There is currently a particularly polarizing debate raging
on whether or not food products that include genetically modified organisms (GMOs)
should be required to label their products. Each side makes valid arguments
concerning the potential dangers, or lack thereof, of taking certain actions.
To fully understand the debate, one must explore what a GMO actually
entails.
The
simple definition of a GMO is an organism that has had a section of its DNA
replaced with that of another species. These changes in DNA cause the organism
to produce different proteins at different times, causing a change in a
characteristic. The changes are almost always made to increase crop yields
through cold, heat, drought, disease, or insect tolerance, making GMOs vastly
less expensive and less risky for farmers to grow. For instance, genetically
modified corn may simply mature faster or produce more than its unmodified
counterparts, a relatively small change. These modifications, however, can be
much more drastic. For instance, sections of rat DNA have been replaced with
jellyfish DNA, causing the rats to glow in the dark. Obviously none of the
genetically modified foods on the market will glow. In fact, the changes are
usually so small that there is virtually no difference between the modified and
unmodified food.
This is
where the debate on GMO labeling really starts. Scientifically, there is no
difference between GMOs and other organisms on the market, meaning that most of
the scientific community feels there is no reason to separately label the
products. Many consumer advocacy groups, however, see the situation very differently.
They cite possibilities of increased allergy exposure due to new “franken-foods”
containing more than one species of DNA. Some short-term studies of rats have
also shown health problems in rats who consumed certain types of genetically
modified corn (specifically a type that naturally produces a pesticide). They
believe that due to these dangers, the consumer has a right to know if their
food contains GMOs. This would allow them to make informed decisions and choose
whether or not they want to buy products or produce with modifications.
Anti-Labeling
advocates disagree with the labeling, as they believe it will have a variety of
unintended and negative outcomes. One of the initial outcomes, they feel, will
be a mass hysteria over the safety of GMOs contained in a great amount of
common foods. This will cause the consumer to pay more for the organic
equivalent of their item, not to mention would be financially devastating to
the company producing the food containing GMOs. They could also be less
healthy, as they may reject perfectly health and safe produce simply because of
a sticker or marking. Farmers would also be hard hit, as they would have to
backtrack to use the less productive and reliable unmodified plants. This would
mean less agricultural output, ultimately putting the country in risk of a food
shortage. Additionally, anti-labelers cite the increasing trend of labeling
Non-GMO containing food, which would make the labeling of GMO’s obsolete.
In the
end, the fight over GMO labeling is unlikely to move anywhere at a national
level. Lobbyists from major food producing companies (Nestle, Kellogg’s, etc.)
are doing everything they can to dissuade legislation from passing on this
issue. They cite the possible economic difficulties the companies may face if
they are forced to label their products containing GMOs. In the meantime, GMOs
continue to increase crop efficiency in and increasingly cramped and hungry
world. Consumers can expect more difficulties avoiding GMO products in years to
come and must be vigilant if they are to do so successfully. It is ultimately up
to the consumers to research whether their food contains GMOs and decide
whether they will take the risk of consuming it.
Links/Related Articles
http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardlevick/2014/08/25/gmos-a-spoonful-of-sugar-helps-the-medicine-go-down/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2014/08/25/why-liberal-americans-are-turning-against-gmo-labeling/
http://www.labelgmos.org/
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/09/03/us-usa-gmo-labeling-idUKKBN0GY09O20140903
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/05/gmo_food_labels_would_label_laws_in_vermont_maine_connecticut_increase_food.html
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/labels-for-gmo-foods-are-a-bad-idea/
Wow. How nice. 10/10 from me.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand what the big deal is about genetically modifying crops. All it has really done is benefit us. Maybe a few mishaps but the positives far out weight the negatives.
ReplyDeleteGood job Drew. I think you presented both sides of the issue evenly, which is refreshing.
ReplyDeleteGood work everything is well explained and well organized. Nice job
ReplyDeleteI just really do not think that the banana post was long enough. You might want to add some stuff Drew, seriously.
ReplyDelete