Labeling Food Products That Contain Genetically Modified Organisms - Term Paper Example

Whether U.S. companies are morally obligated to label whether there food products contain Genetically Modified Organisms or not It is rather obvious that living in the social environment should be considered to be an important prerequisite for the development of the inner potential of a human being. This happens because people in the society are urged to refrain from actions that are able to harm others in any way. However, sometimes there are actions that are extremely controversial: a good example is labeling products that contain Genetically Modified Organisms in them. This is a serious moral is that involved several perspectives on it which are sometimes quite opposite. Thus, the moral question can be formulated in the following way: should companies mandatory label their products if they contain GMO? In order to address this issue the paper will perform this kind of analysis: first of all, it will present the point of view of the proponents of the issues, namely those who believe that GMO labeling must be mandatory, and examine argument that support this position; secondly, the paper will explore the counterarguments to the above mentioned arguments; thirdly, the view of the author will be articulated, followed by the arguments why companies should not be obliged to label their products with special labels; afterwards, the counterargument will be provided and rebutted in the following paragraph. At the end, there will be a brief consideration about the transnational nature of the issue in question. To begin with, it may be necessary to provide some background information to the issue. Thus, GMO is a term which refers to an organism that has been modified on a genetic level. For example, scientists are able to breed chickens that would have large breasts and produce more meat to the food industry. However, the opponents of this technology argue that this is a dangerous practice since it is virtually impossible to change a single gene inside a body and not trigger any negative consequences. In order to provide people with a choice, it is suggested that manufactures should label their products if they contain more GMO than it is acceptable, usually the latter is a very small fraction. So, there are two moral views on the issue. On the one hand, there are those who argue that companies must label their products as such that contain GMO so that the customers could easily recognize them and, if they wish, avoid them. It may have some negative influence on the businesses, but the good that is achieved surely outweighs the bad. On the other hand, the opponents of GMO labeling note that this practice is extremely destructive and it is able to cause a tremendous amount of damage to the industry without bringing any positive changes into it. Those who support labeling in question point out that within the framework of free market every company should be responsible for the products that it sells. In other words, if a product contains GMO to a level that is considered to be dangerous to the body, it should be labeled accordingly. Of course, the label would not contain words like: “do not buy it” or “dangerous to your body”; it will simply point out that GMOs are present. It is somewhat similar to labeling alcoholic drinks with a warning to drink responsibly or a pack of cigarettes with information about health hazards. First of all, the proponents of GMO labeling argue that the customers are entitled to a right to know accurately what they buy.1 This means that this practice is not targeted against the companies who use GMO: it is a simple extension of the rights of the customers. In addition to that, such labels will provide people with an opportunity to make a conscious choice about the products that they buy. As a result, many will feel in control over their purchases and will be absolutely sure that what they buy will satisfy them. So, GMO labeling calls for better conditions that would make shopping much safer and more enjoyable. Secondly, the proponents of mandatory GMO labeling point out that the United States of America is not the only country that faces such problem. Indeed, countries all over the world have companies that engage GMO in their production, but the laws that regulate it are different. For example, in the countries of the European Union, China or New Zealand, GMO labeling is mandatory and has existed for quite a long time.2 On the other hand, the same areas are not mandatory in the US. Those who support this practice insist that nothing tremendously bad happened to the European Union or China after the adaptation of those laws. That is why the United States should not be afraid to follow the lead since it will not make any damage to the market or to the industry. In spite of the fact that these arguments seem reasonable, some people are able to come up with the counterarguments to them. To begin with, they would note that labeling food with GMO with some extra labels is not necessary. If the people are willing to buy food that is guaranteed to be free from any unhealthy additives and is good for their healthy, they are always able to buy organic food. Indeed, while there are no labels that say “GMO” or that say “no GMO”, there is a class of products the competitive advantage of which focuses on the positive practices of production. That is why if the customers want to make that conscious choice that the proponents of GMO labeling call for, they are already provided with the opportunity: they can always by organic products. In addition to that, one should also note that it may not be wise to make a comparison between companies that operate in different countries since the standards and other conditions are different. For example, in case of the European Union, one might suggest that the requirement for GMO labels is dictated by the tendencies of the legal system in general. Keeping in mind the above mentioned point of view, I would like to note that I adhere to a completely different position. It is my strong belief that mandatory GMO labeling is a