People continually make decisions and judgments in everything they do. The only way they can make the right decision and judgment is only if they know the truth and possess the right knowledge. Any business that sells goods or services to any individual must provide adequate and truthful information about their products. Manufacturers and marketers of products with GMO (genetically modified organism) are not exempted from providing such information. On the contrary, they should be required to do because GMOs is a fairly new science and technology that could affect the health and well-being of consumers. As companies involved in GMO manufacturing and marketing continue to refuse to label their products and block all attempts to legally require them to (Westervelt), Congress must found some way through legislation to compel these companies to do so on certain health or medical and ethical grounds. Consumers need to be protected.
According to Natural GMO—or genetically modified organism—refers to those animals or plants that have been altered in some way genetically to enhance characteristics of the organisms to make them more desirable for production, consumption or whatever reason. It is in the field of bio-technology, a fairly new area of studies in science. Because bio-technology is a new field, many of its products have not had the benefit of long-time testing. There are three areas of concern: environmental hazards, economic concerns and human health risks. (Dill)
GMOs can the environment that could result in serious alteration of the genetic make-up of other organisms. Pollens from GMOs can be naturally transferred to other organisms by insects or even just the wind. Such events could have serious consequences on the world’s eco-systems. (Dill) Companies producing GMOs could dominate certain industries. By producing GMOs that do not naturally produce, famers would be forced to purchase products like seeds from them. This is not only unethical but also dangerous to the environment if such GMOs spread and merges with other organisms. With regard to health risks, some researchers have found that the DNA of rice bound to those of humans. Consequently, so any GMO that a human consumes has the likelihood of binding itself to human genes. (Levaux) The effects of these cannot be known yet. Nonetheless, it is unnatural development that could have adverse effects. Curiously, some products that have been banned in Germany are still being sold and consumed in the US. It is also a wonder why other countries could ban products, the mere identification of GMOs through labels could not even be done here.
GMO producers clearly have strong lobby behind them that include scientists (Entine). They have also succeeded in blocking the legislation of requiring them to label their products (Westervelt). Should not our government be taking a more cautious step with regard to allowing the production and sale of GMOs? Since these products cannot be banned outright, consumer information should be provided. At least, consumers can decide for themselves.
The whole concept of GMOs—especially in the way it is being undertaken—xraises ethical questions as well. First, is the concept by itself really good? Second, for whose good is it really?
The answer to the first question would vary depending on the individual, depending on a person’s philosophy in life or religion. If a person believes that no one should interfere or alter the natural order of things, the definitely the whole concept of GMOs is wrong. Some religious institutions define what is right and wrong for their members. Since bio-technology is a new science, there has not been much religious discussion on GMOs related to food. For instance, the Catholic Church has been observed to be silent about the matter. This silence has been interpreted to mean implicit approval. (Huff) However, this appears not to be the case. The Church simply has not taken any position yet. So, an individual would be left on his own to discern whether the concept of GMOs is right or wrong. After he has decided, he will have to act accordingly. If he thinks that GMOs are wrong, then he should not consume or support it in whatever way. Consumption of GMOs is an implicit approval of the concept, a statement that the concept is right. Then again, how could an individual act rightfully if he is uninformed? Not having identifying labels to tell a person that certain products contain GMOs deprives a person to act rightfully according to his conscience. Not labeling GMOs as such can curtail a person to exercise certain freedoms and rights.
The answer to the second question depends on the reason why GMOs are being produced. Immanuel Kant’s moral philosophy and John Stuart Mill’s utilitarian philosophy can be used to test the rightness of the companies motives. If the objective of GMO development is for profit and to block off competition or to keep farmers from producing their own seeds (which companies have been purported to be doing), then the objective is clearly wrong from both Kant’s and Mill’s perspectives. The objective here is to benefit the company or select individuals to the detriment of society. On the other hand, the objective would seem good if it really meant to alleviate the human condition and society in general especially with regard to food production—now and in the long term. Still, this does not mean that companies should not disclose that their products contain GMOs. Otherwise, not doing so would again raise questions about the companies’ motives and objectives.
I’m just afraid of the possibility that we and our families may actually be consuming food that could be harmful to our health. There is just no way of knowing if products are not labeled whether they contain any form of GMO. We are not being given any choice. How can we have any choice if we do not have any information to begin with? While it is true that many food products are labeled as organic, it does not mean that these products have not been genetically modified. Being organic does meant any component of the product has not been genetically modified. For instance, the animals from which meat products have come from may not necessarily been fed with non-GMO contaminated feeds as many plants which the animals eat could have cross-bread with some GMO. The mere thought of these things could cause a person anxiety.
Scientists are obviously not unanimous in agreement in saying that GMOs are safe. Genetic modification of organisms is still a fairly science. Every modified organism can be affected in different ways which can either be good or bad. The effects of consuming GMOs on people may take a long time to be known. So, the arguments that there is no difference between a GMO and an ordinary organism is not convincing.
The efforts of companies to block any attempt to legally require them to label their products as GMO belies some kind of untruthfulness. If indeed they are so convinced that there no dangers in consuming GMOs, then why are they blocking all attempts to legally require them to label their products as such. No matter how much they argue that GMOs have the same qualities as ordinary organisms, the fact remains that they are not: They are GMOs. This may be stretching this argument a bit, however the logic is the same as when we say that all people are the same. Indeed, people are the same. However, we acknowledge that there are differences among them foremost of which ethnicity or race—essentially a matter of genes. People do not hesitate in identifying their own ethnicity. There are even laws protecting the rights of people based on such matters,
Labeling to identify products is not the same as the warning labels on cigarette packages. They would merely identify as such. If there are no problems with the products, then there is really nothing for them to worry about. If there are problems or even just uncertainty that there are no problems, the labels can serve as an alert to consumers so they would know what they are buying and thus decide accordingly.
Businesses do not have a license to do anything they want and not inform the consumers. Their legal personalities or existence have been allowed by government to serve a purpose, that of serving society. As with any individual human, companies have the duty to do what is right. Informing consumers of what they should know is a responsibility that must be demanded of companies. It is the right of the consumers to know and to be protected. It is simply the right thing to do.
Works Cited
Dill, John. “The Dangers of GMOs: Know the Environmental Hazards.” 28 Sept 2010. Natural News. Web. 10 Dec 2012. < >.
Dr. Mercola. “Banned in Germany, But You're Probably Still Eating It.” 31 Jan 2012. Mercola.com. Web. 10 Dec 2012. < >.
Entine, Jon. “Scientists Savage Study Purportedly Showing Health Dangers of Monsanto's Genetically Modified Corn.” 20 Sept 2012. Forbes. Web. 10 Dec 2012 < >.
Huff, Ethan A. “Catholic Church Silently Supports GMOs.” 28 Jan 2011. Natural News. Web. 10 Dec 2012.
Kant, Immanuel. Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals. Thomas Kingsmill Abbott (trans.). Web. 6 Dec 2012. < >.
Levaux, Ari. “The Very Real Danger of Genetically Modified Foods.” 9 Jan 2012. The Atlantic. Web. 10 Dec 2012. < >.
Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism. 1863. Web. 6 Dec 2012. < >.
Westervelt, Amy. “With California Prop Defeated, GMO Labeling Proponents Look to Farm Bill.” 13 Nov 2012. Forbes. Web. 10 Dec 2012. < >.
