Encouraging Mandatory Labeling: Requiring Transparency in the GMO Industry - Essay Example

? Encouraging Mandatory Labeling: Requiring Transparency in the GMO Industry Due . Today the foods that you eat may not be the all natural, wholesome, or organic items that you may assume that they are. Biotechnologists have found the means, by incorporating the DNA of bacteria with the plant life that make up the basic ingredients of the foods that we eat every day, and have been creating and distributing such foods for a very long time.(Harmon & Pollack, 2012) The average consumers know so little about GMO products, primarily, because they are seldom properly labeled when they are being sold. Consumers are becoming more and more insistent are being an involved and active participant in the foods that they eat. They want clear notification and accountability for these products. Despite an outpouring of “pro-labeling” sentiments there is no legislation in the United States requiring distributors, wholesalers, or retailers to properly label these products. Many Americans feel this reluctance stems from an unwillingness to reveal something that they do not want consumers to know. The best solution is to require mandatory labeling of all of the products that are considered GMO, genetically engineered, or in any way augmented in or by a laboratory. Genetic research has been going on for several decades and is still going strong. Most people hear the words genetic engineering or biotechnology they think of science fiction stories. However, real, modern biotechnology is quite different and it is certainly not science fiction. The manifestation of biotechnology is not so much “in your face,” as it is “in your food.” In fact, for more than a decade the majority of processed foods in the United States include ingredients containing genetic material derived from plants whose DNA has undergone laboratory manipulation. The most common genetically altered crops in the United States include soybeans, corn, cotton, and canola. The soybeans carry DNA derived from bacteria that cause the plants to be resistant to common weed killing pesticides, as well as, corn crops, which, also, is taken from DNA from bacteria, which allow the corn to produce its own natural pesticide.(Harmon & Pollack, 2012) It has been determined that most store bought products contain some form of soy or corn, including high fructose corn syrup, and exist in 60-70% of the foods on the grocery store shelves, including cereals, snack foods, dressings/dips, crackers, and chips are all the products of genetic modification, in one way or another.(Byrne, 2013) Supporters of mandatory labeling believe that they manufacturers do not want labeling because they do not want consumers to be aware of how much GMO food they are already consuming. They, also, feel that the scientists, biotechnological farms, and the big businesses that profit from them do not want to be forced to label such products. In their eyes they are putting profit before public awareness and, potentially, public safety. This public concern is not strictly an American phenomenon. Consumers prefer to be informed. Twenty-one countries have already implemented mandatory labeling requirements; so one might ask, why should the United States be any different? (Byrne, 2013) Consumers have a right to know through clearly marked packaging, to make informed choices about the ingredients being mentioned, and understand what exactly they put into their bodies. The claim that GMO goods are completely and thoroughly safe, however, is not something that any of the scientists today can actually guarantee. They can only confirm that there appears to be no danger or side effects associated with consuming GMO foods or food ingredients. It has never been confirmed through human testing that that is true, especially over a period of long term consumption. That said, they are essentially asking us to take their word for it without providing much in the way of facts and details. In fact, biotechnologists today are, basically, using the same limited understanding of genetics that they have relied upon over the last, nearly, half century, using scientific data that was already, nearly, twice as old. There is no current way to predict what long term effects GMOs will have on human beings, which is why education and notification is completely relevant and should be encouraged. It is necessary for the people, those who have not been given adequate choice, who have been eating these GMO products without fore-knowledge, to take a stand and require of their government what should have been provided all along; proper labeling upon the products and access to factual studies that will put everyone on a level playing field, both, the distributors and the consumers. One recent study was showing some rather disturbing outcomes. There are results showing that among rats, tested over a 2 year period, that were fed a steady diet of foods rich in maize from a GMO crop, showed higher occurrences of cancer, hormonal imbalances, along with disabilities within internal organs, liver, kidneys, and the pituitary glands.(Seralini, Clair, Mesnage, Gress, Defarge, Malatesta, Hennequin & Spiroux de Vendomois, 2012) That said, it is not just concern for self that motivates supporters of labeling, it is the future peoples, this generations children and grandchildren. Could the same thing happen to us? What if there are side effects that will not be felt for 2 or 3 generations, and the means to preventing such negative outcomes existed now, and we failed to pursue that knowledge? How sorry would we be then? These are the kind of questions that people should not have to fear. There is a very real and plausible potential that foods containing GM ingredients could have side effects that many humans may not want to ever confront. There should have been proper notification before they were fed to an entire population. This is why labeling is so essential. People should not have to fear what they are eating. They should not have to worry about consequences that their children may have to face. It really is as simple as that. Opposition to the labeling of GMO products hold firm that they are not keeping secrets or intentionally denying the public access to any knowledge. They