You are on page 1of 4

Huelsman 1

Cody Huelsman
Sally Lahmon
English 1101
23 April, 2016

Should GM foods be labeled so?


There has been a growing movement in the United States over the last 20 years. This
movement involves the ever increasing use of GMOs(Genetically Modified Organisms) in our
foods, and peoples stance both for and against them. It is undeniable that GMOs have become a
part of the average Americans diet, mostly without their knowledge. In 2012, 88 percent of
corn and 94 percent of cotton in the U.S. came from GM strains (McLure, 1). The debate about
GMOs in our foods being good or bad can go on and on, but I believe that in the meantime all
food products that contain genetically modified ingredients should be clearly labeled as such. If
foods that contained GMOs were clearly labeled then Americans would have the information to
make an informed choice on what they and their children eat.

The right to know is a core American value. This is a value that has been proven and put
into place many times, in fact, any time there has been an update to labeling of foods, we have
reaffirmed that value. More than 40 countries, including all of Europe, China and Japan require
labeling of any GM food (McLure, 1) Yet, the U.S. lawmakers still have kept us in the dark
about GMOs in our foods since the craze started in the early 90s. I believe we should follow suit
and make sure that consumers have the information they need about a product before they buy it
and without having to investigate on their own. Almost any other information you can think of
about a food is represented on the label, so why do we not inform people when something in

Huelsman 2
their food was genetically engineered for medical, moral, environmental and possibly even
religious reasons.

Is there enough safety and health concern about GMOs that they should require seperate
labeling? Supporters of the engineered crops and foods would say no. Critics of the labeling
movement would argue that there are essentially no known cases of allergy or health
complications linked directly to GM foods. This may be true, but it is a wide belief that the
biotech companies are playing with science that we do not fully understand yet, or understand
the effects on humans fully. When we are talking about DNA and modification of genes, it is
very possible that the adverse effects could take multiple generations before they are even
slightly apparent. Current GM labeling requires only known allergens used in the modification be
labeled.
Consider this:
Many of the biotech foods now under development contain genetic material derived from nonfood sources. For example, a gene from a wax moth is being used to develop a bruise-resistant
potato. Since the safety of most foods has been established through a long history of safe
consumption, these non-food genes may pose problems of allergenicity or toxicity that are not
yet understood. (Phillips, 1)
It would be extremely difficult to even diagnose an unexpected health complication due to GM
foods if they are not labeled and were actually the source of the problem. This is all without even
bringing to attention a very simple and logical counterpoint to the argument against labeling: The
U.S. does not label dangerous foods - it takes them off the market. The concern doesnt even

Huelsman 3
have to lie in the danger of GMOs, but in the fact that labels provide material information to
consumers, and consumers want to know what is in their food.

The FDA, who is responsible for imposing the labeling regulations on our food, actually
denied the labeling of GM foods before the GM foods themselves were approved for human
consumption. The guidelines they used for this and have always used are that the GM
ingredients are not materially different from the their natural counterparts: That is, that they
were not noticeably different by taste, touch, or smell. (Koch, 1). Yet, it is widely known that
these GM food products are patented by the companies that develop them. The fact alone that
these products are patentable should show that they are materially different from conventional
foods. This creates a double standard of sorts, in that the GM products are novel for patent
purposes, but materially similar for labeling purposes. The argument for labeling of GM food
products should be started and won all within the FDAs own guidelines.

Labeling of GM food products has been kept from us due to monetary, and political
reasons. It is a shame that big biotech business, corporations and the big food industries of the
country have spent hundreds of millions to lobby against labeling of GM products all because of
the fear of losing money. I believe that the question of labeling is a democratic question, and lies
at the heart of the American values to know what we buy and eat. It is an even larger shame that
politics have also got in the way of our right to know what is in our foods. Lobbyists and large
corporations play such a major role in our politics that somehow the biotech companies agenda
aligns with our politicians. The FDA requires the labeling of nearly 4,000 ingredients and

Huelsman 4
additives already. Why is it that we are allowing these corporations to continue to integrate GM
products into our foods without our knowledge?

Works Cited
Koch, Kathy. "Food Safety Battle: Organic Vs. Biotech." CQ Researcher 4 Sept. 1998: 761-84.
Web. 3 Apr. 2016.
Miflin, Ben. "Arguments In Favour Of Genetically Modified Crops" web. 1 Apr. 2016. site:
'agbioworld' Taken from an article in 'Jaguar in-house' magazine.
McLure, Jason. "Genetically Modified Food." CQ Researcher 31 Aug. 2012: 717-40.
Web. 1 Apr. 2016
Phillips, Susan C. "Genetically Engineered Foods." CQ Researcher 5 Aug. 1994: 673-96.
Web. 3 Apr. 2016.

You might also like