Introduction
This report will explain the current status of Lazar Sharipoff’s final report to Richard A. Durst, the chairman of the Food Advisory Committee for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This status report includes the relativity of labeling Genetically Engineered (GE) products to Richard, who the stakeholders are, disagreements among experts on GE products. The most interesting information Lazar has found so far, and what information he needs to complete his research.
Relativity of Labeling GE Products
GE products are almost everywhere, about 93% of soybeans and 88% of corn produced in the U.S. is GE. With so many GE crops being grown, the crops have to go somewhere, and that somewhere is in the food consumers eat. Very many products at grocery stores and markets contain some sort of GE product with the consumer having little to no knowledge that it even contains a GE product. The reason this is controversial is because GE products can have adverse effects to the human body, these effects can include a simple allergic reaction, toxin build up in the body, and an increased risk of cancer. Without proper labeling, officials would not be able to track which product contains a GE product effectively, especially if a certain product is causing adverse health effects.
Major Stakeholders
Major Stakeholders of labeling GE products include, all consumers that do not grow their own food, food producers, food regulators, farmers of GE crops, and investors. Consumers that do not grow their own usually buy food at the supermarket or restaurants, so they are a stakeholder because they eat foods that may contain GE products. Food producers, food regulators, farmers of GE crops, and investors are stakeholders, because profits surro...
... middle of paper ...
...1.
Works Cited
Dahl, Richard. “To Label or Not to Label: California Prepares to Vote on Genetically Engineered Foods.” Environmental Health Perspectives. Sept. 2012: 1-6. Print.
Kramkowska, Marta, Teresa Grzelak, and Krystyna Czyżewska. “Benefits and risks associated with genetically modified food products.” Annals of agricultural and environmental medicine. 2013. Web. 6 May. 2014.
Nature Labs. Gene Crops. 2011. Web. 13 May. 2014.
Premanandh, Jagadeesan. “Global consensus--need of the hour for genetically modified organisms (GMO) labeling.” Journal of Commercial Biotechnology. 2011. Web. 6 May. 2014.
Senauer, Benjamin. “Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Engineered (GE) Foods: The Showdown Begins.” Choices. 2013. Web. 2 May. 2014.
Vasquez-Salat, Nuria, Louis-Marie Houdebine. “Will GM animals follow the GM plant fate?” Transgenic Research. 22.1. 2013. 5-13. Print.
A substantial percentage of the work on the ethics of genetically modified food has primarily centralized on its potentially nocuous effects on human health and on the rights to label
A trip to any supermarket in Canada will reveal nothing out of ordinary, just the usual of array of fresh and packaged goods displayed in an inviting manner to attract customers. Everything appear familiar and reassuring, right? Think again. A closer microscopic inspection discloses something novel, a fundamental revolution in food technology. The technology is genetic engineering (GE), also known as biotechnology. Blue prints (DNA) of agricultural crops are altered and “spliced” with foreign genes to produce transgenic crops. Foods harvested from these agricultural plants are called, genetically modified (GM). Presently, Canada has no consumer notification; GM foods are being slipped to Canada’s foods without any labels or adequate risk assessments. This essay argues that GM foods should be rigorously and independently tested for safety; and, consumers be given the right to choose or reject GM foods through mandatory labels. What is the need for impartial examination of safety of transgenic foods? And why label them? GM foods are not “substantially equivalent” to conventional foods, genetic engineering of agricultural crops is not a mere extension of traditional plant breeding, and finally, there are human health implications associated with it.
Food is an essential part of everyday life without it one could not survive. Every day we make choices on what we put in to our bodies. There are countless varieties of food to choose from to meet the diverse tastes of the increasing population. Almost all food requires a label explaining the ingredients and the nutritional value allowing consumers to make informed decisions on what they are consuming. However, many may not be considering where that food is coming from or how it has been produced. Unfortunately, there is more to food than meets the eye. Since 1992, “ the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ruled, based on woefully limited data, that genetically modified foods were ‘substantially equivalent’ to their non-GM counterparts” (Why to Support Labeling). GM food advocates have promised to create more nutritious food that will be able to grow in harsh climate conditions and eventually put an end to world hunger in anticipation of the growing population. There is very little evidence to support these claims and study after study has proven just the opposite. GM crops are not only unsafe to consume, but their growing practices are harmful to the environment, and multinational corporations are putting farmers out of business.
