The Issue
The rates of hunger and poverty in America are alarming. Food and hunger programs have committed themselves to coming up with solutions to the food insecurity. According to 2015 annual hunger survey in New York State, almost half of working-group residents failed to afford enough food in a household that at least one individual was employed. In 2012-2014, more than 450,000 residents of New York City lived in households that were food insecure but with at least one person employed. A portion of 48% of adults aged between 15 and 65 in New York City lacked sufficient food and yet they were employed. Due to such reasons, the food and hunger programs have come up with different ways to provide cheap and safe food that is readily available for everyone. However, this has brought about a lot of controversies and resistance.
Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) products have been effective in responding to issues of hunger in different countries. Even though genetically modified foods have been around for about two decades and have been termed safe, they still manage to generate a controversy. The controversy on GMO is whether to use the conventional crops or the GMOs. GMO are crops that have foreign genes introduced into them to enhance their productivity and quality. They are useful in responding to hunger problems.
The Controversy
The key areas of controversy in GMOs are whether food should be labeled, the effect of genetically modified organisms on the human health, the function of government regulators on GMOs and the adverse environmental effects. GMOs are created through genetic engineering, which is a process through which genes are introduced in another crop to bring about anticipated characteristics (Hemphill, Thomas and Syagnik, 450). It begins by identifying the genes responsible for a particular trait such as drought-resistant trait. The trait is isolated and late inserted in a different cell with several techniques. The process has been used to develop crops that can grow fast under climatic conditions that are not very conducive. With their ease of production, the production costs are lowered and hence the prices of the product are low. The food becomes affordable to many people bearing in mind a majority of the New York resident have insufficient food, and yet they are employed due to the cost of food (Byrne, Pendell, and Graff, 79). This paper will discuss the issue of GMO labeling on the food product to inform consumers of the presence of GMO ingredients in the ready to eat food. This has been a major issue of concern in New York City with debates whether the food producers and manufacturers should clearly label the GMOs food. The paper will also provide possible solutions to the controversies.
Food labeling is an essential requirement to all the manufacturers or food producers. The aim of food labeling is to ensure that consumers are aware of the type of the food they are consuming. Some have preferences to some foods and others have allergic foods. Debates are rising that the food processors and manufacturers should clearly show the GMO products used in the making of the food. The advocates for a must GMO labeling in retail food argue that the American people have the right to know the particular ingredient in the product as wells as the quantity used. They claim that GMOs may have set back the health of the person, and hence, the information will help the buyers make informed decisions. Arguably, the consumers have the right to choose the food ingredients they want to eat in processed food- GMOs or GMO-free. Others base their arguments on the ethical and religious considerations. They argue that genetic engineering is not religiously or ethically right because they view God as the sole creator. Changing the genetic makeup of the product alters the way God had created the crop. The consumers need to know to avoid contradicting themselves ethically or religion-wise (Eenennaam, M. Chassy and Kalaitzandonakes, 90). The controversies are that if the GMO are labeled in ready to eat food, it can be misleading and cause a false alarm to consumers. The scientists argue that the health risks from GMO are similar to those present in conventional foods. It disagrees with the 'right to know' argument of GMO labeling leads increased knowledge of consumers. The other conflicting argument is that labeling would give rise to the increase of cost which will be imposed on all consumers even those with the interest for the information.
The U.S food system facility involves separate storage, planting, packaging, transportation, and hence including the segregations of GMO and GMO-free products. In efforts to attain the high non-GMO purity level, a huge amount of capital is required, hence will increase the cost to the consumers. If labeling of GMO products is made mandatory, there will be limitations on consumer choice because many food processors may abandon using GMO ingredients. In countries that have enforced such regulations on GMO labeling, grocery retailers have abandoned stocking GMO food products because the buyers are avoiding them. In the United States regulations, there are legislations in the department of agriculture that provide organic certification. Further, the certification assures the consumers that the crops and processed foods are organic. In their definition, it prevents the utilization of GMO ingredients hence it is an indirect way ensuring GMO labeling. Apart from those arguments from politicians and other proponents, the consumers in New York City have also expressed their insecurity towards GMO foods. Majority of the people in New York and the whole world are not aware about GMO foods and their effects to the health of mankind. It is agreed that the consumers has the right to know more about the GMO ingredients in products. However, the claims that the issue should not be politicized is also an issue of the people’s right of information. The interest of consumers should be of concern in the matter (Marchant, Gary and Guy, 67). The consumers also agree that the GMO foods, on the other hand, are a savior becomes they come in handy especially because of the low prices of food and their availability in the market regardless of the season or the time of the year.
