Should Genetically Modified Foods Be Labeled as Such?

Genetically Modified foods (GM foods) are foods produced by genetic modification. Genetic modification is the technology where organisms' (plant or animal) genetic material (DNA) is changed in a way that is different from how it occurs naturally, either through mating or recombination. The technology is also referred to as "modern biotechnology" or "recombinant DNA technology" or "gene technology" or "genetic engineering". Since the late 20th century, GM foods have been developed and consumed all over the world (Bawa & Anilakumar, 2012). As a result, a debate has ensued among concerned groups on whether and how the producers of these foods should communicate relevant characteristics of their products to the consumers. This has led to the adoption of the two regulatory approaches (mandatory labeling and the voluntary labeling) of labeling GM foods across various countries and areas. Although mandatory labeling of GM foods solve the dilemma of the 'right to know' to the consumers, the approach has negative implications like more costs to producers and consumers, the stigmatization effect of GM food products, the violation of the commercial free speech doctrine, and a negative effect to biotechnology innovation, therefore, the essay postulates the adoption of voluntary labeling.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The first argument against compulsory labeling is the unacceptable increase in consumer cost associated with this approach. The costs associated with mandatory labeling of GM foods are not primarily only in the printing of the label text that conveys the ingredients of the product but all expenditures incurred during the entire production chain of the GM food products. These costs have been well documented by the United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (Marchant & Cardineau, 2013). The costs are segregation costs that would ensure that GM foods don't mix with non-GM foods. The farmer would have to dig deep to cater for formalities involved for GM product handling. Great care and money need to be undertaken in grain production, storage, and processing. Other costs include the fixed costs associated with identity preservation in ascertaining whether a product is GM and the fines slapped to a company or a farmer if their product shows the co-mixing of GM and non-GM foods (Marchant & Cardineau, 2013). All these costs sustained by the food industries and farmers would be passed on to the consumers in the pricing of the products leading to an excess of $100 per family per year as research outlines (Bawa & Anilakumar, 2012). This expenditure would overburden the low-income earners leading to the undesirable reverse Robin Hood effect.

Another explanation used by the critics of mandatory labeling especially the agro-food industries is the stigmatization that would be directed towards the GM foods if labeling was compulsory. An experiment carried out shows that the media has advertised the gene modification in the anti-GM activists' favor (Marchant & Cardineau, 2013). 'Guilt by association argument' in particular create a false impression to a consumer when he/she sees the GM label. This would lead to consumer rejection of the product or inflate the demand of the non-GM product. Since scientific evidence by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has found no health risks associated with GM products, such media sensitization is less informative and more misleading (Marchant & Cardineau, 2013). When the additional labeling costs are factored in the commodity prices, these genetically engineered foods are more undesired and disliked since the products are not only perceived as un-safe but expensive too. This stigmatization of GM foods due to mandatory labeling would lead to a significant drop in the demand of these foods which would economically affect the economy as small companies would retrench or even close down completely.

Additionally, there is no legality on the mandatory GM foods labeling. The US constitution confers the commercial free speech doctrine. The doctrine pre-empts all companies from conveying information regarding their products through any forceful action from the government without a logical basis. Manufacturers are only required to provide production statements only when there is a reasonable government rationale like human safety or health associated risks. Therefore, mandatory labeling on the basis of consumer beliefs or desires is not legally appropriate (Marchant & Cardineau, 2013). Since scientific bodies like FDA view that GM foods don't present any safety risk to humans, compulsory labeling of GM products would be an infringement of the constitution by violating the commercial free speech doctrine.

Furthermore, compulsory labeling has negative impacts on biotechnology innovation. The numerous costs like labeling costs and reformulation costs would cause smaller companies to incur higher per unit labeling costs as opposed to the big companies. This higher expenditure coupled with less demand for GM products due to high prices would lead to the closure of the small firms. The closure would be a blow to thousands of scientists willing to develop new organisms using biotechnology which will inhibit further advancement of GM technology in the United States food industry (Marchant & Cardineau, 2013). It would also economically negatively affect the US's economy since as of 2011, it is the leading country in the production of GM crops (Bawa & Anilakumar, 2012). The closure of the small companies would eliminate healthy competition hence higher product prizes.

On the other hand, the main reasoning behind the pro-mandatory labeling group is the issue of the 'right to know' of the consumers and their embedded autonomy in choosing what they want between GM and organic foods with the appropriate information. The exponents of mandatory GM labeling argue that it would instill transparency along with such measures like health, allergen, morality, and religion (Carter & Gruere, 2003). This argument of the 'right to know' is caused by doubts and fear among the general public that has been installed by the media and other proponents regarding the health and environmental implications that can be associated with GM foods. Albeit GM labeling usefulness in creating consumer awareness and enhance consumer choices, it is not beneficial to the consumer who doesn't read the ingredients label (Bawa & Anilakumar, 2012). Although labeling offers benefits to consumers in choice and information of what they consume, it is not important for a biotechnology company to mandatory label their products. This is because there is no scientific evidence showing that GM foods are harmful to human beings, therefore, the arguments of anti-GM groups concerning 'the right to know' is moot.

Labeling of Genetically Modified foods in the US is a contentious debate among all related stakeholders from the consumers, producers, marketers, the government, and many others. Many groups call for the mandatory labeling policy basing their argument in the right for consumers to know whatever they consume. The proponents of this policy are empowered by the deceptive social media information against GM foods that is being fueled by the egocentric organic food industry in order to eliminate the competition from GM foods sector. Thorough research and understanding of all scientific pieces of evidence provided by the various reputable bodies like WHO and FDA show that compulsory labeling is unwarranted and non-essential because of the various negative effects associated with the policy. The effects include higher prices towards the producer and the consumer, unfair stigmatization, violation of the commercial free speech doctrine, and an undesired hindrance of biotechnology development in the country. I suggest the adoption of the FDA recommendation of voluntary labeling of GM foods. This policy would enable companies to tailor their production and marketing process in a way that maximizes their profits and also enable the consumers to exercise their choices on the diverse commodities and prices on offer in the market without manipulation.

References

Bawa, A. S., & Anilakumar, K. R., (2012). Genetically modified foods: safety, risks and public concerns-a review. Journal of Food Science and Technology, 50(6), 1035-1046. doi:10.1007/s13197-012-0899-1

Carter, C. A., & Gruere, G. P., (2003). Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods: Does it Really Provide Consumer Choice? The Journal of Agro-Biotechnology Management & Economics, 6(1-2), 68-70. Retrieved from http://www.agbioforum.org/v6n12/v6n12a13-carter.pdf

Marchant, G. E., & Cardineau, G. A., (2013). The labeling debate in the United States. GM Crops & Food, 4(3), 126-134. doi:10.4161/gmcr.26163