Ana Boeriu

U.S Government 4
Mr. Davis
11/2/2015
GMO Should Be Labeled

We have all gone grocery shopping. One of the first things many people do is read the
labels to find out how many calories, fats, and carbs there are. But maybe the most important
information is missing. Did you know that over 30,000 products in our local grocery stores are
genetically modified? Since we live in an era of technology it is not surprising that most of the
food produced is genetically modified. You may have heard the term Genetic Engineering (GE).
But what are genetically modified foods? Genetically modified organisms (GMO) are created by
modifying a piece of DNA from a different species to help the original one tolerate pesticides
and climate. This creates whole new species of plants that would never occur in nature. This may
not always be a good thing. The nutritional value of genetically altered food is also questionable.
Although GMO have their benefits, they also have risks such as immune problems and allergies.
Genetic modification (GM) has been known to cause allergies that are harmful to humans.
Science is only now caching up to gluten, dairy, and other allergies, which seem to be far more
common than they were prior to modification of food. GMO have raised many questions about
the potential danger to human health and the environment, therefore GM products should be
labeled to give the consumer an informed choice about what they put in their bodies, similarly to
laws that have already been enacted globally.

Over the last few years the desire for culinary diversity has led to the growth of
agricultural business with unknown health and environmental implications. The United States
government approved GE crops nearly twenty years ago. Today GE soy and corn make up more
than 90% of crop plantation. The main concern is not that so many crops are modified rather
there is no labeling system required to inform consumers about what they are purchasing.
According to Heather McNeil, Rising consumer concerns with genetically modified foods and
products has led a number of countries around the world to introduce rules for...(Phillips Peter).
The European Union led the way in 1998 by enforcing the labeling of GMO. Later in 2001,
Japan, New Zealand and Australia followed in Europes footsteps. In 2006 Russia adopted laws
similar to those of the European Union and began labeling the products containing more than
0.9% genetically modified ingredients. They made an exemption allowing GM animal feed not to
be labeled. Significant U.S. trading partners such as China and Brazil have moved to restrict
biotech imports. Even in Australia and New Zealand, popular concerns about GMOs have caused
new regulations to be implemented(Wallach, Lori). It has become a global trend in which other
countries have found it advantageous to label food. In contrast the Unites States has not enacted
and should follow the footsteps of other countries. A recent poll released by ABC News showed
that 93% of the American public wants the federal government to require mandatory labeling of
genetically modified food. As ABC News stated, Such near-unanimity in public opinion is
rare(Langer, Gary). People have the right to choose and make informed decisions. They want to
know about the food they eat and what sits on their dinner table.
What sits on most peoples dinner table may be risking their health. Genetically
engineered fish are starting to make their way into seafood markets along with other genetically
altered underwater creatures. In fact, they are already in our local grocery stores and restaurants.

As of now, we cant tell the difference between what the health risks are. Though little is known
about the effects on human health of GMOs, many scientists are skeptical and think they can be
dangerous. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the government body trusted with
keeping our food and drugs safe, is not even doing its own testing. Some of the initial research
over the potential impact of GMO provides cause for alarm and should make consumers desire
as much information as possible. The FDA is relying on the information from the company
producing the food rather than investigating on their own. Their position on GMOs is that they
were relatively unaware of the extent to which their foods included genetically modified
ingredients (Acosta, Louis). But many scientists have different opinions, including those from
the American Academy of Environmental Medicine. Doctor John Boyles says, " I used to test for
soy allergies all the time, but now that soy is genetically engineered, it is so dangerous that I tell
people never to eat it"(Smith,Jeffrey). Many foods that are common to the human body become a
threat when altered. It is hard to predict what will become of the newly developed food as they
continue to modify it. Even with todays technology scientists cannot ensure the safety of their
experiments without many years of study. In the meantime people deserve information through
labeling.
Not only is the public health a concern but the risks of continued use of pesticides on our
food remains unknown. Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist at Harvard University stated,
An ecosystem, you can always intervene and change something in it, but there's no way of
knowing what all the downstream effects will be or how it might affect the
environment(Kierschenmann). The process of genetic engineering involves altering the genes,
a risk that could make the organism toxic, allergenic, reduced in nutritional value, and may
ultimately pose a threat to human consumption. GMOs are a direct extension of chemical

