Maria Gotta
English 120 Online
In
her Los Angeles Times Editorial entitled "Food Gene Label Unneeded,"
Karen Lutz asserts that Americans have unknowingly been consuming Genetically
Modified food-stuffs for decades and that to begin labeling them now would be
misleading. Lutz goes on to explain that GM products are obviously
harmless because no side-effects have yet been reported and because the FDA
says so. Though it is important to include preservatives and
chemical additives on ingredient lists, Genetically Modified products do
not "raise the same food safety concerns" and so, Lutz
holds, their presence need not be indicated. The real
problem, she explains, is not that GMs are potentially dangerous, but that
the government has failed to build public confidence in them. While Lutz
agrees that research on GMs should continue, she insists that because
labels would only confuse the public they should be deemed worthless.
Though
Lutz makes some strong points, I cannot help but disagree with her. While
she explains that labeling Genetically Modified products is misleading, a waste
of resources, and that the government has failed to build public confidence in
GMs, I argue that not labeling them is misleading, the added expense is worth it,
and that the government will lose public trust if they fail to label
them. Furthermore, GM labeling should be required because (1) extra
expenses would be minimal, (2) long-term health effects of GMs are unknown and
(3) the public, if nothing else, has the right to know.
First
of all, though GM manufacturers argue that labeling would be merely an
added expense--and an unnecessary one at that--in reality, expenses of
labeling will be minimal. Most of
Secondly,
GM products should be labeled because their long-term health effects are
unknown. Though genetic modifications may alter a
product's composition only slightly so that they seem identical to
conventional crops, a chemical change has still occurred; it is mere ignorance
to assert, for example, that a GM tuber is the same as an organic one
when, in fact, the Bt pesticide inhabits its every
cell. This chemical change could have a number of
consequences from as mild as a nutritional alteration, to as dangerous
as the production of a toxic allergen. Though no cases of harm
by approved GMs have yet been reported, that is no reason to assume they
are safe. It only takes one incident to disprove the harmlessness of
genetic modification, only one allergic reaction to cause a
series of lawsuits, only one fatality for the GM Corporation to fall flat
on its face. Therefore, it is in the best interest of the manufacturer as
well as the public to label genetically modified products.
Finally,
GMs should be labeled because the public has a right to know what they are
consuming. Though GM manufacturers are
not technically lying to the public by leaving their products unlabeled, they
are withholding the truth—a crime in itself.
This seems sneaky, deceitful, and begs the question: does the GM Corporation have something to
hide? Why is the presence of
chemical additives in a product indicated but not the inclusion of a genetically
engineered ingredient? Consumers have
the right to know what they are feeding their children. This is true for any product, whether it is
genetically modified or simply the newest type of Kellogg’s cereal. It is unethical and a violation of basic
human rights to do otherwise.
Labeling
genetically modified products should be mandatory because the added expense
would be minimal, potential side-effects of GMs are unknown, and it is an
individual’s basic right to know what is in a product. The American public should follow the lead of
Work Cited
Lutz, Karen. "Food
Gene Label Unneeded". Los Angeles Times