Amanda Cintron

The Dawn Gurus

This annotated bibliography serves as a guide for anyone
researching GMOs and the reasons why they are not labeled.
Even though proponents of GMOs claim it to be perfectly safe,
some refuse to label it. This annotated bibliography provides the
views of people for and against GMO labeling.

Annotated bibliography
Dahl, Richard. To Label or Not to Label: California Prepares to
Vote on Genetically Engineered Foods. Environmental Health
Perspectives 120.9 (2012): a358a361. PMC. Web. 1 Mar. 2015. The
author is a freelance writer and writes for MIT. He is not a doctor or
scientist but quotes scientist from both sides of the argument. It was
written in 2012 before California voted on Proposition 37 , even though
it did not pass it still gives useful information. It explains to us what
Proposition 37 is and he provides points of the people for and against
it. If passed, the California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food
Actalso known as Proposition 37would require that all raw food
products containing GMOs be labeled as genetically engineered and
that any processed foods containing GMOs be labeled as partially
produced with genetic engineering or may be partially produced with
genetic engineering, with implementation due 1 July 2014.6 The law
would exempt meat, dairy, and other products from animals that
consumed feed containing GMOs but would cover such products from
animals that were themselves genetically engineered. It would also
exempt food sold in restaurants and alcohol. People that oppose it say
that the label has no value since anything that is approved is already
safe and that costs would go up because of labeling. People that are
for it think that the safety of these foods is questionable and that
people should be given a choice.
Bailey, Ronald E., and Linda M. Bolduan. "Genetically modified
foods: labeling issues are driving the regulators and counsel." Defense
Counsel Journal July 2001: 308. Academic OneFile. Web. 1 Mar. 2015.
Even though this article is not very recent, it goes into detail, on
a legal aspect, as to why GMOs are not labeled. The FDA says the food
is ok unless proven otherwise but the public is not okay with this

answer. The FDA concluded that foods developed through genetic

modification techniques do not "present any different or greater safety
concern than foods developed by traditional plant breeding." The
FFDCA requires labeling to reveal material facts relevant to
representations about and the consequences of using a food
product. Consequently, the FDA decided that the methods used in the
development of a new plant variety would not "normally" constitute
"material" information within the meaning of Section 321(n) and
therefore "would not usually be required to be disclosed in labeling for
the food." They use direct rules from The Code of Federal Regulations
of the United States of America to support their decision. One major
concern people have is problems would arise if a new gene is derived
from foods that commonly cause allergic reactions, such as milk, eggs,
fish, crustacea, mollusks, tree nuts, wheat and legumes (especially
peanuts and soybeans). These foods account for some 90 percent of
food-based allergic reactions.
"Labels for GMO Foods Are a Bad Idea."Scientific American 20 Aug.
2013. Print. It begins with stating that recently Maine and Connecticut
became the first states to pass bills requiring the labeling of foods with
GMOs, unlike California which rejected a similar bill a year before this.
The authors claim that the statement that marchers chanted, All we
want is a simple label for the food thats on our table, is far from
simple. Most of the processed food in America all contain genetically
modified ingredients. Labeling would only intensify the misconception
that so called Frankenfoods are a danger to peoples health. They
claim that The American Association for the Advancement of Science,
the World Health Organization and the exceptionally vigilant European
Union agree that GMOs are just as safe as other foods. The FDA tests
all GMOs on market to make sure they are not toxic or allergenic. The
argument that GMO labeling increases consumer choice is false
because it will cause the opposite. They gave the example of Europe to
show how they limit peoples options. The reason why it is impossible
to find GMOs in European supermarkets is because major European
retailers removed those ingredients from their products to avoid
driving customers away. Non-GMO crops often require more water and
pesticides so they are more expensive. Private research firm
Northbridge Environmental Management Consultants estimated that
Prop 37 would have raised an average California family's yearly food
bill by as much as $400. Antagonism of GMOs prevents people from

