Increasing Consumer Awareness with GMO Labels

Abstract

Technological advancements have enabled food manufacturing companies to genetically modify various types of food products. Many research studies indicate that GMO food products are associated with potential health risks, such as allergic reactions, damage to organs and damage to the immune system. As a result, many countries have begun regulating GMO food products and mandating that labels be displayed by such products. Although many legal and political factors have impaired the ability of the United States to pass GMO labeling legislation, the FDA should mandate GMO labels because the labels would increase consumer awareness and enhance the freedom of choice exercised by the consumers.

The quality of the food that we provide for our society often determines the level of health experienced by many of our citizens. Providing food that is dangerous as a result of chemical manipulation can diminish the health of our society, cause more citizens to suffer from various illnesses, and can prevent many citizens from participating in our society as a result of excessive health bills and constant health problems. In the wake of scientific engineering innovations and technological advancements, genetically modified organisms (GMO) have been used more commonly over the past decade, and many nations are still determining how to best manage the issue.

Thesis

The United States should mandate GMO labeling because the labels can enhance the health of our society by increasing the awareness and knowledge of consumers regarding the food they are eating, by providing them with the freedom of choice regarding which food and ingredients to eat, and by protecting vulnerable consumers from eating GMO foods that might damage their health.

Genetically engineered foods refer to plant or meat products that have had the DNA artificially altered and manipulated by genes from other animals, plants, viruses or bacteria. The GMO process is often performed by scientists in a laboratory who introduce foreign compounds to alter the genetic structure and contents of the food in a way that is unnatural and entirely experimental. Companies have been using GMO alterations because the process can influence the taste of the food or the nutritional ingredients of the product. This new technological development in the food industry has led to contentious debates regarding whether or not food that has been genetically modified should be labeled as GMO products (“What Are We Eating,” n.d.).

Many opponents of GMO labeling argue that the labels would be misleading to the consumers. Because GMO food products are a relatively recent scientific innovation, there have not been many extensive long-term research studies that can provide compelling and overwhelming evidence that GMO food products are directly dangerous to the health of consumers. However, the GMO labels would appear as a warning indicator to consumers and would cause them to believe that GMO foods are unhealthy, even though such a warning is not supported by compelling scientific evidence. Thus, the labels would mislead and discourage consumers from purchasing GMO foods, would prevent food manufacturing companies from successfully selling the foods, and would unnecessarily force the companies to no longer use GMO procedures as a result of a faulty public perception that the foods are unhealthy. For example, mandatory labeling requirements in Japan, Europe and New Zealand resulted in many retailers eliminating GMO products from their establishments because of the perception that the products are unsafe and harmful (Byrne, 2013).

The increase of food costs is another problem that GMO opponents assert to maintain that the US should not mandate GMO labeling. Although labeling GMO foods would be supported by some consumers, the mandate of requiring all GMO products to be labeled might increase the costs for the food companies and for the consumers. As a result, mandating GMO labeling has the potential to hurt the overall US economic market by increasing the prices of the food that consumers purchase (Byrne, 2013).

Additionally, many opponents of GMO labeling contend that GMO foods can be very beneficial for the task of reducing world hunger. Many countries experience high levels of poverty and are challenged by excessive starvation rates, and genetically modified foods can help increase the amount of food and alleviate the level of hunger experienced by these locations. The GMO foods might also be able to help reduce hunger problems by potentially improving the nutritional quality of the food. Thus, opponents argue that GMO foods can help diminish hunger or starvation rates and should not be restricted or inhibited by mandatory labeling laws (Haque & Paliwal, 2010).

However, the many reasons to support GMO labeling significantly outweigh the arguments by the opponents. A primary reason why GMO labeling should be mandated in the US is that, in gauging GMO's,  there is sufficient evidence that genetically modified products can be harmful to the health of consumers. Many research studies indicate that GMO food products can cause or intensify allergic reactions. The process of genetically engineering food often leads to the transfer of new and foreign proteins from one type of food into another, and these unidentified proteins have been proven to be capable of triggering allergic reactions. Because millions of US citizens suffer from allergies or are sensitive to certain allergens, these GMO products can stimulate allergic reactions and dangerous anaphylactic shocks for people who unsuspectingly purchase and eat certain GMO products. For instance, Soy is one of the most commonly genetically-modified crops, and a research study conducted by the York Nutritional Laboratory indicated that there was a 50 percent increase in soy allergies in 1999-2000 and that GMO soy production is most likely a cause of this rise in soy allergies (Klotter, 2001).

GMO potato products have also been proved to pose a health risk to the body’s immune system. A study conducted by Dr. Puszatai, from Rowett Institute in Scotland, demonstrated that allowing rats to eat GMO potatoes damaged the immune system of the rats and significantly impaired the functioning of the rats’ kidneys, spleens, thymuses and guts. Putsztai’s discovery was analyzed and verified by a credible panel of 20 expert international scientists (Klotter, 2001).

