Argumentative Essay: Labeling Gmos International Law

THE FIGHT TO MAKE LABELING GMOs UNIVERSAL LAW

In direct contrast to the information gmoanswers.com and its founders are trying to convincingly convey, there are several websites that give well-studied, tested, insightful and in-depth information about the detriment to health and agriculture from GMO crops. In addition to sites like the Non-GMO Project, many are the direct result of bills being introduced in several states to not only educate its citizens about GMOs, but to petition them to vote to enforce the labeling of GMOs in consumer products.

While many states have been aggressively reaching out to their constituents and imploring them to join the fight by voting yes to labeling GMOs unfortunately, many have been unsuccessful in getting

bills passed. With more pro-GMO crop lobbyists and companies like Monsanto fighting harder (and some say dirty) with dollar signs instead of concern for public safety, it's easy to understand why these bills are not being passed into law easily, if at all. Unfortunately, it is not the public safety concerned society, but greedy companies that have the funds to ensure labeling laws are unsuccessful.
There are many reasons why consumers are demanding GMO labeling, but none clearer than this statement from Section 1(3) of failed Washington State’s 2012 Initiative Measure I-522:
Mandatory identification of foods produced with genetic engineering can provide a critical method for tracking the potential health effects of consuming foods produced through genetic engineering.

(2)

In addition, at the time of its introduction I-522 also stated in Section 1(6) that:

Forty-nine countries, including Japan, South Korea, China, Australia, New Zealand, Thailand, Russia, the European Union member states, and other key United States trading partners, have laws mandating disclosure of genetically engineered foods on food labels. (2)

Today, there are more than 60 countries that have stringent laws on labeling GMOs or banning them altogether. In addition to the concerns for Public Safety, I-522 also stated in Section 1(8) that trade relations are compromised because of the problem of labeling in the United States. More specifically it

says:
Numerous foreign markets with restrictions against foods produced through genetic engineering have restricted imports of United States crops due to concerns about genetic engineering.

Some foreign markets are choosing to purchase agricultural products from countries other than the United States because genetically engineered crops are not identified in the United States, making it impossible for buyers to distinguish what does or does not meet their national labeling laws (or restrictions, rendering United States' products less desirable. Trade losses are estimated at billions of dollars. Mandatory identification of foods produced with genetic engineering can be a critical method for preserving the economic value of exports to markets with restrictions and prohibitions against genetic engineering. (2-3)

What this means for the United States is that in addition to not considering public safety by not informing consumers of GMO inclusion in products, the companies who produce or back GMOs are causing billions of dollars in estimated trade losses with other countries.

In addition, as in Washington State’s case, farmers are concerned that “they will lose their wheat export markets if genetically engineered wheat is approved.” (I-522, Section 1(10) 3).

In Section 3A of Vermont’s successful H-112 bill states: Genetically engineered foods have an effect on health, safety, agriculture, and the environment, as evidenced by the following: (H-112

8)
Independent studies in laboratory animals indicate that the ingestion of genetically engineered foods may lead to health problems such as gastrointestinal damage, liver and kidney damage, reproductive problems, immune system interference, and allergic responses (8).
The H-112 bill also covers objections from Vermont citizens with certain religion beliefs. Specifically, it says:
…object to producing foods using genetic engineering because of objections to tampering with the genetic makeup of life forms and the rapid introduction and proliferation of genetically engineered organisms and, therefore, need food to be labeled as genetically engineered in order to conform to religious beliefs. (7)
Unfortunately, on November 6, 2013 Washington state voters rejected Initiative Measure 522. The vote was 54.8% opposed to labeling and 45.2% in favor of it. Had it passed, Initiative 522 would have made the state the first in the nation to require such labeling. The initiative was the most expensive in state history, though out-of-state interests largely fought it. (Weise 1)