Genetically modified foods have been a concern for many people around the world. Europeans have been the most vocal in their opposition to genetically modified foods, implementing strict labeling requirements for any GM foods sold in their stores. The European Commission has proposed mandatory labeling for genetically modified foods that contain even a single ingredient with one percent genetically modified material. In the United States, by contrast, there are no mandatory labeling requirements in place. Over two dozen countries outside of the EU have labeling requirements for GM foods. Obviously, many more do not have such requirements. The question of whether these labeling laws are good national public policy is an open one around the world. One central argument in favor of labeling GM foods is that it is important for consumers to have a choice in consuming or avoiding products made with GM ingredients. A primary argument against labeling is that there are no proven health risks surrounding GM foods, while labels seem to imply such hazards. This article documents over two dozen additional pros and cons. See Wikipedia’s article on genetically modified foods
There are certain risks surrounding the consumption of genetically modified foods. These generally surround the use of various bacterias in the construction of new strains of foods, which if consumed, and potentially have harmful effects on humans. Labels help inform consumers that a particular product has such modifications and caries such health risks, so that if they are strongly concerned about GM foods, they can be sure that they are eating 100% natural foods.
Many things are not known about the effects of GM foods. It is appropriate, therefore, to be cautious. Labeling of GM foods fits into this principle of caution in the face of unknowns. In particular, it gives consumers the choice to avoid GM foods if they think these unknown risks are intolerable.
“Allergenicity -Many children in the US and Europe have developed life-threatening allergies to peanuts and other foods. There is a possibility that introducing a gene into a plant may create a new allergen or cause an allergic reaction in susceptible individuals.”
Traditional “engineering” techniques involved naturally cross-breeding two different plants to produce a more desirable outcome – something that happens naturally in the evolutionary process. Genetic engineering is entirely different, involving splicing DNA and introducing various proteins, bacterias, and artificial chemicals. The clear distinction helps justify labeling.
“Requiring labeling for ingredients that don’t pose a health issue would undermine both our labeling laws and consumer confidence.”
“The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oversees food labeling laws in the United States. The FDA has determined that where genetically-modified crops don’t differ from non-GM crops, that products containing them don’t have to be labeled. FDA does require the product to be labeled if the ingredient is a potential allergen, or somehow changes the nutritional properties of the food. To date, no approved biotech crop is either an allergen, or has any significant nutritional differences from non-GM counterparts.”
Almost all foods have been genetically modified in the sense that they are the result of breeding between plants and species. It is wrong, therefore, to label foods that have been genetically modified with more modern techniques, as the only “genetically modified” foods on the shelf, when, in truth, almost all the foods have been modified in a similar way.
“When you buy reconstituted orange juice at the supermarket, the label tells you it is ‘from concentrate.’ For this you can thank the Food and Drug Administration, with its mandate to promote ‘honest and fair dealing with consumers.’ […] Part of the idea is to ensure that foods are truthfully labeled so producers cannot deceive consumers. Labels must include information about amounts, contents, additives such as vitamins and preservatives, and processing methods (‘from concentrate’). […] So why is your bag of corn chips containing genetically modified corn silent about this fact?”
Many people are highly opposed to consuming genetically modified foods. The government must respect that opinion, and give these individuals the ability to avoid GM foods, simply by labeling GM foods so that they can make such a choice. To not mandate this is to disregard and disrespect these opinions.
Labeling foods makes it possible for individuals to choose to take on the risks involved, or to avoid them. This makes it similar to smoking, eating fatty foods, or even something like rock climbing. The individual that adopts the risks adopts them with fully knowledge, and assumes the potential harm entirely on their own. This is opposed to a society without labeling, where individuals do not have the choice as to whether to adopt the risks, which is unjust.
Labeling would make it clear to consumers which foods, fruits, and vegetables on the shelves are GM and which are not, which would make clearer the “superiority” of GM products.
For religious or ethical reasons, many individuals want to avoid eating animal products, including animal DNA. GM foods often use animal DNA in some form or another. Labeling helps ensure that these individuals can avoid consuming such animal products.
Unlabelled GM foods may include GM ingredients or DNA from certain animals or other sources that people of certain faiths strongly oppose consuming. Labeling helps ensure these individuals can avoid such foods and freely exercise their religion.
Organic foods are without GM ingredients. If people want to avoid consuming GM foods, they can easily do so by eating organic foods. They have complete choice.
“Although GM food labelling is already mandatory, advocates claim that the stronger new labelling and traceability rules will ensure that consumers have more complete information, enabling them to make informed choices. In truth, the measures will do no such thing. Both the existing and the proposed labelling regulations only require certain categories of GM foods to be labelled, and provide no context for why some are to be labelled and others exempt. So to make truly informed choices, shoppers must rely upon other sources of information.”
