With as many issues of poverty and food scarcity plaguing the world today, it seems sometimes silly that so many people oppose the concept of genetically modified food. While there are many arguments against bioengineering agricultural products, I strongly feel that the pros outweigh the cons. However, at the same time, no matter how beneficial genetically altered foodstuffs might be, I think it’s common sense that any and all products containing genetic alterations should be labeled such. After all, if it’s required that consumers be educated as to whether their dinner contains anything from carbohydrates to tomato paste, it stands to reason that genetic modifications be included as well.
Now, clearly, labelling every single form of genetic modification would be excessive. For example, cross-pollination of flowers is a form of modification, as are species that have been around for centuries that once were the result of deliberate "tampering." To label these products as GMO’s (genetically modified organisms) would be ludicrous. However, products in which deliberate, anthropological modifications have occurred for the purpose of increasing the size, yield, colour, taste, nutrition, or any such element of a product should be inobtrusively mentioned on its packaging.
Greenpeace Canada supports the labeling of any and all GMO’s. They claim that, in spite of numerous political promises on behalf of many elected politicians, genetically modified foods do not yet bear the appropriate labels. However, Greenpeace Canada differs from my point of view on a technicality–while we both feel that labels should be required, Greenpeace does not support the use of genetic modification in food products.
This website makes the accurate observation that a label is not necessarily the same thing as a warning. Labels are not necessarily bad things, and are often intended merely to educate the consumer about what is included in the product. Therefore, consumers should not necessarily assume that a product telling of its use of GMO’s is necessarily a bad thing. In many situations, the genetic modification can be beneficial.
Europe’s decision to label GMO’s, despite contention from the likes of the United States, have not yet had a noticeable effect on the economy and agricultural sector. Furthermore, the individual price of genetically modified foods has not yet risen. These factors influentially contribute to the concept of labeling GMO’s, with Europe standing to be seen as a pioneer in the concept of GMO labeling.
This website outlines the potential pros and cons of labeling genetically modified organisms. Put simply, while it cannot be feasibly argued that GMO’s are harmful, people do have the right to know what’s in their food–harmful or not. Those who wish to eliminate animal byproducts from their diet, even including animal DNA in their vegetables, should be informed that what they’re eating might potentially have been produced with the aid of animal genes. A specific example of a GMO that falls under this category is a tomato imbued with a fish gene to improve its resistance to frost. While this is ultimately harmless to the human body, those who exclude animals from their diet have a right to know that part of an animal–even if it is only their DNA–is part of what they’re eating.
Ultimately, GMO labeling respects the consumer’s right to know what they’re purchasing. While I personally believe that GMO’s are harmless and highly beneficial to society, labels on these products is might help raise society’s awareness to them, and help reduce the social stigma associated with them.
Now, clearly, labelling every single form of genetic modification would be excessive. For example, cross-pollination of flowers is a form of modification, as are species that have been around for centuries that once were the result of deliberate "tampering." To label these products as GMO’s (genetically modified organisms) would be ludicrous. However, products in which deliberate, anthropological modifications have occurred for the purpose of increasing the size, yield, colour, taste, nutrition, or any such element of a product should be inobtrusively mentioned on its packaging.
Greenpeace Canada supports the labeling of any and all GMO’s. They claim that, in spite of numerous political promises on behalf of many elected politicians, genetically modified foods do not yet bear the appropriate labels. However, Greenpeace Canada differs from my point of view on a technicality–while we both feel that labels should be required, Greenpeace does not support the use of genetic modification in food products.
This website makes the accurate observation that a label is not necessarily the same thing as a warning. Labels are not necessarily bad things, and are often intended merely to educate the consumer about what is included in the product. Therefore, consumers should not necessarily assume that a product telling of its use of GMO’s is necessarily a bad thing. In many situations, the genetic modification can be beneficial.
Europe’s decision to label GMO’s, despite contention from the likes of the United States, have not yet had a noticeable effect on the economy and agricultural sector. Furthermore, the individual price of genetically modified foods has not yet risen. These factors influentially contribute to the concept of labeling GMO’s, with Europe standing to be seen as a pioneer in the concept of GMO labeling.
This website outlines the potential pros and cons of labeling genetically modified organisms. Put simply, while it cannot be feasibly argued that GMO’s are harmful, people do have the right to know what’s in their food–harmful or not. Those who wish to eliminate animal byproducts from their diet, even including animal DNA in their vegetables, should be informed that what they’re eating might potentially have been produced with the aid of animal genes. A specific example of a GMO that falls under this category is a tomato imbued with a fish gene to improve its resistance to frost. While this is ultimately harmless to the human body, those who exclude animals from their diet have a right to know that part of an animal–even if it is only their DNA–is part of what they’re eating.
Ultimately, GMO labeling respects the consumer’s right to know what they’re purchasing. While I personally believe that GMO’s are harmless and highly beneficial to society, labels on these products is might help raise society’s awareness to them, and help reduce the social stigma associated with them.
No comments:
Post a Comment