Different facets of debates about GMO have stirred up New York City. While there are issues that are debated over the GMO, there are still a lot of scientific explanations released that GMOs are safe to eat and that they are not detrimental to the environment.. Public opinion of the city is somehow confused and their stands vary. There are even small groups of people that call for the implementation of stringent regulations for the labeling of GMO products. For instance, the issue about the fast-growing salmon coming from genetically altered animal raised havoc of opinions from the people (Harvey). Similar to allergens and compound ingredients that require pointing out in the food labeling, labeling of GMO ingredient is essential. There is a lot of perception on their likelihood to cause a threat to the health of consumers, and therefore, the consumers should be given a chance to make their decision on whether to consume the GMOs or not. The solution to the controversy of GMOs labeling will be to develop strategies that will respond to the issues highlighted. This paper discusses three strategies that will be effective to curb the raised from problems. The strategies to labeling are effective because they will protect the consumers from receiving misleading information. The companies will make sure they label their products with no extra cost to the consumers. It will be an efficient way of ensuring the consumers are well informed about the product and only consume the food they are comfortable with.
Resolution
The strategies for responding to GMOs labeling controversy are in three categories that are the legislative policy, litigation strategies and voluntary labeling. The legislative strategy will see unto it that legal regulations are developed to ensure that GMO food labeling is adopted (Albert, Janice Lee, 78). Additionally, there will be regulations on who should be responsible for offering information to the consumers on the effects of GMOs. Rules should be available debates because the consumers will have the information at hand and will make their choices for the food to consume either with GMO or GMO-free. It is good for the industry to show responsibility for their consumers by voluntarily labeling because it indicates that they are responsive to the concerns of their customers.
Notably, the last strategy is litigation strategy. It refers to having the proponents and opponents of food labeling meet and discuss the best way to resolve the issue. In this strategy, informed decisions are likely to be made because views from both sides will be critically analyzed. The strategy will allow research for the issues that will have a problem and issues that require clarification. The best way to end a controversy is to have all the teams involved in the solution development (Lisa, 90).
In New York, the Committee on Consumer Affairs and Protection passed the bill A.617 for mandatory labeling of GMO products. Lawmakers in the city voted for this law and over 90% of the consumers support for this mandatory labellin, As stated by the chair of the committee, Jeffrey Dinowitz, “I believe New Yorkers have a fundamental right to know what is in their food, including whether it contains any genetically engineered ingredients “ (Gormley).
The public people are supposed to be involved in the solution developing because the issue affects them directly. It is their right to know and hence, they should participate in resolving the issue. It will give an opportunity to the companies dealing with GMO products to defend their labeling stand and challenge the anti-GMO companies that labeling would be misleading. If well followed, the strategies will see GMO labeling food controversies amicably solved with satisfaction from all the parties involved. When the issue has been resolved the market for both GMO and GMO-free products will not be affected. The companies will be able to maintain their markets and clear the controversies around their products. Essentially, the paramount goal is to ensure that healthier food generated only reach the market. Further, this will ensure that the counterfeit food products do not find their way into the market. Various screening are done by the various bureau of standards in checking the certification of the products and its safety.
Works Cited
Albert, Janice Lee. Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods: Stakeholder Perceptions of the Food and Drug Administration's Public Consultation Processes and Food Industry Reactions to the United States Voluntary and European Union Mandatory Policies. ProQuest, 2007.
Byrne, P., D. Pendell, and G. Graff. "Labeling Of Genetically Modified Foods". N.p., 2015.
Web. 6 Apr. 2016.
Eenennaam, Alison Van Eenennaam, Bruce M. Chassy, and Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes. "The Potential Impacts Of Mandatory Labeling For Genetically Engineered Food In The United States". Cast science.org. N.p., 2014. Web. 6 Apr. 2016.
Gormley, J. “Assembly committee passes GMO labeling bill”. The Legislative Gazette. ( 2016).
Web. 29 April, 2016
Harvey, C. “This tiny moth is stirring up the GMO debate in New York”. The Washington Post.
(2015). Web. 29 April 2016
Hemphill, Thomas A., and Syagnik Banerjee. "Genetically Modified Organisms And The U.S. Retail Food Labeling Controversy: Consumer Perceptions, Regulation, And Public Policy". Business and Society Review 120.3 (2015): 435-464. Web. 5 Apr. 2016.
Lisa, H. Food fray: Inside the controversy over genetically modified food. AMACOM Div American Mgmt Assn, 2008.
Marchant, Gary E., Guy A. Cardineau, and Thomas P. Redick, eds. Thwarting consumer choice: the case against mandatory labeling for genetically modified foods. Government Institutes, 2010.