enjoying the benefits it brings. For example of a cup of the

engineered Golden Rice contains the recommended daily value of
Vitamin A. Vitamin A deficiency blinds as much as 500,000 children
worldwide and half die from it and this product was made to curve that
deficiency. However the introduction of Golden Rice was been delayed
in the Philippines, India and China because of anti-GMO organizations,
the authors claim. There are more products like these being worked on
but they need the publics support and funding. They conclude with
saying that GMO labeling debates, which are happening now in many
states, are much more complicated than slapping on simple labels to
satisfy a segment of American consumers. This ultimately decides
whether this immensely beneficial technology will continue to be
developed or it would be shunned based on unfounded fears.

Stewart, Patrick. "Consumption Choices concerning the Genetically

Engineered, Organically Grown, and Traditionally Grown Foods: An
Experiment." Knowledge, Technology & Policy 13.1 (2000): 58-69. 1
Mar. 2000. Patrick Stewart, Ph D., teacher in the Department of Political
Science and Environmental Science at the University of Arkansas with
experience as a research assistant for American Farmland Trusts
Center for Agriculture in the Environment, conducted and experiment
that would test the influence of defining/labeling products. To do this
he gave the subjects choices between organically and traditionally
grown or genetically engineered and traditionally grown food for lunch.
Logistic regression models were run on different choices of food and
the analysis suggests that definitions do make a difference. The
organic food was preferred two and a half times more than the
genetically engineered option in two equations. The reasons for the
choices were different in people. This finding may be used as support
for the consequence of labeling. Labeling a good on the basis of either
its qualities or the production method makes a difference in
consumption behavior. Still, there appears to be a biasing effect in
favor of organic food. Future studies must asses the role price
plays in decisions.(used multi-variate analysis to attempt to
understand how and why people make decisions)**
Carter, C., Grure, G. (2003). Mandatory labeling of genetically
modified food: Does it really provide consumer choice? The Journal of

Agrobiotechnology Management and Economics 6(1&2), 68-70.

Professors in the University of California, Davis, aim to explain why
mandatory labeling of Genetically Modified foods fail to provide
consumer choice when the opposite is what they strive for. They give
the example of how in the EU, some products were labeled as
containing GM ingredients, and then soon GM products vanished in the
EU. Another example they give is how Japan also adopted mandatory
labeling and it is difficult or impossible to find foods with that label.
Since these facts are not well publicized, the result is that many
observers still question how many people are still opposed to
mandatory labeling if it provides information to consumers. They say
mandatory labeling acts as a market barrier and GM products do not
appear at the retail level.Themandatorylabelingschemesinplacetodaymaybe
comparedtoavotingsystemwithmajorityrepresentation,wherethewinnertakesall.
SomeconsumerswouldprobablybuyGMproductsiftheyhadthechoice,butthe
mandatorylabelingsystemdoesnotgivethemanychoice.Theyagreewiththe
economiststhatarguethatvoluntarylabelingismoreefficientbecauseconsumerschoose
productquality.(PROVIDEFIGURESSWITHNONGMTOGMPROFITRATIO*
Huffman, W.E., & McCluskey, J.J. (2014). The economics of labeling GM
foods.The Journal of Agrobiotechnology Management and
Economics, 17(2), 156-160. Available on the World Wide
Web:http://www.agbioforum.org. This article discusses the different
labeling options, voluntary labeling, mandatory labeling, and a ban on
labeling, and provides an evaluation of the pros and cons of each
policy. Also, different contexts and factors are used to explain current
differences in GM policies around the world. The most compelling
argument against mandatory labeling is the sizeable cost of preserving
the identity of all foods that could potentially be GM through the supply
chain and the cost imposed on those who are indifferent to GMOs.
However, costs would be reduced if all trading countries were to adopt
the same standard. One of the main concerns is that the decision that
countries like the US or the EU take regarding GM policies impact
developing countries because they rely on aid from other countries.
They cannot afford to wait for the access and benefits GM crop
technology brings, since it can increase the supply of food faster than
traditional techniques.
Crespi, John M., and Stephan Marette. "'Does Contain' vs. 'Does Not
Contain': Does it Matter which GMO Label is Used?" European Journal
of Law and Economics 16.3 (2003):327.AcademicOneFile.Web.1Mar.2015.
Analyticalframework,acknowledgesthatthedifferentlabelsdoescontainordoes
notcontainGMOsproducedifferentwelfareeffects.Afterall,wouldnotthesame

