WA1-R Final
- 1. 1 Introduction: The labeling of genetically modified (GM) foods is much debated. GM foods have a poor reputation among most consumers due to fear of negative health impacts. However, positive health benefits of GM organisms have more legitimate support. In addition, the misconceptions of GM foods result in negative economic consequences for farmers, as consumers are more likely to avoid the foods they know to be genetically modified (Anderson, 2010). Therefore the labeling of GM foods should not be mandatory, because of negative economic results and unwarranted theories of negative health impacts. The Economic Harm from Labeling: The labeling of GM food products could end up being economically positive for the farmers. Those farmers who raise crops that contain a GM content below 5% qualify as organic farmers (Demont & Devos, 2008), and are then able to benefit from mandatory labeling by charging more for their produce (Constanigro & Lusk, 2014). But ultimately, GM crops are good for the farmer. Qaim (2009) tells us that farmers who use GM crops spend less on herbicides and labor. Additionally, U.S. farmers that produce GM crops have larger gross margin gains averaging $12 per hectare, a net economic benefit from GM crops that reduce the use of insecticides by 8%, and have increased yields averaging 5% (Qaim, 2009). Labeling means that consumers would avoid purchasing foods with GM ingredients – Constanigro and Lusk (2014) found that consumers would be willing to pay about 10% more for foods that are not GM. Considering the premium consumers would still pay to avoid GM foods, all those farmers mentioned would face losses – GM seeds are more expensive, so without the consumers to buy their produce and balance the expense of the seeds, smaller farmers face large losses (Qaim, 2009).
- 2. 2 The Unknown Health Effects of GM Foods: The effect of GMOs on human health is not confirmed, but there are many pessimistic theories. The Ghana Public Health Association tells us that there are concerns that GMOs may be a source of endocrine disruption (Amofah 2014) – just like DDT, a pesticide banned in 1972 because of its negative health effects on the human endocrine system (Strong 2015). However, the key word from that proceeding document (and many others on this topic) is may. Ultimately, there is no true proof that GMO’s negatively affect one’s health. Furthermore, the use of GMO’s can actually be beneficial. One of the main concerns of pesticide use is the residue that remains on the crops and is ingested by the consumer – this is why organic foods are so popular. With GM crops, pesticide residuals are lower both on the food and in any water sources near the farming site (Qaim, 2009). Wu (2006) chronicles in a paper the benefits of a specific GM crop – maize that contains the pesticide Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) – and explains that this particular grain has lower levels of cancer causing mycotoxins than non-GM corn. The farmers of the crops benefit as well – without the need for the application of pesticides, farmers have less exposure to dangerous chemicals, particularly in less developed countries where the poisons are applied manually (Qaim 2009). Though negative theories of the effects of GM foods are popular, those theories have no proof, while the opposing side has clear benefits. Conclusion: The controversy of labeling GM foods is complex. Consumers want to know exactly what they are eating, but the choices they make based on labeling may come from a fearful mindset. In this situation, the consequences are more than just quirks on the customers end, but extend to affect the livelihood of farmers everywhere. The choices that consumers make about which foods to purchase have a ripple effect that
- 3. 3 could severely harm the livelihood of a small farmer growing GM corn in an attempt to cut down on pesticide use. In addition, by avoiding foods that they know to be GM, consumers may unintentionally missing out on health benefits for themselves or cause damage to the health of those who end up ingesting the pesticides that need to be used. Mandatory labeling of GM foods is advertised as being advantageous for the consumer, but the repercussions of labeling are more important than fretting over unsubstantiated theories. References Amofah, G. (2014). Recommendations From a Meeting on Health Implications of Genetically Modified Organism (GMO). Ghana Medical Journal. 48(2), 117-119. Retrieved from EBSCO Host. Andersen, L. B. (2010). The EU Rules on Labelling of Genetically Modified Foods: Mission accomplished?. European Food & Feed Law Review, 5(3), 136-143. Retrieved from EBSCO Host. Costanigro, M., & Lusk, J.L. (2014). The signaling effect of mandatory labels on genetically engineered food. Food Policy, 49(1), 259-267. Retrieved from EBSCO Host. Demont, M., & Devos, Y. (2008). Regulating coexistence of GM and non-GM crops without jeopardizing economic incentives. Trends in Biotechnology, 26(7), 353- 358. Retrieved from Google Scholar. Strong, A.L., Shi, Z., Strong, M., Miller, D.F.B., Rusch, D.B., Buechlein, A.M.,…Bunnell, B.A. (2015). Effects of the Endocrine-Disrupting Chemical DDT on Self-Renewal and Differentiation of Human Mesenchymal Stem Cells. Environmental Health Perspectives. 123(1), 42-48. Retrieved from EBSCO Host. Qaim, M. (2009). The Economics of Genetically Modified Crops. Annual Review of Resource Economics. 1. 665-694 Retrieved from Google Scholar. Wu, F. (2006). Bt Corn’s Reduction of Mycotoxins: Regulatory Decisions and Public Opinion. Natural Resource Management and Policy. 30. 179-200. Retrieved from Google Scholar.