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

(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

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