The International Food Policy Research Institute has looked at many policies and created a guide that attempts to unveil the reasons as to why GM labeling is necessary. There are two major types of policies: voluntary and mandatory. With voluntary policies, companies are not required to label GM products. With mandatory policies however, any type of product that has included any GM product or biotechnology in the process – even if the genetically modified gene is not in the final product – must still be labeled. In this case, GM labeling should not be required for many different reasons. Studies have evaluated “that mandatory labeling would result in an 11-12% production cost increase, which could translate into 10% consumer price increases” (Gruère). Another reason why this policy would not be beneficial is because of the backfire on the idea of …show more content…
Many policies that advocate for GM labels are intended to help increase the number of non-GMO products in order for consumers to have more of a choice. However, it seems that as labeling becomes mandatory, food production companies seem to stop using GM technologies. In this case, GM food is not made as much and the labeling is useless. GM foods are beneficial to the world, so this policy would limit this supply. Lastly, there is no international agreement on GM foods. In this case, it would be difficult to regulate imported and exported goods based on the large amount of different laws in each country or state. These are recurring issues that seem to be found in GMO labeling policies from various areas around the world. There are many states in the United States who have increased interest in requiring GMO labeling. California was the first to bring this type of policy to the
Office of Industries, U.S. International Trade Commission.(2009).Export controls: an overview of their use, economic effects, and treatment in the global trading system. Retrieved from United States International Trade Commission http://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/working_papers/ID-23.pdf
The United States and the European Union are currently in dispute over the trade of genetically modified organisms. These altered plants produce more fruit per acre than traditional methods of farming while protecting the species from insects, environmental changes, and mutations. The output coupled with the benefits of environmental protection yield better products at a cheaper price for consumers. Adam Smith would favor the technologies of genetic modification because the fertility of the land increases, as well as its abundance. This growth results in more agricultural products on the market that require less land for cultivation, and no increase in labor. The consumer is then presented with a cheaper price because there eliminates the need to incur great labor costs and, at times, crop protection inputs such as pesticides. The European Union should allow these products to enter their market freely, to provide the maximum gain to EU consumers.
The act of manufactures labeling of our foods products in terms of the ingredients a particular product contains and the nutritious facts is sometimes taken for granted, we often see the labels on our food products, but ignore them because we’re so used to seeing them in our daily lives. Surprisingly, food product labeling, specifically that pertaining to allergen warnings, were not always available to consumers until a government mandate in 2004 (FALCPA). I think part of the reason for such a lateness in regulation was due to a social stigma regarding allergies, that having them was some sort of natural selection and not an issue that should be taken care of. Another surprising notion I came across was that although there was no government regulation, manufactures of food products took a good amount of initiative in letting their consumers know of potential allergens in their products.
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 practice of using misleading labelling that still complies with law has been done for some time. Still, legislation has been moving forward, starting in December 2002 when nutrition labelling was enforced in the Food and Drugs Regulations, which has since been amended in 2005 (HealthCanada). Whilst the government is taking a proactive stance towards labelling (partly due to consumer lobby groups), companies in the food industry are still able to produce misleading and/or uninformative labelling through simple manipulation of the English language and interpretation of law. Below, current legislation will be discussed, followed by company practices and the organic food market.
A mandatory labeling law is vital to give clear and concise information to citizens.
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
Bronner’s raised in 1.15 million dollars to support food labeling. Unfortunately, supporters of the cause are greatly outnumbered by their opponents. Monsanto raised four million dollars in opposition to mandate labeling. In spite of the supporters passionate efforts, GMO labeling most likely would not be the solution that activists and consumers are looking for. “Approximately ⅔ of the foods and beverages we buy and consume would be exempt. Meat and dairy products would be exempt even if they come from animals raised on GMO feed and grain. All alcoholic beverages, food for immediate consumption served in restaurants and other institutions would also be exempt, even if they contain GMO ingredients” (Review Of Proposition). With laws like these, information on GMOs that affect the majority of the people that care about taking these precautions will not be available. The facts that the labeling laws will mandate will be so vague that they will not provide anymore information than companies that label their product with non-GMO or organic. Any label mandated product under Proposition 105 would not have to inform the consumer of what percentage of the product was genetically modified and what ingredients in the food were genetically modified (Review of
Did you know that Americans spend around one billion dollars per year on school uniforms? At the beginning of every school year, families shop for weeks and weeks to find specific clothes that fit into a school’s strict uniform dress code. School uniforms should not be required in schools because they take away from the student’s freedom of expression, do not lower disciplinary problems, and do not prevent bullying based on economic status. Dress codes often have more of a negative impact than a positive impact when it comes to students being able to learn. Many people say that being in free dress is a distraction, when in reality, uniforms are more of a distraction.
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.
Sheldon, Ian. “Food Principles: Regulating Genetically Modified Crops After The 2006 WTO Ruling.” Brown Journal Of World Affairs 14.1 (2007): 121-134.Academic Search Premier. Web. 2 Nov. 2011.
This however is more “optional” and companies are able to choose whether they want to have their products looked at or not. Additionally, with companies who are growing and selling their products in the same province they can easily put a Canadian organic label on their product and receive no punishment. Although the federal government does recognize that this is a problem there is a great concern around what the cost would be to implement stricter regulations and additionally the question of how “strict” and under what criteria the new organic labelling would be. The Government has both power and legitimacy as they have the power to change the law and regulations surrounding organic labelling.
If we label articles such as cleaning supplies and nail polish remover that will do harm when ingested then why do we not label foods that can cause serious illness of death? Each day thousands of adults and children are diagnosed with disabling conditions such as heart disease and diabetes and the rates are rapidly increasing. Many of these lifelong impairments are directly related to the diets that we attest to as a society. Foods with GMO’s, hydrogenated oils, artificial sugars (aspartame), high fructose corn syrup, and monosodium glutamate ought to be clearly labeled on the front of its packaging for the consumer to recognize.
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
...M crops will escalate the cost of farming, causing many small farmers to potentially loose their businesses. As GMOs continue to affect human life and the environment, it should be mandatory for products to be labeled if they are genetically modified, thus giving consumers the right to make their own decision. With the list of health risks and environmental issues rising, the use of GMOs should be banned as a method to increase food supply and continue a natural approach to eliminate all risks.