attributed their resistance to labeling on the side effects that mass mandatory labeling may cause among consumers. They claim that they are not keeping secrets or hiding information from consumers, they are, simply, avoiding a public misunderstanding. The opposition claims the public may perceive the labeling is an indicator of some negative element involved in consuming it. For example, cigarettes are labeled because of the health conditions they can contribute to. GMO companies fear that labeling will automatically translate to consumers as, “eat at your own risk.” So the solution has been to, simply, not mention it at all. In reality it sounds much more like an excuse to avoid an unpleasant financial situation if they had labeled from the beginning and consumers had ceased purchasing many of these items. Those that support the use of GM technologies in the development of producing food products, regardless of labeling, argue that it is the invention of these crops is what allows us to have as much as we have, otherwise our demand may overwhelm our means. This may be true, however, it is unjust for a solution, like genetically altering food products, to have been decided without the knowledge of the greater population. GMO representatives, also, defend all of the positive aspects that GMO goods have already allowed. Scientists have been able to develop plants that need far less water than before, produce less carbon dioxide into the environment, and can grow in extremely harsh environments where it has previously been difficult to get such plant life to grow. They have found the means to produce cheaper food that can be produced in much larger quantities than previously possible, which is beneficial in a world where hunger is a perpetual issue.(English, 2012) This may, also, be true, in the present, however the future is a different story. These scientific endeavors appear to be an efficient immediate solution, but they are failing to consider greater and farther reaching consequences; consequences that they have, arbitrarily, volunteered consumers for. It isn’t about the science or potential usefulness of GMO products, it is about consumers having the right to know which items these are, so that they can decide for themselves. It is about “full transparency.” That said, reluctance or refusal to identify such products only may make the public distrust even greater. Again, most Americans are less bothered by the fact that these technologies exist, but that they were released into the populace without any notice or explanations. That is why the silence and lack of labeling translates, to many, as there must be a “reason” they did not want us to know. That is why transparency of information and proper labeling are the combination that people deserve. America has already spoken, more than once, on this issue. In a recent poll, equal parts democrats, republicans, and independents, more than half of the members of Congress, approximately 55%, agreed that mandatory labeling is the best plausible way to “prevent consumer deception.” (Smith, 2009) Perhaps it is true that genetically modified foods will be a part of the future of food production, in one way or another. However, Americans will not be satisfied if it is done in secret. The American people want full transparency and clear explanation of how their foods are produced, prepared, and labeled. Americans will never gain confidence in these products or trust in the industry without having access to all the information available; not only what others think the public can handle. People have a right to know and choose for themselves. The best solution is to require mandatory labeling of all of the products that are considered GMO, genetically engineered, or in any way augmented in or by a laboratory. Mandatory labeling enforces the truth; and the truth is something we all have a right to Final Thoughts Through the course of this project I think I have developed positively as a writer. I understand better how to write persuasively, but still be able to objectively, approach the opinions and viewpoints that are opposed to my own. I think that the time involved in this process of creating this final project has shown me how one can build their knowledge base over time. For example, in the beginning of my research I had a limited general understanding of GM foods and the battle to make sure they are labeled. However, now I am so much more educated and confident in the subject matter. I think that all of these skills will benefit me as student in the future and whenever I approach a research assignment of any kind. The involvement and opinions of others can be rather constructive. Questions that they may pose can be helpful in knowing what needs clarifying in the research I am presenting. I think that the overall feedback that I have received has helped me to provide a stronger overall assignment because the foundation is much stronger than it might have been without the input of others. This assignment as helped me to become a better writer and communicator, which will be indispensable to me in the future References Byrne, P. (2013). Labeling of genetically engineered foods. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Agriculture, Colorado State University, Retrieved from http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/foodnut/09371.html English, C. (2012). Gmo foods: Why we shouldn't label (or worry about) genetically modified products Policymic, Retrieved from http://www.policymic.com/articles/5226/gmo-foods-why-we-shouldn-t-label-or-worry-about-genetically-modified-products Harmon, A., & Pollack, A. (2012, May 24). Battle brewing over labeling of genetically modified food. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/25/science/dispute-over-labeling-of-genetically-modified-food.html?_r=0 Smith, M. D. (2009). Gmo reality check. Better Nutrition, 1. Retrieved from http://www.betternutrition.com/gmo-foods/features/featurearticles/1237 Seralini, G. E., Clair, E., Mesnage, R., Gress, S., Defarge, N., Malatesta, M., Hennequin, D., & Spiroux de Vendomois, V. (2012). Long term toxicity of a roundup herbicide and a roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 50(11), 4221-4231. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637?np=y Read More