Genetically Modified Foods Should Be Labeled On The Grounds Of The Constitutional Rights Of Consumers And Producers

975 Words4 Pages
Would you want to know if the original genetic codes of the foods you were eating had been modified? Would you knowingly consume foods which were potentially harmful to your health? How would you feel if you already were, but the companies producing such foods were neglecting to tell you? If these modifications were harmless, would you want to know then, or do Americans have a right to know everything about what they are putting into their bodies? In their articles, David Schubert, Gregory Conko, and Henry I. Miller, discuss whether or not genetically modified foods should be labeled on the grounds of the Constitutional rights of consumers and producers, health risks, and whether or not it is even necessary. The first argument is that of the legality of compulsory labeling of genetically modified organisms. David Schubert argues that corruption within the industry is the reason for no laws mandating the compulsory labeling of genetically modified organisms. He states that there are no laws requiring labeling because Monsanto, the company which developed the first Genetically Modified foods, also writes the laws concerning such products (Schubert). Although many FDA scientists opposed the notion that genetically modified foods are essentially identical to foods that are not genetically modified, it was ruled that they were substantially the same and therefore posed no health risks to consumers (Schubert). Gregory Conko and Henry I. Miller strongly oppose this view, and insist that not only is the compulsory labeling of genetically modified foods unnecessary, but it is also unconstitutional (Miller). Conko and Miller argue that mandatory labeling of genetically modified foods violates commercial free speech. Producers are not ob... ... middle of paper ... ...d imply a warning.” (Miller). In conclusion, both arguments come from very different sides. Schubert strongly believes that genetically modified foods are unsafe and that consumers have the right to know what they are putting into their bodies. On the other hand, Conko and Miller argue against this viewpoint, citing the safety of genetically modified foods and FDA regulations prohibiting labels that could confuse or potentially startle consumers. Conko and Miller also further their argument by stating that labeling genetically modified foods would be unconstitutional and violate commercial free speech. In their articles, David Schubert, Gregory Conko, and Henry I. Miller, discuss whether or not genetically modified foods should be labeled on the grounds of the Constitutional rights of consumers and producers, health risks, and whether or not it is even necessary.

    More about Genetically Modified Foods Should Be Labeled On The Grounds Of The Constitutional Rights Of Consumers And Producers

      Open Document