Introduction
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are arguably beneficial socioeconomically. However, there are rising concerns over the harm GMOs pose to the humans and their environment. The process of genetic modification entails altering the genetic composition of organisms to award them properties that are more desirable. According to Rifkin (17), the world is in transition toward a biotech age as illustrated by the advancement of GMOs. In the current society, the adoption of genetically engineered crops, such as soybeans, cotton, and corn, is widespread in the United States following two decades of concerns over consumer reception, and environmental and economic impact (USDA 15). The acreage allotted to the production of GMOs has increased significantly for different crops for instance Bt cotton increased from 37% to 63% between 2001 and 2008 (USDA 16). The prevalence of GMOs affects different stakeholders, such as consumers and the farmers. Lack of sufficient information presents the need to admit and address reservations about effects of GMOs, especially for consumers. The labeling of GMOs is a controversial subject matter in numerous debate forums that entails the conflict between preserving nature and promoting innovation. GMOs should be labeled to allow for fair competition between genetically modified and natural varieties of products.
Risk-Assessment and Health Concerns
The branding of GMOs is necessary to protect the consumers due to the lack of sufficient information on the different varieties. The government should be at the forefront of protecting the interests of their citizens by recognizing and address the uncertainty, as there is significant risk associated with the alteration of genetic formations of organisms. There is a risk to the ecosystem. In effect, each GMO that is allowed into the environment is a potential threat to the ecosystem, especially with related companies projected to release thousands of organisms into the environment (Rifkin 18). There also exists the risk of spreading genetic pollution; the focus of GMO companies to produce "herbicide-tolerant, pest-resistant, and virus-resistant" crops exposes the human race to the risk of excessive pollution (Rifkin 19). According to Rifkin (20), the estimate of poisonous herbicides disposed of on United States’ lands is about 600 million pounds, which are mainly sprayed on GMOs. The risk of health issues is higher due to the introduction of GMOs with higher incidences of allergies (Rifkin 21). The risk associated with the introduction and implementation of GMOs is too high to ignore and as a result, it would be prudent for relevant stakeholders such policy makers to ensure that consumers are aware that the products they purchase from their stores and supermarkets are genetically engineered.
It is an ethical responsibility for GMO producers to allow information to consumers on their products. The mandatory labeling of GMOs is necessary because it is the right thing to do. The economic principle of maximizing utility assumes that decisions made by consumers are rational because they are informed; disallowing such information to consumers is a threat to their wellbeing. Information asymmetry gives GMO companies an unfair advantage over their counterparts as consumers are indifferent between the products from these two sources due to lack of information. Divulging necessary information to discern the alternate varieties of products would help the consumers to assess their risks to certain conditions and allow them to make an informed choice on whether to consume GMOs. According to LaDuke (5), an incidence involving contamination of large amounts of the U.S. white rice crop with a variety not suitable for human consumption challenged the importation of this type of rice into European and Asian markets. Consumers need to be aware of the type of products they consume to allow them to make decisions on what risks they are willing to take by consuming GMOs. GM crops are different from others concerning nutritious value and composition. They could spark allergic reactions due to foreign proteins in the body. It is a probable reason for the increased allergies and other immune disorders since intro 20 years ago. Labeling of GMOs is also a depiction of government transparency to prove to its people that policy formation is not for the benefit of the wealthy few but seeks to protect the interests of all the citizens.
