GMO Labelling on Food Package
Over time, technological advancements have created a transformation in various sectors across the globe. With the production of genetically modified food products, technological advancements are felt in the food industry. Although a technology-driven food industry is thought to create efficiency in the production process, it has various shortcomings. The production of genetically modified food products has, over time, raised safety concerns to a section of the consumers. With the safety concerns, it is of the essence to know which foods are genetically engineered and those that are not. The paper provides a detailed argument on the need for mandatory labelling of genetically modified foods to provide the consumers with the opportunity to choose what they prefer.
Wunderlich, Shahla, and Gatto delve into a pro mandatory GMO labelling of food packages argument. According to the presented argument by the researcher, it is for a fact that most foods consumed across the United States are genetically engineered (Wunderlich, Shahla, and Gatto 841). The implication is that, without labels, we may be ingesting foods that may or may not have health effects on our lives. The said impact is such a dangerous gamble should the genetically engineered foods be harmful. It is important to give individuals the opportunity to choose the type of food that they want to consume. Mandatory GMO labelling thus gives them a rare opportunity.
GMO foreign proteins pose potential health risks. The GMO technology is linked to unpredictable, unforeseeable and uncontrollable effects. The researcher discusses the effects of prions on deceased crops as well as the loss of close to 40 million chicken fed on GMOs (Wunderlich, Shahla, and Gatto 841). With the significant impact that GMO foreign proteins have on both plants and livestock, there is an equal chance that human beings are equally affected by the GMO products. Honeycutt affirms that the studies related to the safety of GMOs are based on short-term research conducted by various company employees who benefit from genetically engineered products. The effects associated with the products only point to the need for mandatory labelling of GMO food products hence separating them from those that are not genetically engineered. One thus chooses what he or she wishes to eat.
The effect that GMO crops have on the nutritional content of the produced food equally shows how important it is to know how to separate them from non-GMO products. According to Scott, Inbar, & Rozin (22), the heavy use of herbicides on GMO crops not only affects the microbiome of the soil but also reduces the nutritional content of the final product. Thus, most individuals argue that the consumption of organic foods is more nutritious compared to genetically manufactured ones. Besides, there is a great likelihood that the GMO crops have higher chemical residues compared to the organic crops (Wunderlich, Shahla, and Gatto 842). Ideally, one would not opt to consume crops with low nutritive value and those with harmful chemicals if they have the option of consuming organic crops. Thus, having GMO labels is essential in ensuring that people know what they buy instead of making blind purchases.
One shocking revelation is that close to 80% of the GMOs are engineered to withstand high levels of toxic pesticides and herbicides. Although most studies have claimed that the chemicals are safe for human consumption, new studies have been conducted and the results have been used to debunk the claims. Chemicals such as atrazine and glyphosate have been linked with the destruction of the gut bacteria (Wunderlich, Shahla, and Gatto 847). The destruction of the gut bacteria is significantly harmful to the immune system. Besides, the tolerance to the high levels of toxic pesticides and herbicides by the GMOs equally exposes the consumers to liver and kidney damages. Additionally, breast cancer cell growth is equally linked to the consumption of GMOs that are laced with high levels of toxic pesticides and herbicides. An individual who knows the dangers associated with the consumption of the chemicals would wish to know the GMO foods and separate them with the non-GMO foods. Thus, labelling is elementary.
The United States of America is characterized as one of the countries with the sickest population in the developed world. With the available studies on the dangers of GMOs and related pesticides, allowing the US population to continue consuming the genetically engineered food products only exposes them to more risk. It is even saddening that a large percentage of the US population consumes the genetically modified food products without knowing. The high cost of healthcare and the large percentage of ailing individuals point to the need of having the GMO labels on the food packages. One is thus, better placed at deciding that he or she deems right. There is nothing as worse as letting people consume a harmful product without their consent.
The current voluntary labelling lacks transparency. With a large percentage of individuals demanding mandatory labelling of GM foods, various food-producing companies may be unwilling to provide details regarding the ingredients of the foods that they produce. The primary reason is the fear of registering low sales. With voluntary labelling requirements, it is really difficult to differentiate the GM foods from the non-GM foods. Advocating for mandatory labelling is a sure way of knowing the ingredients in a particular food package thereby choosing to either buy it or not.
Religion is yet another reason why the Americans should know which food packages are GMO and separate them from non-GMO food packages. The Muslim community, for example, is quite skeptical about buying genetically engineered food products because of the ingredients used in manufacturing them. The Muslim faith requires believers to eat specific types of food. Without the labels on the food packages, the Muslims may be eating foods that are not required by their religious faith (Jaimie et al. 4). The whole situation culminates in breaking religious rules involuntarily. It is of the essence to advocate for mandatory labelling of the GMO food packages to offer the believers with the opportunity to choose the type of food that they would wish to eat.
With the identified side effects of certain genetically modified food items, the supermarket shelves are awash with genetically modified food items. Jaimie et al. et al identifies US corn as one of the genetically modified commodities. According to the presented study, 88% of corn within the United States is genetically modified. Additionally, products such as Soy, sugar beets and canola oil are equally genetically engineered. The study provides detailed findings on the presence of 70% to 75% of GMOs in conventional processed foods. These food items are available in supermarkets and are quite difficult to differentiate genetically modified foods from non-GMOs. It is of great importance to find a way of differentiating the types of foods to provide individuals with consumers with options.