Therefore, studies have demonstrated that there are health risks associated with genetically modified food and that GMO products have the potential to trigger your allergies, damage your organs and impair your immune system. Because certain health risks can accompany GMO food products, the products should display labels so consumers can become informed as to whether or not the food they purchase contains genetically modified organisms. GMO labels would increase the awareness of consumers and maximize the freedom of choice exerted by the consumers, as some customers would choose to eat the genetically modified foods while other customers would choose to avoid such products. Additionally, many different people suffer from allergic reactions or dangerous illnesses that are triggered by different types of ingredients and proteins that certain GMO products might contain. Thus, GMO labeling would enable people who experience allergic sensitivities to identify genetically modified foods, avoid products that have harmful ingredients, and protect themselves from experiencing allergic reactions or harmful illnesses. A tremendous benefit of mandating GMO labeling is that the labels would increase the awareness and freedom of choice for the consumers while not preventing companies from manufacturing and selling GMO products.

With the enhanced technological advancements increasing the abilities of companies to genetically modify their foods, many countries are in the process of determining whether or not to permit genetically modified foods or mandate label requirements. For instance, Ireland has issued an official ban that prohibits the growth or sales of any genetically modified foods within the country. This might impact attitudes and trends in America because the US imports an abundance of dairy and cheese products from Ireland. Egypt has also banned genetically modified foods along with all imports and exports of GMO products. This might also have a significant influence on the market and on the GMO labeling decisions of other nations across the world. While Japan generally prohibits GMO growth in their own country, Japan does occasionally import GMO products and thus has issued a non-GM label for foods that have not been genetically modified (Dunn, 2009).

However, South Africa perceives GMO innovations as a benefit and has implemented policies that encourage and facilitate the use of GMO sorghum. Sorghum is one of the only crops that grows well in the arid South African regions, but the crop lacks substantial nutrients and it features insufficient protein digestibility. Thus, the South Africa government has proceeded with experiments of genetically modified sorghum, as the modifications can enable the crop to contain more beneficial nutrients (Dunn, 2009).

Most of Europe has acknowledged the risks of GMO products and many European countries have recently established consumer right to know GMO labeling policies. In April of 2004, the European Union officially required that foods containing genetically modified organisms must display GMO labels. Although the details vary between the different European countries, most European countries now prohibit GMO food products or mandate GMO labeling on such products (Keane, 2006).

The United States government has discussed and debated whether or not to mandate GMO labeling on genetically modified food products. However, there are many difficult challenges that impede the ability of meaningful GMO labeling legislation to pass, and thus there are currently no national, state or local laws that mandate GMO labeling. Surveys indicate mixed results regarding the public opinion of GMO labeling requirements, but surveys also indicate that people who are more educated regarding the topic tend to support the requirements (Radas & Teisl, 2008).

Several legal and political barriers have obstructed any attempts to mandate GMO labeling. The WTO and many of the country’s wealthiest food companies have a significant influence on the political system as a result of large campaign donations that help politicians get elected. Thus, many politicians are reluctant to oppose the food companies, which makes it very difficult for the Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act to make progress and difficult for congress to develop and implement ant laws that would require the FDA to mandate GMO food labeling (Keane, 2006).

Many court proceedings have also been conducted in the US regarding GMO food labeling, but the most significant cases and rulings have remained opposed to GMO labeling. For instance, a federal district court ruling in 2000 concluded that the limited authority of the FDA restricts them from being able to mandate labeling when such a mandate is only justified by consumer demand. Supporters of GMO labeling would argue that the mandate is also justified by potential health risks and by the consumers’ right to know, but courts have rejected this argument as well. For example, a Vermont state court ruling determined that GMO labeling cannot be mandated because of a lack of scientific evidence regarding the health risks of GMO products (Keane, 2006).

Although there are many barriers that the US must overcome to enforce labeling on genetically modified food, the nation should continue to educate the public regarding the issue and continue to encourage legislation that would mandate GMO labeling. Educating the public would be the most effective method, for informing US citizens regarding the health risks of GMO products would encourage the citizens to support GMO labeling and to elect politicians who would help develop and implement effective GMO legislation. The United States should establish policies that would require GMO foods to be labeled, for the labels would increase the awareness of the consumers and provide the consumers with the freedom of choice to buy or avoid the products.

References

Byrne, P. (2013, April 19). Labeling of genetically engineered foods. Colorado State University Extension. Retrieved from http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/foodnut/09371.html

Dunn, C. (2009, December 9). GMO bans, laws, and labels from around the world. TreeHugger. Retrieved from http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/12/gmo-bans-laws-labels-around-the-world.php

Haque, Q., Jamal, F., Paliwal, A. K., & Qidwai, T. (2010, January). Genetically modified (GM) foods: A brief perspective. International Journal of Biotechnology & Biochemistry, 6(1), 13.

Keane, S. (2006, Fall). Can a consumer's right to know survive the WTO? The case of food labeling. Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems, 16(1), 291.

Klotter, J. (2001, October). Health concerns & GMO food. Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients, 14.

Radas, S., Roe, B., & Teisl, M. F. (2008, Fall). An open mind wants more: Opinion strength and the desire for genetically modified food labeling policy. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 42(3), 335-361.

What Are We Eating? (n.d.). LabelGMOs, Genetically Engineered Foods - California's Grassroots Movement for the Right to Know. Retrieved from http://www.labelgmos.org/the_science_genetically_modified_foods_gmo