Socio-Economic and Environmental Concerns
Managing the consumption of GMOs through distinguishing them from other natural varieties would promote environmental sustainability. Biodiversity is amongst the top environmental concerns associated with GMOs. American companies have over the years attempted to control the production and use of numerous varieties of plants and crops around the world through obtaining patents that allow them permission to diversify the genetic composition of these crops. Successful integration of GMOs into the mainstream food production industry would cause the value of natural varieties to diminish considerably threatening biodiversity. In LaDuke’s (2) article, he expresses the Ojibwe’s views on the threat to the survival of natural varieties of rice that is posed by wild rice genome. The diminishing market for the Lake rice produced by the Ojibwe due to a disproportionate level of competition from the mass-produced paddy crop challenged the production and distribution of natural wild rice (LaDuke 4). Consumers were misled through false advertising of the new strains of rice, as though they were produced naturally; "biodiversity is the state of life, and it is essential to the security of the rice (LaDuke 4).” Biodiversity in the United States is diminishing as evidenced in Koepel (1), which compares 300 banana varieties available for consumption in Central America as compared to the Northern America where “ a banana is a banana: yellow and sweet, uniformly sized, firmly textured always seedless (Koeppel, 62).” In East Africa, especially in Uganda, bananas are not consumed simply as a desert but are also a primary source of carbohydrate nutrition and are used to brew beer in certain instances (Koeppel 68). The production of GMOs threatens biodiversity as well as decreases the nature of other aspects of the environment, such as the soil composition and quality as well as the water quality (Rifkin 23). Environmental preservation concern has recently gained ground, and many Americans and environmentalists would rather not promote efforts to degrade further the environment. Labeling GMOs will alienate such groups of people who prefer consuming natural varieties. They would also consider the lack of labels on GMOs as trickery by attempting to sell GMOs as natural products.
Labeling GMO products will help in the effort to promote awareness on the threat GMOs pose to cultural diversity; protecting the interests of farming communities and preserving their cultural identities and history. Food is an essential aspect of culture in every society, especially for farming communities. Cultural identities, as well as histories of agricultural communities, revolve around the success of their trade. Seasons are defined by the times of harvest, and planting and history are recorded in reminiscence of these. Subsequent generations are expected to uphold this element of culture. However, in this age of technology, maintaining such an identity has become a challenge. To prevent the obliteration of such indigenous American cultures, it id essential to ensure that the consumers are informed of their choice to purchase GMOs or their alternatives. The 1998 case of Bolivian quinoa illustrates the place of relevant institutions in preserving culture. The Bolivian National Quinoa Producers Association sourced support from other institutions in fighting the patent that allowed exclusive use of a particular variety of quinoa to American researchers (LaDuke 2). Indians have been known for the production of basmati rice for numerous generations. However, this aspect of their culture would have ceased were it not for the intervention of the Indian government in fighting contentious patents (LaDuke 2). The 2006 declaration of seed sovereignty expressed the perceptions of Indo-Hispanics and Native-Americans concerning the erosion of their culture and ancestry through the “sacrilegious acts” of using genetic engineering technology on their land (LaDuke 7). The United States government should aim to protect the cultural diversity of American farming communities by promoting mandatory labeling of GMOs.
Lack of labels on GMOs threatens the livelihoods of indigenous farmers. The livelihoods of most indigenous communities are based on the practice of farming. However, their legal freedoms are challenged when patents are passed that disallow them to continue with their trade. Introducing food varieties that threaten the livelihood of these populations is disagreeable because it promotes the permanence of poverty. Labeling GMOs would ensure consumers know what they buy and continue to promote the natural farmers. Nor-Cal’s patent on wild rice is a threat to the Ojibwe livelihood because this community trades in wild rice. RiceTec’s attempt to control the production of the Indian-based basmati rice is another good example of the threat science is posing to the economic stability of these communities (LaDuke 2). Socially conscious consumers would rather use the natural products from farmers than to promote the interests of individualistic companies focused on profit maximization over protecting socio-economic stability.
Opposing Viewpoint
Advocators of the GMOs propose that the labeling of these products would not be evenhanded because GMOs share similar functionality with natural products. The concept of substantial equivalence concerning GMOs refers to the belief that GMOs are just like other products and hence “substantially equivalent.” The divergent standpoint differs from that of the enthymeme of this essay as it rejects the proposition of labeling GMOs due to the possibility that this will challenge customer acceptance. Production of GMOs might be the solution to the scarcity of some varieties of crops or for ones on the verge of extinction. Quinoa is a popular food, especially in Bolivia and Peru (Richardson). However, it is a hard plant to grow, and the availability of this crop has diminished significantly over the years. The increased popularity and higher levels of demand for quinoa have led to the move to produce other varieties of the crop to satisfy the demand (DePhillis 1). It goes to show that GMOs are efficient in fulfilling the need of food and ensuring that plant varieties are not eaten to extinction. In reconciling this opposing position with that of the enthymeme, it is essential to consider other alternatives to GMOs, such as hybridization and selective breeding rather than interfering with the genetic composition of organisms and expose people and their environment to unfathomable risks. The labeling of GMOs might result in the materialization of producers’ concerns of prejudice against GMOs. However, the economic concept of a balance between demand and supply would be resolved through lower pricing and increased promotions for GMOs. It would be economically efficient to protect the interests of consumers than to face their wrath, for instance, through lawsuits.
