Genetically Modified Foods in the USA - Essay Example

Labeling Genetically Modified Food Introduction Polls reveal that a majority of US citizens are not aware of the ingredients in the food that they consume particularly with regards to genetically modified foods, despite the growing health and environmental concerns (Carter and Gruere par. 1). It is for this reasons that most Americans want FDA to compel food processors to label all genetically modified foods for the public to be able to know the contents and ingredients in the foods they eat. Despite a majority being in favor of labeling, the issue is still very controversial in public, judicial, and legislative level. However, plans are already underway to make labeling of genetically modified food mandatory. This intention became apparent through the introduction of two bill in senate; the HR 3377 and S 2080-Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act, according to Teisl et al. (par. 2). In the United States, certain crops are commonly modified genetically during processing. Some of the products that are genetically modified in while growing include cotton, corn, canola, and soybean. However, the controversy comes in because most processed food products in the U.S. contain either corn or soybean ingredients. As such, it is estimated that about 70 percent of processed foods in America contain genetically modified ingredients. This raises a lot of concerns from those who are opposed to genetically modified food because of their impacts on health and the environment, thus calling for the implementation of a right to know policy through labeling of such products. The current labeling law according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires labeling of genetically modified foods to be made only when the product in question has a new allergen, different nutritional properties, or if the food is too much intoxicated (Albert and Tufts University 5). Type of claim As earlier stated, there are two camps with one advocating for the mandatory labeling of genetically modified foods by all food processors while the other camp does not find any merit of doing so (Carter and Gruere Par. 2). Proponents claim that every consumer in the U.S. has a right to be provided with enough information regarding the ingredients contained in the food they eat, particularly those that have raised health and environmental concerns. This is because they feel that some of these foods may be detrimental to their health and the environment (Teisl et al. par. 2). For instance, consumers today are becoming more conscious of the type of foods that they eat due to certain ailments that have been linked to genetically modified foods. Cancer, a disease that is claiming the lives of many people in the world is mainly blamed on the type food that people eat. Other research findings have also linked genetically modified foods to the disease thereby raising questions as to their healthiness. The health claim is a fact because research indicates that many children in Europe and the US have developed allergies because of eating genetically modified foods such as peanuts. The allergies developed were seen to have the potential of being fatal. It is for this reason that Brazil abandoned the idea of introducing a gene to their nuts and soybeans since there was fear of it causing allergic reactions (Albert and Tufts University 6). In this regard, the proponents of the labeling of GM foods are of the view that labeling will give consumers the opportunity to identify the correct type of food to purchase especially those which they perceive as healthy and avoid foods products, which they perceive may pose health problems to them. This is because they would be able to read for themselves and make a rational choice whether or not to buy the products. Furthermore, they argue that the labeling of GM foods is highly favored by the American consumers, therefore, that they should be given their desires (Carter and Gruere Par. 6). Some peoplecite religious and ethical reasons for the need to label genetically modified foods, arguing that the majority of American citizens want to stop consuming animal products and their DNA. Therefore, they note that most foods they purchase in the groceries contain animals products and DNA samples which goes against their religious stand. For instant, they argue that they are forced to eat products that are unethical according to their religions because there are no labels to show the ingredients in the products sold in the groceries (Teisl et al. par. 4). Opponents of labeling, on the other hand, claim that labeling is only a warning of health concerns arguing that GM foods are just the same as the other conventional foods since no difference between them has so far been detected. However, they note that those, which have been identified to cause allergic reactions to consumers, are currently being labeled. As such, they argue that not much benefit will come from labeling of the GM foods (Teisl et al. par. 4). They also caution against the move in this direction arguing that labeling will only add a cost to the consumers, which would drive inflation high. They cite what happened in Japan, European Union, and New Zealand as an example of such a scenario. In this case, they reveal that labeling did not in any way result in consumer choice. Instead, it