Food Labelling Constitutes - Term Paper Example

The substantial differentiation between traditionally produced and GM foods underscores the reasons why it is a source of such ethical controversy. Genetic modification, as Roller and Harlander (1998) explain, involves the altering of the genetic composition of foods in order to reduce, possibly eliminate, certain characteristics and limitations, while highlighting others. It, accordingly, involves the re-composition of any, or all of, the food's texture, coloring, taste and chemical and nutrient constituent elements. As such, Roller and Harlander (1998) maintain its significant variation from traditional farming/breeding techniques, wherein the laws of nature supersede. The implication here is, and as confirmed by Hallman et al (2002), that the primary different between the two food types is that the laws of nature dominate in the one and the laws of man, in the other. The fact that GM foods involve the tampering with the laws of nature have been identified by several researchers and organizations as one of the more serious of the ethical concerns which confront GM foods. According to organizations such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, current scientific knowledge does not allow for such tampering, insofar as it has neither the tools to limit the effect of GM foods, or even to deduce, let alone, counter their consequences. Many scientists, according to both Hallman and Metcalfe (1995) and Hallman et al (2002) agree and cite numerous concerns regarding the impact of GM foods on both nature and human health. The potential impact of GM foods on human health is a source of serious ethical concerns. In two independent reports, Eubanks (2002) and Cherry (2007) contend that the very nature of their production positions GM foods as a potential risk to the health and well-being of consumers. GM foods are foods which contain herbicides, transgress the species barriers and involve such genetic modifications as which alter taste, texture and nutrient composition. The implication here is, as both Eubanks (2002) and Cherry (2007) emphasize, is that genetic alterations imply that these foods contain composites which may produce severe allergic reactions among some consumers but, to the extent that they are largely untested, or novel, their effect is unknown. Added to that, the long-term consequences of consuming GM foods is unknown and, indeed, scientists have not been able to conclude absolute long-term safety, beyond the shadow of a doubt (Eubanks, 2002; Cherry, 2007). The implication here is that consumers are being offered biotechnical foods whose long-term health effects have not been fully studied. While conceding to the fact that GM foods are genetically altered, its proponents/producers maintain that alterations are, not only benign but, ultimately beneficial for consumers. As West and Larue (2005) report, producers contend that these benefits include the means and technologies by which to improve production efficiency and maximise output, even while lowering costs and hence, price to consumers. They further include the altering of the nutritional balance of foods in order to skew the said balance in favour of health-beneficial nutrients (West and Larue, 2005). In other words, from the perspective of GM food producers, there should be no ethical controversies surrounding GM foods as they are produced with the welfare of the consumer in mind. Even while conceding to the fact that GM foods may very well be safe, the fact remains that legal and ethical principles dictate that such foods must be labelled, thereby allowing consumers to exercise their right to choice. As Freeman (2003) argues, the clear labelling of ingredients and food types protects the consumer's right to decide which types and kinds of foods he/she will consume and those which he/she will not. Upon ignoring labelling requirements, producers are actually transgressing upon the consumer's fundamental right to choice (Freeman, 2003). Indeed, taking this argument one step further, Gruber (2002) equates the labelling of GM foods with the ethics upon which human rights are founded upon. As per human rights ethical systems, individuals have both a right to know and a right to choose. Food labelling constitutes an ethical response to both of these rights and failure to label is nothing other than a transgression upon these rights (Gruber, 2002). The implication here is, therefore, that labelling is an ethical responsibility and failure to label is an ethical violation. While the argument for labelling, as presented in the preceding paragraph, appears straightforward, it is very far from that. Opponents of labelling GM foods as genetically modified products, cite ethical arguments in support of their stance. Makuch (2004) maintains that popular misconceptions about GM foods as potentially harmful imply that their labelling will lead to consumer discrimination. In other words, consumers will tend not to purchase GM-labelled foods because they believe them to be harmful and this, in turn, will have a detrimental impact upon national economies (Makuch, 2004). To fully appreciate the scale of that impact it is important to refer to facts regarding the proliferation of GM foods. According to the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology (2004; 2006), at least 70% of all processed foods contained at least one GM ingredient, approximately 85% of all soybean, 