Robert M. Hutchins, known for his contributions to philosophy, said that, “A civilization in which there is not a continuous controversy about important issues is on the way to totalitarianism and death.” While I do not necessarily agree with the former, or the latter, for that matter (no rhyme intended), it is imperative for us, as people, regardless of nationality, to ask questions. On the topic of important issues are genetically modified foods. The specific tangent on genetically modified foods is the question of whether or not genetically modified foods should have mandatory labeling. Instead of being a staunch absolutist and deciding so hastily on the matter of GMOs, the merits and drawbacks of this issue need to be discussed.
Like any contemporary moral issue, there are parts of the issue that are black and white with the rest of it being one huge gray area needing to be properly defined, and the issue of GMOs is no different. One of the facets on the gem of GMOs is the question of putting mandatory labels on genetically modified foods. Groups that are in favor of mandatory labeling such as Greenpeace International, for example, argue that consumers, regardless of awareness towards food have the right to know what is inside their food. Greenpeace International, “…emphasize[s] unknown health risks, such as allergic reactions, and environmental risks, such as pest resistance and loss of biodiversity, and denounce the absence of long-term studies investigating those risks” (Dannenberg 374). Before I go any further, I need to enlist the help of a deontologist. For our purposes I will call him, “No Exception” Evan.
After telling Evan about Greenpeace’s position on genetically modified foods, he said that, “Under n...
... middle of paper ...
...ndatory GMO Labeling.” Editorial. St. Louis Post-Dispatch 11 Nov. 2013, 3rd ed.: 13. 11 Nov. 2013. Web. 16 Nov. 2013.
Dannenberg, Astrid, Sara Scatasta, and Bodo Sturm. “Mandatory versus Voluntary Labelling of Genetically Modified Food: Evidence from an Economic Experiment.” Agricultural Economics 42.3 (2011): 374. 5 Nov. 2010. Web. 16 Nov. 2013.
De Tavernier, Johan. “Food Citizenship: Is there a Duty for Responsible Consumption?” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 25.6 (2012): 897. ProQuest. Web. 22 Nov. 2013.
Kaste, Martin. “So What Happens If The Movement To Label GMOs Succeeds?” GMO Labeling. KUOW. 94.9, Seattle, Washington, 17 Oct. 2013. Radio.
Phillips, Diane, and William Hallman. “Consumer Risk Perceptions and Marketing Strategy: The Case of Genetically Modified Food.” Psychology & Marketing 30.9 (2013): 741. 23 July 2013. Web. 20 Nov. 2013.
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
During the 2008 campaign trail, president Obama was quite instrumental in condemning agricultural corporations and their various regulatory bodies. More specifically, Obama was quoted saying that, once he assumed office, his administration would tell ConAgra that their main area of operation is not Agribusiness but rather Agriculture. However, upon election, Obama changed his tone, possibly due to influence by the biotech industry. The appointment of Tom Vilsack, who was a pro-biotech former Iowa governor, into the position of the USDA Secretary signaled to the bio-tech conglomerates that they could influence regulatory frameworks. Following this appointment, other Monsanto executives were poached into the administration, including Michael Taylor, who was the Vice President of Monsanto, Roger Beachy, who was a former director of Danforth Plant Science Center that was ...
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
The technological advances are increasing each year, and electronics are not the only things upgraded. The food eaten in the United States has also been touched by science in the form of GMOs. Although GMOs have been in the US food industry for almost twenty years, consumers should have the right to know what is in our food with mandatory GMO labeling.
Miller first mentions how in any study a lot of scientists use animals as a way to test out theories. In this case animals were given modified food and what they found was that the food was harming the animals; they were suffering. Considering what occurred to the animals, why should we even consider trusting a modified plant? “Genetically modified foods - also called genetically engineered foods – contain DNA that scientists have modified in an unnatural way, such as by adding a gene from a different organism, according to the world Health Organization” (Miller). In this aspect no one would be willing to purchase a product like this, there should be a reason to be scared of the word GMO. Some of the make up`s are good for our economy and the plants but they cannot or should not be classified as a GMO. Miller even points out “At the event, Druker, a public interest attorney, argued that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has misrepresented the safety of genetically modified foods and violated federal food safety law by allowing them onto the market.” That right there should answer anyone’s question about GMO`s not being proven to be safe, because not every make up is suitable for our
Supporters of Genetically modified crops, which consists of biotechnology companies and agricultural researchers, contend that the usage...
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
Considering an argument as valid requires critical analysis of several aspects and providing strong evidence. Robin Mather, a journalist who “has passion for food and its sources, has worked at major metropolitan newspapers (the Detroit News, the Chicago Tribune)”(86), argues that GMOs have risks and hazards to human health and threats to wildlife and environment in her article “The Threats from Genetically Modified Foods”, whereas Entine, a colleague at the Genetic Literacy Project, and Wendel, a science writer(82), claim that GMOs are safe to eat and no harm to people or animals in their article “2000+Reasons Why GMOs are Safe to Eat and Environmentally Sustainable” Both articles’ authors state their ideas clearly for whether GMOs could be eaten or not. However, Mather provides more solid
The Controversy Over Genetically Modified Foods The genetic engineering of foods has, in one sense, been in existence for hundreds of years. The first time Gregor Mendel bred different varieties of pea plants to observe the various traits present in their offspring, the concept was born. Today, genetic engineering has developed into one of the most complex and advanced fields of scientific thinking, all the while provoking many questions and acquiring many opponents along the way. While there are compelling arguments presented for each side of the issue, the simple fact is that genetically modified (GM) foods are a reality, especially in the United States, as they are already present in many products that are consumed on a daily basis.
Are genetically modified foods safe? Genetically modified foods are crop plants created for human or animal consumption using molecular biological techniques. These plants have been modified to enhance certain traits like increased resistance to herbicides or improve nutritional content. This process traditionally has been done through breeding, but is not very accurate. Scientists have been using biotechnology to implant the gene that makes the plants act the way they want them to. Genetically modified foods have advantages and disadvantages on the environment and advantages and disadvantages on society. We have to weigh the positives and negatives to see if genetically modified foods are healthy for us and if we really need them.
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.
gives us the right to do so. Before we go on any further, it is
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.
How many of you hear the words “genetically modified food” and immediately think “BAD”? How many of you scorn the idea that genetically modified foods are useful? How many of you have been manipulated by the media to think that all biotechnology is evil? Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are organisms that have been genetically spliced to achieve a certain trait. As the demand for a larger food supply is increasing due to population growth, the benefits that GMO foods provide are being hailed as the only solution to the food crisis. However, many people are making inadequately informed decisions, and are pushing them to the back shelf. I will inform you on why genetically modified organisms may be the only way to a stable, safe future for the less fortunate.
“Genetically modified foods are a "Pandora's box" of known and unknown risks to humans and the environment. They have been forced onto the American public by multinational biotech and agribusiness corporations without adequate oversight and regulation by the United States government (Driscoll, SallyMorley, David C).”Genetically Modified Food is food which has been chemically altered by scientists during the production process to give the food more nutrients, better appearance, and a longer shelf-life (Rich, Alex K.Warhol, Tom). The importance of this issue is that these GMO’s can actually have a negative effect in our society in general. It could mutate in a negative way and cause cancer or other diseases. Genetically modified food should be strictly controlled due to its various detrimental effects on the environment, human health, and potentially insect/animal effects.