Technology and GMO

The 21st Century and GMO Food

The 21st century has made technology an essential instrument. Genetically modified organism (GMO) food was created as a result of farming efforts incorporating technology. The phrase primarily alludes to organisms that do not develop naturally. These creatures’ genes are frequently modified and reorganized by researchers. To hasten the development, maturation, and ripening of food resources, genes are artificially inserted into edible plants. It frequently leans toward promoting the culinary products’ flavors. Consumer confusion over GMOs prompted the development of laws requiring the labeling of all categories of goods that have been genetically modified in the United States. In 2016, Congress passed a law that demanded that “food packages to carry a text label, a symbol or an electronic code readable by a smartphone that indicates whether the food contains genetically modified ingredients or GMOs.” (NBC News par. 4). The law inspired divergent arguments on the need by the agribusiness industrial players to label GMO food substances during the sales initiatives. This paper proposes that GMO food in America should be branded for easy identification by the consumers.

Arguments for Labeling GMO Foods

Improvement of Bilateral Trade

Most of the countries in the European region practice the labeling of the GMO food products. The legal policies in the region require manufacturers to label products that contain at least 0.95 of GMO elements (Michail par. 2). The initiative is aimed to at promoting transparency between the consumers and the producers. Some of the leading proponents of the GMO labeling framework include Germany, UK, and France. Other than the European countries, states such as Brazil, Japan, and China require the producers to identify and the elements that have been used in the production of GMO foods. Therefore, by demanding the labeling of GMO products, the US has the potential to improve bilateral trade with its business partners.

Mitigation of the Farmers Divide

Labeling the foods has the potential to mitigate the existing farmer conflict. The hostile atmosphere is a reflection of the implications of the different cost effects that the farmers who develop GMOs and farmers that produce natural food and plants have to contend with because of the different laws that are extended to the two groups concerning GMO farming. Essentially, the initiative seeks to protect the farmers. According to Desquilbet et al. it is imperative that the GMO seeds are separated from the non-genetically modified seedlings (53). The cultivation of GMO products is limited to specific environmental segments to avoid their intermixing with other non-genetically modified products. The absence of labels has the potential to enhance the flouting of the rules that guide the relationships between the GMO and non-GMO farmers. The absence of laws that specifically address and engage metrics that will be used to streamline farmer activity has the potential to encourage the GMO growers to transcend the buffer zone areas and further their initiatives in territories that are occupied by farmers who participate in the rearing of natural plants. Since the law is clear on the fact that GMO and non-GMO plants cannot be grown together, the determination of a legal framework that will aid the customers’ ability to differentiate between the two groups has the potential to mitigate further conflicts (make it shorter)

Respect of National Policy

In 2016 former U.S. President Barack Obama penned his signature on a bill that categorically demanded food packages being sold in retails areas had to have a text or a symbol or even an electronic code indicating whether the product is genetically modified (“Obama Signs Bill Requiring Labels for GMO Foods.”, par. 2). Consequently, it is the duty of farmers and businesses to follow the laws that are established. Since the president had decreed it illegal to engage in the sales of GMO products without informing the client, farmers and agribusiness organizations ought to determine the methods that they will engage to inform clients of the processes that they undertake in developing their products. Farmers’ and corporation’s adherence to the law can only be determined when they commit themselves to promoting the knowledge of their clients about ingredients that are used in the development of food materials Under the law that was signed by the Congress, all GMO food manufacturers should inform the potential buyers of the ingredients in their products. The initiative allows the consumer to determine whether they are willing to buy the merchandise. Companies and agribusiness corporations are not beyond the law. Thus, it is their duty to ensure that they are following legal frameworks by informing their clients of the components of the food materials. Information on the elements of the meal is supposed to satisfy the need to protect the client against exploitation (Dinan par. 3). Laws that guide the labeling of the GMO foods demand that producers in the region adhere to the principle. Refusing to label food products may thus impede the freedom of the farmer or organization to practice legal activities.

Potential Health Risks

GMOs pose a threat to the overall health of an individual who uses the GMO product. The absence of conclusive research which authoritatively establishes that GMO products are safe for usage provides another evidence that the GMO products may hinder human health. The study GMO Food: A

Reference

Handbook posits that the use of GMO may inspire unintended negative repercussions on the health of the individual in the society (Newton 6). It is the duty of the agribusiness companies to produce goods that do not harm the health of its client. The production of goods by the subject companies should be streamlined to ensure that the elements used do not pose a threat to any form of life. Newton contends that there is an overriding need for the engagement of metrics that will mitigate the occurrence of side effects and health concerns because of the use of GMO (7). Analytical explorations into the effects of GMOs far suppose that there is no health risk involved with GMO products. However, alternative analyses indicate that research finding on the subject is inconclusive and may hamper the health of the user. It is thus important to engage metrics that will allow a potential client to reflect on the elements in the product before deciding on whether to use or avoid the product. GMO labeling provides one of the steps that can be engaged to ensure that the consumer’s health is not threatened. Overall, listing the GMO elements which are included in the food product has the potential to reduce health concerns that arise from allergies and disorders (“Obama Signs Bill Requiring Labels for GMO Foods” par 4). For instance, an element that is detrimental to the consumer’s health can be used in the development of a GMO food product. Identification of the basics might have allowed the victim to determine the units that threaten their health sustainability. Furthermore, it might have allowed them a framework which they could use to establish the premises of their refusal to consume GMOs by which they could avoid using the GMO products. Until there is a conclusive finding on the health implications of GMO food on its users, it is imperative that agribusiness companies make it a priority to promote and protect the health of their clients.