practice that would do more harm than good. Indeed, it is not logical to make all the manufactures to put a label on their production all of a sudden. In addition to that, it is not fair with regard to the companies: they are simply not ready for such change in the conditions of the market. What is more important is that this kind of regulation is practically incompatible with the idea of free market that is being promoted in the American society. That is why to a certain extent there it goes against the conventional values. There are several reasons why mandatory GMO labeling should not be permitted. First of all, this practice is designed to single out products with GMO and this is based on the assumption that the latter may be harmful to one’s body. Nevertheless, there is no scientifically proven evidence that the consumption of GMOs can result in the negative consequences that their opponents claim3. This means that the fear of GMO is nothing a myth that is being spread in the society in order to achieve certain goals. Indeed, the opponents of this technology often rely on their assumptions, but fail to provide several or at least one scholarly source which proves their point. Secondly, the people who are in favor of mandatory GMO labeling fail to realize a simple fact: while the production of one label may not be costly, the number of labels that is required to cover all the production is tremendous. Even though it may be a simple sticker that is placed on the products, the cost of it when multiplied by millions will be very high. As a result, the price of a single product will become higher in order to cover the costs4. Therefore, while advocating mandatory GMO labeling people practically want to make the prices higher and contribute to the formation of an additional burden for the economy. In order to maintain objective tone of the analysis, it may be important to explore the counterargument to the above mentioned claims as well. Thus, the opponents of GMOs would note that the technology that is being currently used is not perfect. That is why one can not fully rely on it. If there is lack of evidence of a particular phenomenon, it does not mean that the phenomenon does not exist. That is why the scholars would direct their attention and it is quite possible that some studies may find the evidence that is needed for further discussion. Secondly, the proponents of GMO labeling note that labels should not be seen as something that has a negative influence on the product, quite the opposite: it may become a competitive advantage that sets the products apart from others. For example, if a company is not afraid to acknowledge the use of GMOs in its production and is able to mentione the exact amount of them, it is shows that it is honest with the customers. This can become an advantage while fighting for the hearts and the money of the potential buyers. That is why mandatory GMO labeling is able to make the situation on the market better. It is true that the counterarguments that were articulated above are valid. However, there are several points that they miss. Firstly, the technology of changing genes has improved significantly since its emergence. That is why though there could be some mistakes in the beginning, nowadays the chance of a mistake is minimized to an acceptable level. Furthermore, there is a considerable amount of tests that is done involving GMOs and they all show that these products can be consumed by the people without any harm to their bodies. That is why the idea that GMOs are dangerous to our organisms is nothing but a myth that should be removed. Secondly, the idea that putting a GMO label on a product might become a competitive advantage is ridiculous. With the current position of the public, labeling products with such stickers is practically stigmatizing. Of course, if the society changes its views on GMOs, such labels may be accepted, but before they will surely bring negative consequences to the products instead of doing any good to it. One might also suggest that no company may be willing to disclose specific information about its products, especially if it can harm the business. That is why the call for universal and mandatory GMO labeling is a step that no company may be willing to make because of the disastrous consequences that are associated with it. Finally, it may be important to explore another aspect of a problem, namely how this issue is able to transcend the national boundaries and affect people who live in other countries. The answer to this question is simple: the products that are manufactured in the United States of America can exported to a considerable number of countries. In other words, when a product crosses a border, it is subject to the law of the country where it is being sold. As it has been mentioned before, different countries might have different regulations with regard to the use of GMOs. That is why some states may conduct a policy that is stricter that the one of its counterparts. This might contribute to the formation of various problems that are generated by the products in question. Having examined all the points which were articulated in the paragraphs above, one is able to come to the following conclusion: the issue of GMO labeling is extremely controversial one and there is no flat answer to this question. On the one hand, some people have a perfectly reasonable justification, but such labels should be put on products. On the other hand, others can easily prove the opposite. Only time can help people deal with this argument and bring the best possible outcome. Works Cited Florini, Ann. The Right to Know: Transparency for an Open World. New York, NY: Columbia UP, 2013. Print. Weirich, Paul. Labeling Genetically Modified Food: The Philosophical and Legal Debate. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2007. Print. Young, Tomme R. Genetically Modified Organisms and Biosafety: A Background Paper for Decision-makers and Others to Assist in Consideration of GMO Issues. Gland: IUCN, 2004. Print. Žel, Jana et al. How to Reliably Test for GMOs. New York, NY: Springer, 2012. Print. Read More