The Pros And Cons Of GMO Labeling

What We Should See: Why Genetically Modified Foods Should Be Labeled
There is research indicating that consuming genetically modified foods pose a health risk to animals and humans alike. Research by the manufacturers of genetically modified products, not surprisingly, indicate that these products are the same as natural foods. There is also research indicating that not enough research has been done on this matter, or not enough data is available. One thing is certain, that there are many unknowns associated with prolonged consumption of these products, and the potential health risks. Due to these unknowns, genetically modified foods should be labeled as such, warning the public about any possible health risks associated with consuming them.

Fairfield-Sonn indicates that while sixty countries require labeling of GMOs, major seed producers Monsanto and DuPont of the United States opposed legislation requiring the labeling of GMOs, to the tune of twelve million dollars (66). Millions of labels indicating the presence of GMOs in foods could be produced in place of the millions spent in opposition. This opposition implies guilt, or, as Krimsky implied, political motivation on the part of billion dollar companies like Monsanto and DuPont. Not all food distributors oppose the movement to label GMOs, but rather produce their own organic foods and label them voluntarily. Based on the USDA’s requirements for organic foods, the Kroger Company introduced the Simple Truth line, while the Aldi Company presented their Simple Nature brand, with industry experts expecting future expansion of the organic market “due to the absence of mandatory GMO labeling” (Bain and Dendachi 9466). The stance of the Kroger and Aldi Companies reflect smart business practices by embracing and profiting from an anti-GMO movement that is undeniable and

Yes. This market already exists and that market is expanding worldwide. GM foods are seen as the solution to famine that has stricken impoverished nations throughout the world. Goldbas states that “when faced with African extreme hunger, malnutrition, food security problems, and low agricultural productivity, the advantages of GM cassavas and other foods seems to be inarguable” (22). Kristian Toft cited the Borlaug Hypothesis in that GMOs are needed to “feed the world” in an act of “global justice” (230). True justice would be feeding people food that is natural, or labeling these foods as GMOs before serving it up. People can go to extremes when faced with hunger, but those eating foods no matter where they are in the world should be aware of the risk involved when consuming GMOs. Armed with this knowledge, some governments may reject these foods and search for alternative food production methods until science proves beyond any reasonable doubt that GM foods are actually