GMO Animals Different from Naturally Developed Animals

Farm animals are different from those that are genetically modified. It is, therefore, necessary that the clients are aware of the differences that exist between creatures that are genetically modified and those that are reared naturally. Potential consumers should be informed that the animal rearing-process involved a set of chemicals and treatments to enhance the quality of the food. The initiative allows users to determine the discrepancy that exists. Additionally, consumers should be able to justify the pricing of the subject organism. For instance, a genetically modified cow may not have the same quality of flesh as that which is reared naturally (Nongmoproject.org par.3). Thus, the prices charged to the two living organisms should be different since the latter contains more nutrients. The Non-GMO Project group determines that the clients need to be informed about the quality of the product that they are buying (Nongmoproject.org par 4). In this case, the purchase of an animal product that is not genetically modified may comprise the customer’s priority. The absence of the labeling initiative may impede the shopper’s ability to determine which animal is GMO and which one was not modified. The value for money framework is predicated on the understanding that the patron is fully informed aware of the quality of the product or service they are acquiring. Thus, their willingness to spend money should be inspired by the confidence they have in the product to be engaged. The Non-GMO Project initiative indicates that the development of GMO products is executed in such a manner that quality is overlooked. However, the foremost priority of the farmers and producers should be to develop foodstuffs that do not threaten the lives of the consumers.

Client Autonomy

One of the intrinsic elements in an efficient market entails the extension of autonomy to the client. Principally, companies or businesses take it upon themselves to allow the consumers the freedom to choose their products by extending them correct information. Afterwards, it is the duty of the customer to determine whether they are willing to use the product based on their preferences. Labeling of the GMO elements is in line with the need to promote independence in the society. Client autonomy can only be achieved when the buyers are provided with the correct information about food offered by the producers. Empowerment through mobilization does not limit the individual but rather empowers them to think for themselves and engage a product based on his preferences. Labeling a product has the benefit of allowing the client information on the elements that form a part of the food that they consume (Mahgoub 37). When picking an unlabeled merchandise, the customer might have assumed that it came from specific natural ingredients. The potential consumer ought to be fully informed of the content that they are about to purchase before executing the purchase. Clients will be able to succinctly review products before purchasing them if they are adequately informed. For instance, if there is an element that is present in a GMO product that is not compatible with the client’s health situation, providing the client with the information on the element may prevent the occurrence of a health risk resulting from an allergy (Newton 15). Additionally, labeling food enhances the effectiveness of consumer autonomy by ensuring that they are allowed the freedom to postpone a purchase. To prevent the occurrence of such a negative outcome, it is important that the client is allowed to decide on whether the product they are willing to engage is advantageous to their sustenance.

Environmental Sustainability

There is a need for the implications determination of genetically modified products on the environment. Listing elements of GMO ease the analytical process by providing academics the opportunity to directly address the elements that are found in the subject food product. The absence of listed elements on the GMO products prevents access to the composition of the product – an initiative that would have provided the background information that is required to fully address the needs for research on the environmental implications of the GMO productive processes. Thus, the article Why Genetically Modified Foods Should Be Labeled by Carole Bartolotto contends that ”do we really want to irreversibly change the face of plant life with unknown consequences for the monetary benefit of a few large corporations and their investors?” (par 5). The examination of the elements that are found in GMO products provides a platform through which the effects of the initiative have on the surroundings and the determination of solutions to prevent further degradation of the environment. Alternatively, the establishment of the elements in the GMO product provides a medium through which safety measures can be instituted.

Arguments against the Labeling of GMO Foods

Despite the prevalence of public calls for the engagement of policies that require the labeling of GMO products, the initiative poses several risks. Additionally, there are factors that may impede the successful engagement and application of such policies. Some of the arguments against labeling of GMO products are listed below.

GMOs are Not Harmful to Health

One of the major premises that are engaged by the supporters of the labeling initiative is provided by the allusion to the detrimental nature of the GMO foods. Principally, the proponents of the labeling initiative argue that the listing of the elements used in the development of the given product allows the possibility of determining whether the product has adverse effects on health. However, the article Academies of Science Finds GMOs Not Harmful to Human Health by Elizabeth Weise contends that GMOs are not detrimental to the health of the subject individual. The article captures a study that was conducted over the last two decades on the effects of GMO products on human health. It contends that there were no cases of increased diabetes or cancer that could be attributed to the consumption of GMO as had been posited by the proponents of the labeling initiative (Weise par. 3). Nonetheless, the assertions posited against labeling GMOs do not provide a solution to the challenge of the threat that is posed by GMOs to health. The potential for harm is still real, and unless there is a clear and distinct herefore, it should be a requirement that the buying party is aware of the implications of their purchase.

