All About that Label A pack of cigarettes comes with a caution in bold, red letters to those who might purchase it, yet products containing organisms that have been genetically spliced or modified are often hidden in plain sight with little warning regarding its ingredients. Consumers should be able to make knowledgeable decisions about what they are buying and consuming rather than purchasing blindly without consequence. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires labeling of genetically modified (GM) food only if it differs significantly from the expectation of that food. However, it does not include the methods of genetic engineering or hybridization to create new plant varieties (Byrne, Pendell, and Graff). Doubt surrounds
…show more content…
Inevitably, the cost of labeling will be attributed to maintaining a system to track ingredients and enforcing compliance to follow the law. However, the response of the consumers will be varied depending on the viewpoint of GMOs within that state or country (Galeotti 402). In the European Union and other countries where GM foods were first introduced have developed mandatory labeling policies, and have yet to experience significant pecuniary problems. Even though opposers of mandatory labeling are claiming that GM foods have little impact on health, companies treat the labeling of their food products like exposing a horribly kept secret. Favorite food companies such as Kellogg’s, Nestle, and Coca Cola, and many more have spent a whopping total of 25 million dollars to overthrow the mandatory labeling of GM foods (Main, “Why the Food Industry”). Instead of using the million of dollars to prevent mandatory labeling, the money should have been used to develop an effective system that would benefit the future of food. Excuses such as the cost of labeling and loss of consumers are merely diversions and long-term procrastination to labeling GMOs in food. It is rather questionable that the donors who have given the most money to oppose mandatory …show more content…
The “Just Label It” campaign, which lasted 180 days, announced that approximately 1 million people asked the FDA to label GMOs on foods (Main, “One Million”). More likely than not, consumers just want to have the decision to choose the type of food to put in their bodies. Surveys do show that people want to know if the food that is fed to their children and family is genetically modified or spliced. Accusations of the credibility of such surveys are questioned, claiming that the way the questions were phrased and the way in which it was represented made Americans vote in favor of GMO labeling (Powell).Even if consumers cannot put a name to mandatory labeling without given information on the nature of GM food, it does not change the fact that people still want the labeling of GMOs (“Pros and Cons of GM Labelling”). Surveys show that consumers want their food to be labeled, not what specific rules and guidelines should be implemented. The schematics concerning the system should be left to the manufacturers. The majority of Americans in favor of the labeling movement simply want to have a choice in their purchases, and to have a “right to know” if the ingredients of the cereal they are feeding their children were made in a lab (“Pros and Cons of GM Labelling”).
Inevitably, the cost of labeling will be attributed to maintaining a system to track ingredients and enforcing compliance to follow the law. However, the response of the consumers will be varied depending on the viewpoint of GMOs within that state or country (Galeotti 402). In the European Union and other countries where GM foods were first introduced have developed mandatory labeling policies, and have yet to experience significant pecuniary problems. Even though opposers of mandatory labeling are claiming that GM foods have little impact on health, companies treat the labeling of their food products like exposing a horribly kept secret. Favorite food companies such as Kellogg’s, Nestle, and Coca Cola, and many more have spent a whopping total of 25 million dollars to overthrow the mandatory labeling of GM foods (Main, “Why the Food Industry”). Instead of using the million of dollars to prevent mandatory labeling, the money should have been used to develop an effective system that would benefit the future of food. Excuses such as the cost of labeling and loss of consumers are merely diversions and long-term procrastination to labeling GMOs in food. It is rather questionable that the donors who have given the most money to oppose mandatory …show more content…
The “Just Label It” campaign, which lasted 180 days, announced that approximately 1 million people asked the FDA to label GMOs on foods (Main, “One Million”). More likely than not, consumers just want to have the decision to choose the type of food to put in their bodies. Surveys do show that people want to know if the food that is fed to their children and family is genetically modified or spliced. Accusations of the credibility of such surveys are questioned, claiming that the way the questions were phrased and the way in which it was represented made Americans vote in favor of GMO labeling (Powell).Even if consumers cannot put a name to mandatory labeling without given information on the nature of GM food, it does not change the fact that people still want the labeling of GMOs (“Pros and Cons of GM Labelling”). Surveys show that consumers want their food to be labeled, not what specific rules and guidelines should be implemented. The schematics concerning the system should be left to the manufacturers. The majority of Americans in favor of the labeling movement simply want to have a choice in their purchases, and to have a “right to know” if the ingredients of the cereal they are feeding their children were made in a lab (“Pros and Cons of GM Labelling”).