food security and related issues are associated to political issues of any given country across the world. In reference to why genetically modified organisms should not be labelled, Evenson, and Santaniello (27) argue that the European countries and others parts of the world have a new breed of people with liberal minds have continuously been at logger heads over the reasons as to why GMOs should be labelled. These liberalists have argued that the federal government has continuously ignored calls from within to compel companies to label any product that comes from genetic engineering. Consequently, the labelling pressure come from legislatures in liberal states liked Oregon, New York among other states where there is presence of activist groups who are against the GMOs and, as such insist that they should be labelled. Experts affiliated to food consumption have are argued that although the labelling is aimed at sensitizing the consumers on what to find in the foods they purchase, this issue might be taken up by the anti-groups to stigmatize food that is perfectly healthy for consumption. Similarly, the current stand pertaining to genetically modified organisms have affirmed that no official scientific evidence has indicated the presence of negative components in GMOs even after a prolonged period of usage and development. As such, Drott (1123-1140) articulates that major organizations ranging from World Health Organization (WHO) and German Academy of Science among others that are mostly run by the European Union have sent across numerous statements that are meant to reassure the world and the consumers in particular that genetically modified foods are safe and the supply of foods across the globe is equally independent. Correspondingly, scientists and other expert affiliated to genetic engineering have articulated that genetic engineering which is the source of genetically modified organisms is more precise as compared to others such as conventional and organic foods since it has high chances of producing expected results as it is easily tested and monitored during generation and after being released. Furthermore, WHO and related organizations have confirmed that GMOs are more sustainable because they require fewer inputs especially during generation. For instance, crops such as Bt sugar beets are genetically engineered to utilise the natural sugar in order to fight pests. As a result, there is elimination of toxic insecticides and high yields are realized. In reference to one of the independent science sources across the world known as Scientific American, the concept of labeling GMOs could be equated to the spread of information that is scientifically incorrect aimed at causing harm to the health of human beings and taking slow the ongoing development of biotechnology in agriculture. Conversely, this concept is crucial as it ensures that there is continuous supply of food across the globe and when such information is given a negative aspect, the alternative effects are quite expensive (Editors Para 8). For instance, India is believed to have spent billion dollars for ignoring the use of biotechnology in their country. Pertaining to this debate, I conquer with the concept companies not labelling genetically modified organisms because what is in the products is of much importance as opposed to what has been indicated for consumers. The most importance issue is that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have the greatest impact in the world due to technology and increased food supply. Moreover, the fact that numerous accredited organizations across the world have affirmed that GMOs do not pose any harm to the human being discredits the concept of mandatory labelling (Drott 1123-1140). If anything, labelling ought to be done on choice and to those products that have already been confirmed as harmful to human beings. Furthermore, the world should embrace such technologies that are geared towards increasing food supply and there should also be health dialogues to create more awareness on issues like genetically modified organisms. Work Cited: Bertheau, Yves. Genetically Modified and Non-Genetically Modified Food Supply Chains: Co- existence and Traceability. Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012. Print. Evenson, R E, and V Santaniello. The Regulation of Agricultural Biotechnology. Wallingford: CAB International, 2004. Print. Editors. Labels for GMO foods are a bad idea. Scientific American/Web. 2013.Print. Drott, Laura. "Accountability and Risk Governance: A Scenario-Informed Reflection on European Regulation of GMOs." Journal of Risk Research. 16, 1123-1140 (2013). Print. Read More