Backers of the idea say consumers deserve to know what’s in the food they eat. Critics say labeling is a ploy to make consumers worry.
One of the biggest arguments in the food world these days involves products that have been genetically modified.
Consumer advocates have been pushing for rules requiring companies to label foods that contain ingredients that have been modified for any number of purposes, such as making them resistant to herbicides. Recently, voters in Oregon and Colorado voted down measures to require labeling. Other states, though, have approved labeling, and the Food and Drug Administration’s website says it has received petitions to mandate labeling nationwide but hasn’t made a call on the idea.
The argument for labeling comes down to the right to know: Consumers, the advocates say, should be well informed of what’s in their food. Further, they argue, genetically modifying food carries risks while providing few nutritional benefits.
Opponents say that the fears about GMO foods are overblown, and that in fact the foods are safe and bring benefits. So, labeling foods would give the wrong impression that there’s something dangerous about GMOs, when there isn’t, opponents say.
Andrew Kimbrell, the executive director of the Center for Food Safety, makes the case in favor of labeling. Arguing against labeling is Nina Fedoroff, the Pugh professor emerita at Penn State University.
YES: We Deserve To Know What’s in the Food We Eat
By Andrew Kimbrell
The American public has the right to know what’s in the food they buy and serve their families. That includes the right to choose whether or not to purchase foods produced through genetic engineering. Consumers in 64 other countries have that right, and Americans overwhelmingly want that right. Most polls show that more than 90% of the public favors labeling.
Why label? Genetically engineered foods are materially different than their nonengineered counterparts, and the public has a right to know it. In fact, the DNA in these foods has been patented by biotech corporations as completely new.
Labeling would not be curtailing a technology that is beneficial to the public. No currently commercialized genetically engineered crop substantially increases yield or nutrition. And other cheaper, proven methods are more effective at increasing production.
In fact, the primary use of genetic engineering involves genetically altering crops so they can withstand massive doses of herbicide (mostly Roundup, recently classified a probable carcinogen). And increased herbicide use has led to air and water pollution, created a major problem with herbicide-resistant “superweeds,” and resulted in increased toxic residue on our food.
Moreover, genetic engineering is not safer, nor more efficient nor more predictable than traditional breeding. Genetically engineering crops involves trial and error, mostly resulting in failure.Tinkering with a plant’s DNA might make a nontoxic plant toxic or have other unintended impacts. Without labeling, we can’t fully track those impacts.
Source: http://www.wsj.com/articles/should-companies-be-required-to-label-genetically-modified-foods-1436757040
Critical thinking questions:
- Do you think this kind of food has an impact on life expectancy?
- By labeling products that are genetically modified, do you think most people would buy them or not? Explain.
