Should We Require Labeling for Genetically Modified Food Essay

Should We Require Labeling for Genetically Modified Food - Essay Example This essay presents and analyzes their arguments, where they have both provided compelling claims that promote their interests, although they committed fallacies that diluted the strength of their theses; furthermore, this essay believes that without widespread public action, mandatory labeling will not be applied in the near future, and organic labeling can instead sufficiently serve as a guidance for people who want to steer away from GEF, while they prepare for stronger advocacy efforts for legalized GEF labeling. Aside from religious and health concerns of some consumers, GEF is not yet proven to be fully safe for people and the environment, and so they must be properly labeled for the benefit of proper consumer information. Bereano (1998) asserted that religious and citizen groups believe that the government, through the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), should enforce mandatory labeling of GEF. They have a right to know because they need this information to make the right buy ing decisions. Furthermore, Bereano (1998) noted that the government is wrong to say that consumers do not have to know the process of food production, when other process labeling ways are practiced, such as having labels, which state that the food is kosher or dolphin-free. In addition, Bereano (1998) believed that because of the precarious nature of GEF, the â€Å"precautionary principle† must be applied (p.278). It is a precaution for people to know what they are eating, so that they can make informed decisions. Moreover, Bereano (1998) maintained that the commercial right to free speech is secondary to the consumers’ right to food information, especially when he emphasized that there are â€Å"material† differences between organic food and GEF. He reminded companies that, when they state that GEF have â€Å"substantial equivalence† to other food, it contradicts their need to patent their GE products because they are original and different (Bereano, 19 98, p.278). Hence, Bereano (1998) underscored that mandatory labeling serves the information needs of the general public, particularly in line with the potential or real harms to specific consumers because of health, cultural, environmental, scientific, and religious interests. Another source ascertained that GEF are not dangerous to human/animal health because the FDA ensures their safety. Levitt (2000) provided an FDA study which examined the safety of the most-criticized GM products and findings showed that they were not dangerous to human beings (Levitt, 2000, p.282). He presented his own scientific studies to back up his claims about GEF. In addition, Levitt (2000) explained the laborious process of GEF approval that are based on FDA and US Department of Agriculture (USDA) policies, specifically their 1992 policy on bioengineered food/crops. He stressed that even GEF food additives are subject to FDA evaluation and approval. He is saying that through these efforts, the governme nt can ensure that all GEF in the market are safe for human consumption. Moreover, Levitt (2000) asserted that the FDA works closely with bio-engineering companies in helping them comply with food production standards (p.285). Consultation is continuous and begins during the early product development process. Hence, Levitt (2000) felt that mandatory