50% of all corn, not to mention countless other crops and foods, grown n the United States are genetically engineered. This means that a significant percentage of foods grown in the United States are genetically engineered. To label them, according to Makuch (2004) means to tell customer to stay away and, in so doing, undermine a significant percentage of the nation's agricultural economy. It is in consideration of this particular harm that opponents declare labelling to be unethical. The claim that labelling is unethical, insofar as it would lead to discrimination against GM foods, is based on the erroneous assumption that GM foods are safe. The fact is that there are no clear scientific facts to indicate safety. Added to that, the means by which GM foods are modified are indicative of the fact that producers are not being entirely honest and that there are, indeed, grounds concerns. To increase diary output, for example, GM producers, cows are injected with bovine growth hormones which re a genetically modified, laboratory produced bacteria (Aldrich and Blissard, 1998). Similarly, in order to increase crop output and increase their resilience to disease, genetically modified strands are produced in laboratories and subsequently planted (Thomas, 1999). The implication here is that natural compositions are being significantly altered and, insofar as the long term consequences of alteration on human health have not been established, there is ample ground for concern. As long as these concerns exist and cannot be completely eradicated by scientific fact, labelling is ethical and the failure to label is unethical, irrespective of the consequences to the agricultural economy. Proceeding from the above stated, it is evident that the failure to label is a matter of ethical concern. One of the most serious of the resultant social concerns is that consumers are deprived of their basic right to choose whether or not they will consume GM foods. Apart from the fact that it is exceedingly difficult to locate foods which do not have a GM ingredient and irrespective of the fact that GM foods are not clearly labelled, the fact is that organic foods are now a rarity, a luxury and, hence, more expensive. As Lanzito and McGarth (2001) point out, the fact is that because of their increasing rarity, organic foods are expensive, with the implication being that only the rich can safeguard themselves and their children against the potentially deleterious health impact of GM foods. Insofar as the choice to consumer or not to consume GM foods has become a have and have-not situation, it is an issue of profound social concern. In conclusion to the above argued, it is evident that GM foods are a source of intense public debate and controversy. The ethical concerns which surround them abound and the social ones are no less profound. Even if we were to assume, an assumption which would be erroneous since there are no supporting facts to that effect, that GM foods are absolutely safe, both as regards nature and humans, the fact is that people should have a choice as to whether to consume them or not. The fact that their right to choose is gradually, although surely, being eroded, speaks to the social and ethical issues at stake here. Within the context of the stated, the labelling of GM foods emerges as an ethical imperative insofar as it signals a concession to consumers' right to know and to choose. References Aldrich, L. and Blisard, N. (1998) Consumer acceptance of biotechnology: Lessons from the rbST experience. Current Issues in Economics of Food Markets. 747(1), n.p. Cherry, R. (2007) Alert.' Vegetarian Times, 348, 54-54. Eubanks, M. (2002) Allergies la Carte.' Environmental Health Perspectives, 110(3), pA + 130. Greenpeace International (2003) Genetic Engineering' Retrieved, 18 June 2007 from http://www.greenpeace.org/interantional_en/campaigns/introcampaign%5fid=3942 Hallman, W.K., et al. (2002) Public perceptions of genetically modified foods: American know not what they eat.' Publication Number RR-0302-001, New Brunswick, NJ: Food Policy Institute. Hallman, W.K. and Metcalfe, J. (1995) Public perceptions of agricultural biotechnology: A survey of New Jersey residents." Ecosystem Policy Research Center, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey. Freeman, A. (2003) Biotech food Flacks: Canadian consumer group goes to bat for biotech.' Multinational Monitor. Guebert, A. (2002) GM labeling is anything but simple.' Farmers Weekly, 137(22). 29 Lanzito, C. and McGrath, C. (2001) It's only natural.' Kiplinger's Personal Finance, 55(5), 116-119. Makuch, Z. (2004) GM traceability and labeling.' European Environmental Law Review. Roller, S. and Harlander, S. (1998) Genetic Modification in the Food Industry: A Strategy for Food Quality Improvement. N.Y.: Blackie Academic & Professional. The Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology (2006) Genetically modified crops in the United States,' Retrieved 18 June 2007 from http://pewagbiotech.org/resources/factsheets/display.php3FactsheetID=2 The Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology (2004) This food contains GM ingredients: Useful or useless info' Retrieved 18 June 2007 from http://pewagbiotech.org/buzz/display.php3StoryID=72 Thomas, J.N. (1999) Biotechnology and Safety Assessment. N.Y: Taylor & Francis. West, G. E. and Larue, B. (2005) Determinants of anti-GM food activism.' Journal of Public Affairs, 5(3/4), 236-250. Read More