There have been ongoing debates about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) for quite a while now. And you might have noticed people walking the streets protesting against research and production of GMOs and wonder what exactly is a GMO. I believe mandatory GMO labeling actually hurt the economy and the market and limit consumers’ choices. First, I am going to explain it to you what a GMO is, how it works, and the pros and cons regarding the consumption of GM food. Then I will explain how the general public is not aware of the true impacts of GMOs on human health and the environment, and their opinion is often times swung by the media which is easily misleading. They hold the misbelief that GMOs are dangerous and need to be avoided. As a result,
…show more content…
Thus, labeling of GM food will potentially make consumers think that they are unsafe while in reality GM food is essentially the same as traditionally grown food in terms of safety. The possible discrimination against GM food could potentially cause significant loss for GM industry and food companies, and a series of chain events would most likely be triggered cause socioeconomic problems. And it is impossible to segregate GM food and non GM food in the US under current food system (Byrne, 2010). It is important to note that no mandatory labeling does not mean worse food safety. In fact, US law legislature mandates food labeling only when the GM food differs significantly from traditionally grown food in terms of nutrition value or safety. And The US government does regulate GM food. After they are approved after trials and experiments, they are deemed to be just as safe as food produced using traditional methods (Byrne, 2010). Simply put, not only does mandatory labeling not change the fact that the food is safe or …show more content…
In reality, it only gives food producers and retailers a choice. In short term, producers will try to avoid using GM ingredient as much as possible due to most consumers holding a false belief that GM food is either unhealthy or environmentally unfriendly. Thus food in the market will be labeled as non GM, and consumers do not really have a choice. In the long term however, when people are better educated with GMO, producers may find it profitable to use GM ingredient and sell product both GM and non GM. In this scenario, consumers will have a better choice (Carter and Gruère, 2003). Mandatory labeling of GMOs also does not provide customers with any useful information. On the contrary, it further intensifies the misconception of GM food being Frankenfood. GM food is essentially not that different from breeding different species of a crop. Both have their DNA modified. The only difference is one with conventional breeding technique, the other with genetic engineering. What happened in Europe is good illustration of what could happen in the US if mandatory labeling is enforced by laws. Producers stopped using GM ingredient and the customers ended up having fewer options. A concrete example can be seen from what has happened to the rest of the world regarding the issue of GM food. EU requires mandatory labeling of GMOs. Over 60 countries have very strict restrictions on
Thus, labeling of GM food will potentially make consumers think that they are unsafe while in reality GM food is essentially the same as traditionally grown food in terms of safety. The possible discrimination against GM food could potentially cause significant loss for GM industry and food companies, and a series of chain events would most likely be triggered cause socioeconomic problems. And it is impossible to segregate GM food and non GM food in the US under current food system (Byrne, 2010). It is important to note that no mandatory labeling does not mean worse food safety. In fact, US law legislature mandates food labeling only when the GM food differs significantly from traditionally grown food in terms of nutrition value or safety. And The US government does regulate GM food. After they are approved after trials and experiments, they are deemed to be just as safe as food produced using traditional methods (Byrne, 2010). Simply put, not only does mandatory labeling not change the fact that the food is safe or …show more content…
In reality, it only gives food producers and retailers a choice. In short term, producers will try to avoid using GM ingredient as much as possible due to most consumers holding a false belief that GM food is either unhealthy or environmentally unfriendly. Thus food in the market will be labeled as non GM, and consumers do not really have a choice. In the long term however, when people are better educated with GMO, producers may find it profitable to use GM ingredient and sell product both GM and non GM. In this scenario, consumers will have a better choice (Carter and Gruère, 2003). Mandatory labeling of GMOs also does not provide customers with any useful information. On the contrary, it further intensifies the misconception of GM food being Frankenfood. GM food is essentially not that different from breeding different species of a crop. Both have their DNA modified. The only difference is one with conventional breeding technique, the other with genetic engineering. What happened in Europe is good illustration of what could happen in the US if mandatory labeling is enforced by laws. Producers stopped using GM ingredient and the customers ended up having fewer options. A concrete example can be seen from what has happened to the rest of the world regarding the issue of GM food. EU requires mandatory labeling of GMOs. Over 60 countries have very strict restrictions on