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
Lee. These modified crops and plants for humans and animals are created mainly to withstand herbicides or to produce insecticides. “No GMO traits are on the market for higher yields, drought resistance, enhanced nutrition or any other consumer benefit” (Burnham). Overall, GE Foods’ main purpose is to save money for large corporations. One of the most prominent crops in the GMO industry is Bt corn.
Until the government creates mandates for issuing labels on foods that contain genetically modified ingredients, there are measures that can be taken by common citizens and supporters of GMO labeling in order to keep Americans safe in the meantime. Since “study after study points to potential health risks” (“Whole Foods Market”), supporters need to raise awareness amongst the rest of society in order to generate a large group that can begin to press the government to create a law to handle the issue. It is in “the state’s interest [to] protect consumers from false or potentially misleading communication or prevent consumers from suffering unwitting harms” (Adler). Moreover, the government must be the one to put an official end to the lack of
Okigbo, R., Iwube, J., & Putheti, R. (2011). An extensive review on genetically modified (GM) foods
...ng-term testing being done on the effects they have on human beings or warnings on the products that they do contain genetically modified ingredients. The only solution that can be done is to continue testing all the genetically modified products, so that when they do get into our stores they are safe for everyone.
Could it be that putting “GMO” on the package could cost more money? Or is it that less people will purchase these items if they knew what was going into their bodies. There are bills pending on Beacon Hill to pass labeling laws for genetically modified foods. “The laws would mandate that there would be a small sentence or a phrase on a package saying food in this product has been genetically modified or genetically engineered. It is not a large warning label. It’s the same size as the other ingredients.” I believe that these companies do not want to decrease there sales by puting GMO on the package.
GMOs can also bear consequences in terms of genetic pollution and alteration, from contamination and mutation to adaptation to evolution to species extinction. Indeed, some claims are not well supported and may require testing, like genetic alteration through consumption or the validity of correlating animal health deficits with GM feeds. However, overall, GM foods clearly affect the world negatively in terms of biodiversity and ecosystem impacts. With all of the controversy surrounding GMO foods: health versus biodiversity; benefits versus dangers; pros versus cons, a topic that always arises is the subject of labeling. Labeling has been a matter of discussion for years and surprisingly, it is a hot debate that is still full of life.
Webber, G. D. Regulation of Genetically Engineered Organisms and Products. Office of Biotechnology | Iowa State University Office of Biotechnology. Retrieved September 22, 2013, from http://www.biotech.iastate.edu/biotech_info_series/bio11.html - anchor96278
As heated debates continue about the labeling of Genetically Modified Organisms, little does the general US population know that they eat GMOs every day. Over thirty thousand different products on grocery store shelves are GMOs, including daily products such as milk, corn, and soy (Chien). While the illustration of a butterfly sitting on a blade of grass shaped like a check mark could subconsciously reassure people that a genetically modified food product is "safe," such labeling is not needed as GMOs are not only healthy to eat and economically advantageous, rather they may be a sustainable solution to world hunger.
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)
In conclusion, the application of genetically modified food has a lot of pros and cons. There is so much disagreement about the benefits and risks of GM because there are so many different views surrounding it. This issue is very important today because it will change our future. How would the world be when every single living creature will be in some aspect genetically modified? Would we be more resistant to illness? Or would we be weaker and more vulnerable to diseases? Would this be the beginning of the mutant era? Regardless of the answers to these questions, we will need to consider the implications of genetically modified foods.
Boyers, Lindsay. "Genetically Modified Foods." SF chronicle [San Francisco] 03 03 2013, Demand Media n. pag. Print.