As arguments are made to mandatorily label the GMO food packages and separate them from the non-GMOs, it is imperative to understand what labelling entails especially in the United States. According to Byrne, Pendell, & Graff, there are specific reasons that have to be considered before choosing to either label or not label the GMO food packages. One of the considerations is the percentage of GM ingredient in a particular food item. Various countries have different thresholds on the percentage of GM ingredients that warrant labelling. The commonly proposed threshold used by various countries is 1 percent.
Additionally, the implementation of the various labelling rules is dependent on setting standards and services to conduct testing that is aimed at identifying the presence of GM ingredients in food items. Only then can a label be placed on a particular package. It is always easy to conduct tests and identify the GM ingredients in foods that have the GM ingredient as the main ingredient (Jaimie et al. 6). However, detecting GM food products in processed products such as oils and sugars is difficult because the processed foods no longer contain the novel DNA.
The impact of mandatory labelling of GMO food packages on the world and regional trade is equally another elementary factor that has to be considered. The significant impact that might be created is the need for labelling of all the imported food products (Jaimie et al. 7). The United States, for example, may allow the cultivation of GM crops within its boundaries but put stringent labelling rules to the food products that are imported. The United States should equally be willing to label all the food products that they seek to export to facilitate proper world and regional trade. As such, mandatory labelling of both domestic and imported commodities will be quite essential to the consumers because they will be having an opportunity to choose what they wish to eat.
The cost of GMO food labelling is equally an essential consideration that should be made when advocating for mandatory labelling of food commodities. One may think that labelling is done after the food product has been packaged. However, it is essential to note that labelling goes beyond the cost of a simple paper and stamp. For transparency reasons, it is imperative to audit the entire food production stream to ensure that what is written on the package corresponds to the content in the package. The GM crops, for example, are traced back to the seed supplier to ascertain whether the seeds are genetically engineered or not. I feel that, although the cost of ascertaining whether a particular food product is genetically engineered is high, it is essential to go all the way to ensure that people have the information that will guide them in purchasing what they desire.
Although the interest is on the labelling of genetically modified food products, the labelling costs have to be incurred by those producing non-GM labelled foods. One may not be quite convincing through a claim that his tor her food product is non-GM. To eliminate unfairness, it is of the essence for the producers of both genetically modified and non-GM foods to follow a standard procedure to ensure that what is in the food a package corresponds to the information contained in the labels. Only then can one have an opportunity to choose the type of food that he or she would wish to consume.
Counter-argument
According to Byrne, Pendell & Graff, one of the counterarguments put forward to refute the need for mandatory labelling of genetically modified foods is that labelling would act as a warning about the health effects associated with such foods. Additionally, the counterargument holds to the claim that there are no verifiable differences between the genetically modified food products and the conventional ones. The counterargument is based on studies that were conducted 40 years ago. In as much as the claim sounds pretty convincing, some of the GM crops have been linked to conditions such as kidney damage and breast cancer. It is worth noting that the management of the named conditions is expensive within the United States. It is quite sad that the food we eat is likely to expose us to such deadly diseases. I feel that it is essential to draft rules that will ensure that the consumer is given an opportunity to make a choice on the type of food that he or she wishes to eat.
As discussed, the cost of labelling genetically modified foods is presented as one of the counterarguments of mandatory labelling of food products. According to Byrne, Pendell & Graff, the food processing infrastructure within the country has shortcomings that limit the accommodation of the need to separate the genetically modified foods from the conventional types of food products. Well, in as much as the cost factor is an issue, the lives of a large percentage of Americans are on the line. The rates of cancer and obesity within the United States of America, for example, are high. One of the factors contributing to the high rates of the named conditions is the type of foods that people eat. With limitations on the mandatory GMO labelling on food products, one does not know what he or she is consuming. In as much as the cost of labelling the food products is high, the cost of treating and managing these long term conditions is also high. I feel that the lives of the consumers should be prioritized.
As described, there is a biting need to separate GMO food products from the non-GMO food products through labels. The studies conducted 40 years ago did not find substantial side effects associated with the consumption of genetically modified foods, however, new studies link some of the genetically modified foods to conditions such as cancer and kidney damage. It is quite sad that some of the foods we eat are health hazards. Thus, separating the genetically modified foods from non-GM foods is essential because it gives the consumers an opportunity to choose the types of foods that they wish to eat.
Works Cited
Byrne, D. Pendell, & G. Graff. Labelling of Genetically Modified Foods. 7 May 2020. https://extension.colostate.edu/topic-areas/nutrition-food-safety-health/labeling-of-genetically-modified-foods-9-371/. Accessed 6 May 2010.
Schnell, Jaimie, et al. “A comparative analysis of insertional effects in genetically engineered plants: considerations for pre-market assessments.” Transgenic Research 24.1 (2015): 1-17.
Scott, S. E., Inbar, Y., & Rozin, P. (2016). Evidence for absolute moral opposition to genetically modified food in the United States. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(3), 315-324.
Wunderlich, Shahla, and Kelsey A. Gatto. “Consumer perception of genetically modified organisms and sources of information.” Advances in Nutrition 6.6 (2015): 842-851.