Food Labeling

Genetically Modified Food Labeling

The growing population and ability to feed the masses around the globe has many implications into the ethical and moral dilemma associated with genetically engineered foods. The ability to engineer food so it is larger, requiring less input from natural resources and provide a greater abundance comes with what some scientists and health officials deem to be side effects. However, not all of these side effects are harmful to the entire population, and may be present in all genetically engineered foods. The question at hand is whether or not the manufacturers of these foods should be required to label any and all modifications made during the growing or raising of the produce or meats.

To better understand why Genetically Modified (GM) should or should not be labeled, we have to understand what it is. GM food is produced in various techniques to achieve various outcomes. The outcomes determine which technique. Some of the desirable outcomes would include resistance to pesticides and insecticides, or to increase the foods shelf life, or to improve the nutritional yield of the food itself (Deakin, 2012). How this can be accomplished is through gene splicing, bacterial of vialr infection, gene silencing, biolistics, calcium phosphate precipitation and electroporation (Deakin, 2012).

The effects of GM foods range from health risks, economical, and environmental interactions. Each of these effects will have a pro and a copositive and a negative side (pro and con) ,depending on the individual or societies stance. These effects will also have legal implications that will determine government and societal support. Last, there are the moral issues.

The first issue to discuss will be the assoicated health issues. When genetically modified food is created, the composition of the food is changed on a molecular level. This modification also changes how the food was natuarlly intereacting with its environment as well as how it reacts and responds within the body. It can go as far as to change immune systems, such as allergies and allergic reactions. If the plant is "engineered" to resist certain pesticides, these will be ingested, and the human body may develop a partial immunity to the same pestisides, which in turn may reduce the symptons one would experience after exposure. If the symptoms do not exhibit, the individual would not know they are sick, and treatment may not happen within a timely manner.

This engineering may also interfere with how the food product interacts within its natural environment. If a potato requires certain bacteria in order for it to produce the starch within itself, and the engineering was developed to eliminate bacterial forms, then the potato may not produce the required starch. Where this becomes an issue, is that the genetic engineering byproduct may be introduced into the natural environment and stay there well into the future crops, causing failures, and mutations beyond the control of man or nature.

However, some of the pro's towards the health side would include the removal of inherant bacteria that cause allergic reactions, or may carry harmful diseases. Plus, it can be engineered to counteract the usage of pesticides by providing the plant with its one form of defense that is not harmful to the environment and the consumer.

Currently, manufacturers are allowed to label products "natural foods," when in fact, they have been GM. If marketer's are required to label the plants and animals that have been genetically altered (such as produce, meats, and processed foods), this would keep them from being able to label it "natural foods" when it is not because of the genetic modification. Yes, there is going to be a financial impact for this, but it will also help to ensure that those who are allergic to certain things will be more aware if they are able to eat that particular product and avoid a rash, a trip to the emergency room, or even death.

The financial gains of GM foods are that it will require less land and chemicals to produce a larger crop of food. This will reduce the cost of production that will in turn relate to lower cost of food and supply. With less money required to produce, the farmer will be able to operate on a reduced budget, requiring less government subsidiation. A faster yield of crops and a shorter turnaround time for food production. With these reduced costs to the farmer, and to the government, it will come down to a lower cost to the consumer.

With all of those issues in hand, the debate in question is should the manufacturer and producers of these genetically modified foods be required to label them as such. This can be separated into both ethical and moral sections. And it will cause a ripple into the financial sector as well.

The ethical issues would entail product safety and quality. Is the food truly safe, or does it cross into areas that are yet unknown and will cause more harm than good? Should the consumer be given the right to know exactly what is in the food, as well as how the food was produced? Is mankind tampering with nature to the point of self destruction?

On the moral side, should we bypass the ethical stand, and continue to produce GM foods in order to help feed our nation as well