Negative Influence on Businesses

Labeling GMO products may have a negative influence on the sale initiatives. When customers identify tags on a product subtly describing the elements used in the developmental and rearing processes, sales may suffer immensely. Still, this explanation does not fully address the detrimental of engaging markers on GMO products. Thus, it is not feasible that commercial needs should be placed above the health needs of the consumer. It is the duty of the involved corporation to ensure that the elements used in the development of their products do not portend a danger to the lives of the clients. Intrinsically, the client need not suffer health impediments as a result of ignorance imposed by the producing farmers and companies.

It is a Breach of the Law

Groups that are inclined against the labeling of GMOs contend that labeling goes against the Vermont law. Essentially, their arguments are predicated on the understanding that the immediate former US president signed laws that contradicted each other with regards to labeling GMOs. The Vermont law allowed the agribusinesses the freedom to choose on whether to list the elements used in the GMO initiatives while the latter law decried the initiative (Weise par. 2). The sanctioning of the bill that demanded to label of GMO products is a reflection of the state’s commitment to ensuring that consumer products are safe for use. It is the duty of every agribusiness and corporation to ensure that it strives to protect its customers from harm. Thus, arguments which negate the labeling initiative are ill-advised.

Conclusion

Genetically Modified Food (GMO) refers to food plants and animals that have their genes redesigned to enhance their quality and accelerate their development. Recent times have seen increased calls for labeling in GMO products to aid in distinguishing GMOs from natural organisms. Support for GMO labeling stems from the idea that GMO is harmful to the health of the consumers. Principally, the proponents of the initiative establish that labeling GMOs reinforces consumer autonomy, promotes loyalty to the legal policies in the country, protects the farmers against exploitation, and the health of the consumers. Labeling GMOs enables the easy identification of elements that are used in the development of the subject product and prevents the occurrences of unintended and unexpected health concerns. Indeed, informing the client of the elements used in the development of the food has the potential to reduce the sales. However, it is important to note that the desire to make profits by the agribusiness corporations does not justify risking the survival of the consumers. It is the duty of the producers to ensure that they involve products that do not threaten the safety of the consumers. Such organizations need to clarify on why they are engaging the initiative and the disadvantages that may result from the productive activities. Additionally, the detractors claim that the GMOs do not have negative implications on human health. There is a lack of comprehensive and conclusive research which contends that there is no co-relation between GMOs and ailments to the human. The presence of conclusive research on the safety of consuming GMO products would significantly mitigate the fear that consumers have.

Works Cited

Bartolotto, Carole. ”Why Genetically Modified Foods Should Be Labeled.” HuffPost. Web. 20 July 2017. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carole-bartolotto/why-genetically-modified-food_b_4039114.html

”Congress Passes GMO Food Labeling Bill”. NBC NEWS, 2016. http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/congress-passes-gmo-food-labeling-bill-n609571. Accessed 2 Aug. 2017

Desquilbet, Marion, and Sylvaine Poret. “How Do GM/non-GM Coexistence Regulations Affect Markets and Welfare?” European Journal of Law and Economics 37.1 (2013): 51-82. Web.

Dinan, Stephen. “Obama Signs Bill Overturning Vermont’s GMO Labeling Law.” Washington Times, 2 Aug. 2016. Web. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/2/obama-signs-bill-overturning-vermonts-gmo-labeling/ Accessed 21 July 2017.

“Labels for GMO Foods Are a Bad Idea.” Scientific American, 1 Sept. 2013. Web. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/labels-for-gmo-foods-are-a-bad-idea/ Accessed 21 July 2017.

Mahgoub, Salah E. O. Genetically Modified Foods: Basics, Applications, and Controversy., 2016. Print.

Michail, Niamh. ”Non-GMO Labels Are on the Rise in Europe – but why?”, 10 Jul. 2015. http://www.foodnavigator.com/Market-Trends/Non-GMO-labels-are-on-the-rise-in-Europe-but-why Accessed 2 Aug. 2017.

Newton, David E. GMO Food: A Reference Handbook. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 2014. Print.

Nongmoproject.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 July 2017. https://www.nongmoproject.org/gmo-facts/

“Obama Signs Bill Requiring Labels for GMO Foods.” Food Engineering Sept. 2016: 15. Academic OneFile. Web. http://www.foodengineeringmag.com/articles/96113-obama-signs-bill-requiring-labels-for-gmo-foods Accessed 18 July 2017.

Weise, Elizabeth. “Academies of Science Finds GMOs Not Harmful to Human Health.” USA Today. USA Today, 17 May 2016. Web. Accessed 21 July 2017. https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2016/05/17/gmos-safe-academies-of-science-report-genetically-modified-food/84458872/ .