agriculture and are developed and sold by the worlds biggest chemical companies. While big
corporations such as Monsanto invest their money into convincing people that what they are
creating is even better than the natural form of the food, non-GMO companies such as Newmans
Organics, Annies, and Organic Ville are proud of the ingredients they use and have nothing to
hide (Dahl, Richard). Companies think that this process with benefit countries in need since food
is produced faster and cheaper contributing to the ending of world hunger. Making plants more
resistant to herbicides might increase productivity. However, the use of GMOs raises concerns
about the potential health effects of heavy herbicide. The effects of long-term exposure to small
amounts of these pesticides are unclear, but studies have linked them to a variety of chronic
health conditions such as diabetes, cancer, and neurological defects. Not only is GMO products
pesticide tolerant but also these GMO foods that have been sprayed with pesticides are on our
dinner plate. Labeling GMO products should allow customers to make choices based on these
concerns.
Advancements in technology have helped scientists create a new generation of
herbicide resistant crops that might have potential health risks and in addition have potential
risks to the environment. The long-term impacts of GMOs are unknown and once released into
the environment, these novel organisms cannot be recalled. Lisa Archer a grassroots coordinator
for the Safer Foods-Safer Farms campaign urges customers to look twice at the food labels. I
think consumers need to have information about the foods they're consumingwhy can people
not know that [genetically modified ingredients] are in their food (Drunker). Companies
supporting GMOs like Monsanto use these genetically modified seeds to create new plants. They
claim that these seeds help farmers conserve resources such as soil and water. Many people are
used to the classic way of organic foods and are not convinced of the benefits of the newly

released technology of genetic engineering. All people want is to know is what they are eating.
Research published in the National Academy of Sciences found that the release of just 60
genetically engineered fish into a wild population of 60,000 could lead to extinction of the wild
population in just 40 years.(Lily Jensen) This could cause the wild salmon population to
become nonexistent and introduce unknown health risks to humans. The corporations supporters
of fish and wildlife genetics claim that a genetically modified salmon would grow twice as fast
as conventional Atlantic salmon (Tang, Jessie) thus produce more money by getting on the
market faster. The biotech companies dont feel the need to compare since they believe their
products are superior because of the increased amount of nutrition, and longer shelf lives. They
think people will accept their products this the minute its released and marketed. However, that
should not be the case. This country was established on the principle of free choice and free
market. Shouldnt we demand information, so that people have a choice in regards to what we
put on our plates?
It is true that genetic modification has the potential to produce more food, therefore end
world hunger. It would be great to produce corn cheaply and feed hungry people. Nearly a
million children die every year because they are weakened by Vitamin A deficiencies and an
additional 350,000 go blind. (Finz, Stacy). Companies are able to produce mass quantities of
foods like potatoes that contain vitamin A. However the risks of mass GMOs production are
unknown. There are many factors that have yet to be studied. Over the next 50 years as the
nation becomes more developed, the population will also double. Even the doubling of food
production would still leave an estimated 800 million food insecurities in 2025.( Pringle , 53).
Even with mass production GMOs will still are not truly be able to conquer world hunger.
However, in Africa studies have shown that traditional crop breeding has resulted in higher crop

yields than the GMOs. A little known study by botanist Sue Edwards found that organic
gardening test sites in Ethiopia produced significantly higher yields from every single crop
tested. (Davilla, April). This shows that there are other methods that are safer and more research
has been done on them. If GMOs are supposed to end world hunger it should have higher yields.
However, recent studies have shown quite the opposite. If this corn has health risks we dont yet
know about or becomes pesticide resistant we will be creating a problem possibly far worse than
hunger. Biotech and manufactures argue that labeling will cost money, hurt farmers and is not
necessary because GMOs are safe. If products are healthy and people can benefit from them why
not label them? Many companies want to succeed in their race to create more GMO food
products, but more should be required of them as they proceed.
Ethics and morality rests on the fact that scientists looked for a way to use earths
resources wisely, and assumes that people have the right to know what they are consuming. Even
to this day GMOs have made many consumers and scientists skeptical; therefore these products
should be labeled. Much of the world already requires labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods
giving consumers the freedom to choose between GMOs and conventional products. We have to
regain our basic right to know what we put on our plates. America was built on the principle of
free choice. Consumers need transparent, controllable and straightforward labeling regulations.
Labeling empowers the buyer. A label that says produced with genetic modified ingredients
doesnt mean the product is not safe, just that it is different from what nature offers. People must
know what they are buying, and especially what they are eating. Is information a good thing?
Yes, it is. Lets give them more.