drove many retailers out of business due to perceived consumer aversion of the genetically modified products. This, in turn, made prices of other consumable products rise therby putting more burden on consumers (Albert and Tufts University 8). Opponents also argue that consumers already have a choice as to whether to buy certified organic products, which are not genetically modified. As such, there are no grounds to introduce more costs and regulations, which would not have any much impact on consumer choice. This is a fact because any American has a choice as to whether to buy certified organic foods that contain no GM ingredients. This is because those who buy genetically modified products do so out of choice since they are not being forced to do so (Heller 18). The opponents also argue that those who do not want to consume animal products on ethical and religious grounds have nothing to worry about since currently there is no genetically modified food containing animal genes. Nevertheless, this claim appears as just a definition since there is no guarantee that animal genes would not find their way into the market in the near future if the law to introduce labeling is not done (Carter and Gruere par. 8). Types of appeal Labeling is mainly done to provide useful information to consumers to enable them make a rational decision regarding the type of food to buy from a store. In this way, it acts as an appeal to reason, which is advocated for by the proponents of the idea of labeling all genetically modified foods in the market. This is because through labeling, consumers would be able to choose the right products, which may not have harmful effects on their health. This is because the labeling would require processors to state all the ingredients used during processing and any side effects of the products. This includes all warnings and probable negative health effects that a consumer may develop because of consuming a genetically modified food (Heller 13). Certainly, such labeling would appeal to reason that would see consumers avoid those products, which they feel may pose a danger to their lives, and purchase only those which they feel are good for their health and religion. Apart from the side effects of the GM products, the fact that labeling to reveal the benefits of the GM products would also appeal to people to buy more of the products, which certainly would be beneficial to the producers as well. This is because the benefits will most likely influence people toward the product after reading the label. This implies that the opponents of labeling also have nothing to worry about if they truly mean that GM has a lot of benefits to the people (Carter and Gruere Par. 9). Labeling may also offer good appeal to character, which may also help an individual determine what to buy. In this regard, it is noted that labeling a genetically modified food would determine whether a consumer would be willing to buy the product or not. For instance, a label containing a scary warning would ultimately show a consumer that the product in question has serious health problems, which in turn would make the consumer to either avoid it completely or take the risk of consuming the product. This is because there are certain individuals who would consume a product irrespective of how dangerous the product may be to their lives. This is because of their buying behaviors that cannot be influenced by the mere labeling of a product. This are some of the reasons why those opposing the idea of introducing labeling policy argue that labeling would not change characters of certain consumers because even presently many consumers still buy the GM products despite there being certified organic products in the market free of GM ingredients (Heller 21). Conclusion Irrespective of the side taken by the legislators, or the judiciary, policies guaranteeing consumers a chance to make purchase choices that match their personal preferences is needed as long as they are not costly. Labeling of genetically modified foods would enable consumers to make a well-informed decision regarding the type of food that they eat, something that American people have been denied for a long time. This is because it would enable consumers to buy those products that they believe do not pose to them health risks such as allergies and other diseases. Work Cited Albert, Janice L., & Tufts University. Food Policy & Applied Nutrition. Labeling of genetically modified foods: Stakeholder perceptions of food and Drug Administrations Public Consultation Processes and Food Industry Reactions to the United States Voluntary and European Union Mandatory. New York, NY: ProQuest, 2007 Print. Carter, Colin A., & Gruere, Guillaume P. Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods: Does it Really Provide Consumer Choice? The Journal of Agrobiotechnology Management & Economics. Volume 15, No. 2, 2012. Web. 6 Nov. 2012, http://www.agbioforum.org/index.htm. Heller, Knut J. Genetically Engineered Food. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Wiley & Sons, 2007 Print. Teisl, Mario F., Garner, Luke, Roe, Brian, & Vayda, Michael E. Labeling Genetically Modified Foods: How Do US Consumers Want to See It Done? The Journal of Agrobiotechnology Management & Economics. Volume 6, No. 1 & 2. Web. 6 Nov. 2012, http://www.agbioforum.org/v6n12/v6n12a11-teisl.htm. Read More