objectivebereachediffoodthatdoesnotcontainGMOswerelabeled?Itisinpart
becauseofquestionslikethesethatmuchofthedebateoverGMOlabelinghingeson
whetherconsumerchoiceadvantagesarebalancedagainstpotentialdistortionsarising
fromthelabelingitself.Theytrytoexaminewhatisthebestwaytopromoteandfinance
aGMOlabelingprogram(PAPER,CANIUSETHIS?)Theyexplainthatareasonwhy
thegovernmentmightuseonelabelortheothermighthavetodowithtradedisputesasa
formofnontarifftradebarrier.TheUS,forexample,hasaccusedtheEUofusingthe
DoesContainrequirementtocreateanxietyoverUSproductsandprotectEU
producerswhoarelesslikelytouseGMOinputs.Thus,theUSargues,theDoes
ContainregulationisanontarifftradebarrierinviolationofWTOagreements.Along
withtheeffectonconsumerchoicesfromthelabelitself,theargumentgoes,thechoice
oftheDoesContainlabelraisesthepricesofUSproductsthataremorelikelyto
containthebiotechnologyinput.TheyconcludewithsayingthatItisshownthatthelabel
DoesContainshouldbeusediftheratioofconsumerswithastrongreluctancefor
consumingGMOgoodstoindifferentconsumersishigh,whilethelabelDoesNot
Containshouldbeusedifthisratioislow.
(USEDANEQUATIONMODEL)

"GMO labeling gains steam across United States." Quality

Progress Aug. 2013: 18. Academic OneFile. Web. 1 Mar. 2015.(CAN I
USE PERIODICALS?)

Beales, J. Howard, III. "Modification and consumer information: modern

biotechnology and the regulation of information." Food and Drug Law
Journal Jan. 2000: 105-117. Academic OneFile. Web. 1 Mar. 2015.
Fredland, John Stephen. "Unlabel their Frankenstein foods! Evaluating a
U.S. challenge to the European Commission's labeling requirements for
food products containing genetically-modified organisms." Vanderbilt
Journal of Transnational Law Jan. 2000: 183. Academic OneFile. Web. 1
Mar. 2015.
The United States might be very accepting of GMOs, but Europe
believes that the so-called "Frankenstein Foods" may be harmful to health and the
environment. For this reason, the European Commission passed regulations, to label
GM agricultural products as such. Even though it might this might not have been
intended, the regulations stand to make U.S. producers less competitive in the
European market than their European counterparts .Thisarticleexplainshow United
States should challenge the European Commission's labeling requirements before
the World Trade Organization (WTO). It concludes that the WTO would most likely
find that the labeling requirements violate the 1994 Uruguay Round of the General

Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and force the European Commission to repeal the
requirements. Even though this article goes beyond my discussion it is important
because it brings to the conversation how labeling has indirect consequences, even
outside the country.

Maria L. Loureiro, Susan Hine, Preferences and willingness to pay for

GM labeling policies, Food Policy, Volume 29, Issue 5, October 2004,
Pages 467-483, ISSN 0306-9192,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2004.07.001.
Brian Roe, Mario F. Teisl, Genetically modified food labeling: The
impacts of message and messenger on consumer perceptions of labels
and products, Food Policy, Volume 32, Issue 1, February 2007, Pages
49-66, ISSN 0306-9192,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2005.12.006.