Persuasive Essay On Gmo Labeling

Do you know what you're really voting for? Iowan farmer Reg Clause suggests you may not in his column, “Say ‘no’ to GMO labeling.” Reminding readers that general election day has come, he attempts to convince us that a certain law should be voted against. The proposed legislation would mandate all foods that contain genetically modified organisms, also know as GMOs, to display a warning label on their packaging. He argues that this would be detrimental to the good name of these types of foods when they do not deserve to be shamed. I agree that the genetically engineered crops should not be labeled, but not because that would tarnish their name. However, the reasoning for my opinion comes from the perspective that it would not only be impractical

In the article, “Genetically Modified Organisms and the U.S. Retail Food Labeling Controversy: Consumer Perceptions, Regulation, and Public Policy,” from the Business and Society Review [Vol. 120:3], Thomas A. Hemphill and Syagnik Banerjee argue that implementing a GMO labeling policy would bring about higher costs at all levels of food production, which in turn, will cause higher prices for the consumer. They point out the numerous steps present from farm to store shelf, such as the growing, stockpiling, shipping, and wrapping, explaining that providing separation at each leg of the trip would be very costly. Who is going to bear the burden of these extra expenditures?: the corporation? the customers? There is no way around the fact that capital will have to be sacrificed. A Cornell University study estimates that the proposed legislation “would cost New York state families an average of $500 [extra] per year” (page 439). This brings up the question: Is it practical and is it really worth it? I believe that the answer is absolutely not. In conjunction with what was previously discussed, I believe that it would be foolish for our debt-ridden government to implement any laws that would hurt out wallets any more especially when the proof for the subject isn't all

A very valid point brought up by Clause (Say ‘no’), Hemphill, and Banerjee (both G.M.O. and the U.S.), is that consumers already have an easy and effective option to steer clear from GMOs: buying organic products. Through Hemphill’s and Banerjee’s article, we are informed that United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) “presently offers an organic certification for crops and processed food products, which by definition prohibits the use of GMO ingredients” (Page 455-466). This is certainly a label that has the ability to help concerned customers know exactly what they are eating. The co-authors call this solution the “Voluntary Labeling Strategy.” There is, however, one issue with this: not all products that don't contain GMOs qualify as organic. The resolution lies in an upcoming proposal from the U.S. Food and Drug administration (FDA). It's called “Voluntary Guidelines” and it allows, but doesn't force, GMO-free products to display a label of their own. I believe that this is a much smarter option than labeling every item containing GMOs because it is not binding by law, which would provide consumers with all of the benefits they need to choose the right foods for their preferences, while saving on all of the unnecessary extra costs discussed