“Labeling of Genetically Modified Food Products” Essay

Genetically Modified Organisms or GMOs were first introduced into Americas’ food supply in 1996, and there were 7 million acres of crops worldwide that were using GMO seeds. As of 2004, the crop size worldwide that uses GMO seeds had grown to 222 million acres with approximately 63% of those in the United States alone (253). As of 2008, more than 90 percent of soy crops and 75 percent of corn in the United States were raised from genetically modified seeds. As of now, in the United States, there are still no regulations to mandate the labeling of food products that contain GMOs. The United States only requires labeling of genetically modified foods if the food has a significantly different nutritional property, or unexpected allergens, or if the food contains toxins that are higher than acceptable levels. Most developed countries throughout the world have adopted differing regulations pertaining to labeling food products containing GMOs, although with some controversy. While the mandatory labeling requirements were enacted to allow consumer choice of whether or not to purchase foods that contain GMOs, mandatory labeling in the European Union and Japan for example, has resulted in retailers not stocking genetically modified foods on their shelves due to the perceived consumer aversion to genetically modified foods. Advocates of genetically modified foods argue that consumers already have a choice in what they can purchase, whether it is processed foods with traditionally grown ingredients, genetically modified processed foods or organic foods. The consumers of these nations voiced their opinions loudly, that they had the right to know if GMOs were in the food products they were buying, and their governments listened. In the United States, the FDA has stringent testing protocols that biotech firms must follow when developing a drug to bring to market. This protocol consists of different phases of drug trials with the first being a study of the possible side effects of said proposed drug on healthy subjects (meaning that if said drug is for treating colon cancer, the test subjects will be free from the disease) to determine if the subjects develop any side effects. If the phase 1 tests prove to meet FDA satisfaction, they are allowed to proceed to phase 2 of clinical trials which involve subjects that currently have the disease they are trying to treat with the new drug and the tests are done to see if the proposed drug actually treats the disease that they are aiming at. Some ask, that with such stringent testing done with drug chemicals that will be ingested by consumers, why aren’t those same stringent testing regulations implemented into the genetically modified food industry. There is much controversy on this matter in the United States, as Delborne and Kinchy write in the article â€Å"Genetically Modified Organisms†; Promoters of GMOs tend to favor science-based risk assessments (â€Å"sound science†), whereas critics tend to advocate the precautionary principle. Calls for science-based risk assessments often come from stakeholders who oppose increased regulation and want to see GM technologies developed and marketed. Specifically, they argue that before a technology should be regulated for possible risks, those risks must be demonstrated as scientifically real and quantifiable. Although the definition of â€Å"sound science† is itself controversial, proponents state that regulatory agencies such as the EPA and FDA have been too quick to regulate technologies without good evidence—arguing that such government interference not only creates financial disincentives for technological innovation but actually causes social harm by delaying or preventing important technologies from becoming available. Such a perspective views government regulation as a risk in itself. By contrast, advocates of the precautionary principle stress the existence of scientific uncertainties associated with many modern environmental and health issues. They have proposed a framework for decision making that errs on the side of precaution (â€Å"better safe than sorry†). Major components include the following: (1) anticipate harm and prevent it; (2) place the burden of proof on polluters to provide evidence of safety, not on society to prove harm; (3) always examine alternative solutions; and (4) include affected parties in democratic governance of technologies. Critics argue that the precautionary principle is little more than a scientific disguise for anti-technology politics (187). Testing of GMOs in our food products should be done in a similar way as drugs are tested. The way that it stands now, all consumers are being treated as guinea pigs with this technology, and some are not convinced that it’s not having an impact on the health of consumers. The CDC has reported an 18 percent increase in food allergies among children under the age of 18 from 1997 to 2007. Even though there have been no long term scientific studies conducted to measure the health impacts of ingesting GMOs, some proponents use the absence of evidence as proof that GMOs are safe, but critics counter that absence of evidence cannot serve as GMOs safety, and accuse biotechnology corporations and governments of conducting an uncontrolled experiment by allowing GMOs into the human diet (192). As of 2010 no scientific studies have shown conclusively that currently licensed GMO foods harm human health. However, in many cases there is continued concern that the data and studies supporting GMO use are insufficient to declare GMO use safe, especially with regard to use in the open environment and over successive generations (419). In the United States, as mentioned early, manufacturers are only required to label genetically modified foods if the food has a significantly different nutritional property, or unexpected allergens, or if the food contains toxins that are higher than acceptable levels, whereas organically grown foods to which they would be labeled is considered a voluntary or optional label by the FDA and USDA, and have a more stringent set of labeling requirements that producers of these products must adhere to. â€Å"The presence of genetically modified substances above certain very low thresholds disqualifies the organic label. Organic farmers therefore sustained economic losses because of transgenic contamination of their crops† (186). Food label regulations in the United States are meant to tell consumers the ingredients, and nutritional composition of packaged food for sale. The purpose of food labels, are to allow consumers to make an informed decision on whether or not to purchase a particular product. There are polls in the United States that show roughly 85 percent of Americans want food labeling for products containing GMOs, yet government officials are resistant to mandating GMO labeling of food products stemming from pressure by the proponents of GMO production. The health and safety of this nation is at risk of being one huge nationwide experiment with genetically engineered foods, and if the biotech corporations and scientists are wrong about the safety of these products, it may have unrecoverable consequences not only in the United States, but across the entire world. It would be prudent for the government entities that were created to protect consumers, to err on the side of caution rather than on the side corporations. Americans have the right to know what is in the food products that we are purchasing, and the confidence in government agencies that are overseeing the development and manufacturing of these products, that they are 100 percent safe for us to eat just as those same agencies regulate the biotech corporations that develop and introduce new drugs to the market. Works Cited Collin, Robert William. â€Å"Genetically Modified Food. † Environment. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2008. 253-257. Battleground. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 31 July 2011. Davidson, Tish. â€Å"Food Labeling. † The Gale Encyclopedia of Diets: A Guide to Health and Nutrition. Ed. Jacqueline L. Longe. Vol. 1. Detroit: Gale, 2008. 407-412. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 31 July 2011. McIntosh, Philip. â€Å"Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO). † Food: In Context. Ed. Brenda Wilmoth Lerner and K. Lee Lerner. Vol. 1: Advertising Food to International Fund for Agricultural Development. Detroit: Gale, 2011. 416-421. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 9 Aug. 2011. Restivo, Sal and Peter H. Denton. â€Å"Genetically Modified Organisms. † Science and Technology. Ed. Vol. 1. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2008. 182-195. Battleground. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 31 July 2011.