Remarks
The production of GMOs mostly favors large agrochemical corporations whose objectives are mainly pecuniary. The costs of this endeavor are consequential to diversity in terms of culture and biodiversity, diminishing the socio-economic position of communities, and increasing risks of health concerns. By obliging producers of GMOs to label their products as such, the government would be protecting the interests of consumers as well as farmers. Consumers need to know what they purchase. It is the responsibility of the government through implementation of protective policies, such as labeling of GMOs, to ensure they fulfill this requirement. After two decades of consuming GMOs, it is the time that the producers of these products accept responsibilities for the effects of their creations by allowing consumers to decide for themselves through isolating their products rather than affording such risks to their consumers who are their main source of revenue and social support. The time is right for GMOs to be labeled in American stores, especially because other countries, for instance in Europe have also resulted in this move.
Conclusion
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is a contentious topic as the current society marks two decades of the presence of GMOs. The main issue of debate is that of labeling of GMOs. It is especially due to the perceived threats posed by the genetically engineered products to human health and socio-economic wellbeing, as well as environmental preservation. Concerning health risks, GMOs have resulted in numerous instances of allergies in both adults and children to significant proportions. GMOs should also be labeled because it is the ethical responsibility of producers as well as the government to ensure consumers are well informed of the products they consume and consequently allow them to make their choices of consumption rather than to base their decisions on presumptions. Labeling of GMOs would help to promote biodiversity and, consequently ensure environmental preservation. The genetic modification process is aimed at the creation of “perfect species” of organisms. However, the element of perfection is subjective. Some people prefer bananas as starch or for making beer, and these cannot be achieved by genetically modified bananas as seen in the case of Uganda. Such people would benefit in knowing the type of bananas they are purchasing. The environment will also suffer from the production of GMOs due to diminished quality of soil, water, and air affected by increased used in herbicides and pesticides. Socio-economically, agriculture is a large part of indigenous communities around the world who profit from trading in the unique types of plants and crops. GMOs restrict the maintenance of cultural identity through farming due to restrictive patents obtained by researchers.
Selective breeding and hybridization are better alternatives to GMOs and labeling would enable the consumers to consider the product they would rather use and make an informed choice. Legislation should be structured to protect the interests of the people by acknowledging potential hazards associated with GMOs and making laws to protect them through labeling and educating them. The amount of safety study conducted regarding GMOs is not sufficient and; thus, consumers should be allowed to assess the risks for themselves. Producers of GMOs are threatened by the fact that the labeling of GMOs with all the negative impacts they have on the environment and socio-economic status could affect the consumer acceptance of the product. Labeling GMOs would thus allow the competition between them and their natural counterpart to be more equalized and the consumers would be the ones to decide what is good for them, their society, and their environment.
Works Cited
DePillis, Lydia “Quinoa should be Taking Over the World. This is Why It Wasn’t” The Washington Post. 2013. Web. 2016
Koeppel, Dan “Can This Fruit Be Saved?” Popular Science, 2008. Print.
LaDuke, Winona “Ricekeepers” Orion Magazine, 2016. Print
Richardson, Jill. "What Your Organic Market Doesn’T Want You To Know: The Dark Truth About Quinoa". Salon. N.p., 2016. Web. 17 Apr. 2016.
Rifkin, Jeremy “The Biotech Century: Playing Ecological Roulette with Mother Nature’s Designs” 1998. Print
USDA “Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops in the United States” USDA Report, 2008. Print