It is very difficult to test foods to ensure that those that are considered “GM free” are actually “free” of GM materials. This is an obvious practical issue, especially when one considers how high the volume of food products is and how rapidly they are consumed. Ensuring, by testing, that each harvest and item of food appearing on store shelves is at or below a certain level of GM-ingredients is obviously very difficult, and perhaps even impossible. This means that consumers are likely to be consuming GM ingredients even when they are consuming foods with GM-free labels. Thus, the actual choice of consumers to avoid GM foods is actually very limited, even with labels, due to these practical constraints on labels.
Surveys in Canada, Japan, Norway, the U.S. and the U.K. indicated that consumers want GM foods to be labeled, but an experimental test in North America showed that GM labels did not have a significant impact on consumer purchasing. If the idea is for information on labels to affect consumer behavior, the fact that it does not, raises the question, “what’s the point?”.
One of the basic debates surrounding labeling regards the overall cost-benefit analysis to all individuals involved. One strong argument, in this regard, against labeling, is that individuals that there are more individuals that don’t mind GM foods, but whom would have to pay the extra food prices associated with labeling, as compared to individuals that mind GM foods and are willing to accept the added costs of labeling.
“Mandatory labeling of genetically modified foods would cost much less than the food industry has claimed, a new study commissioned by Quebec’s Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food reveals. […] The as-yet-unpublished study, obtained by The Gazette, estimates the yearly cost of such a program at Cdn$28 million (US$23.8 million) to Quebec’s food industry and Cdn$1.7 million ($1.4 million) to the provincial government. […] Previous studies commissioned by the food industry – and cited by the federal and Quebec governments as reason not to act on the issue – pegged the annual cost of implementing such a system at up to Cdn$950 million ($807.7 million) (both government and industry) for the whole country, and up to Cdn$200 million ($170 million) in Quebec alone.”
Labeling would help reduce much of the international fear regarding importing from countries that produce GM foods. It would help separate out foods that are not genetically modified, and would generally reduce the international anxieties that have disrupted market transactions and trade across borders.(Biotechnology Issues, 2001).
Labeling GM foods responds to market failures to sufficiently protect consumers against the potential risks of GM foods. Food production companies themselves will not respond sufficiently to these problems. The government must step in on its own and ensure labeling and the protection of consumers.
Labeling may actually be critical in protecting what might be called the “legitimate place” or niche for genetically modified foods, such as the use of GM foods to help end malnutrition in some countries. Without such labeling, public anxiety and fears are likely to grow over their inability to avoid the potential harms of GM foods. With such labeling, those that want to avoid the food can do so and will not cry out as loudly about GM foods. This will help protect the more legitimate role of GM foods from growing public fears and criticism.
“While safety concerns have been the focus of debate, the real problem is that genetic engineering is hurting the poor. It makes cotton cheaper to grow for highly subsidized American producers, further undercutting the price of cotton and forcing West African producers out of business.”
Labeling of genetically modified foods costs money. It is not free. It requires that all companies be regulated, that they ensure that they have or do not have a certain level of GM ingredients in their foods, and that labels be placed on these food products. This would be very expensive. This would harm prices, jobs, salaries, and overall economic health. It would also probably require an increase in taxes to fund new regulatory bodies for GM foods.
Labeling of genetically modified foods makes it more expensive for many food companies to produce their foods, as it requires that they regulate their food production, check to ensure that they are below the GM food level. This means that the ultimate food product must be priced at a higher level for consumers, to compensate for their added expenses in complying with labeling.
Many food products have very limited space on their packaging for extra labels. Mandating GM labeling forces food producers to divert limited space, subjecting them to a disadvantage. And, in general, food labels should be used to convey important safety and health information to consumers, rather than facts that may not be important – such as whether some GM ingredients are in a food product.
Labeling creates a market in which some goods are labeled and others are not. This segregates the market into, presumably, more wholesome and less wholesome products. This is unfair to the GM food industry, as there is no conclusive evidence that their product is inferior in any way, and there is plenty of evidence that their products are actually superior?
“A At present, GM crops/foods and non-GM crops/foods are often mixed together during harvesting, storage or processing. It would be necessary to establish a system to segregate these crops along the food supply chain, especially when the trade would like to source for non-GM food products. Hence additional cost would be incurred to establish and maintain segregation systems.”
“Without innovation, there would be no polio vaccine, no revolution in electronic information available over the internet, and, yes, no disease-resistant, higher-yielding crops to feed the world’s hungry through genetic modification achieved by such traditional means as hybridization. Today, critical advances in biotechnology hold the promise of alleviating hunger and malnutrition, so there can be no compromise when some oppose innovation simply because it is new.”