GMOs: A Case for Labeling

       Genetically modified organizations have become a hot topic in the realm of environmental politics.  They have become a great source of controversy amongst the general public, as well as the farmers who are given the opportunity to use them.  While many argue against the use of GMOs, there also many proponents who feel that they can provide a wide variety of benefits to the global community.  Many countries have already banned the use of GMOs, however they are still widely used in the United States, leaving many citizens very concerned about what they may potentially be eating.  Although a ban may not be in the future of the U.S. anytime soon, laws requiring the labeling of foods containing GMOs may be a suitable response to this dilemma. 

       Labeling laws essentially require that all food containing GMOs be labeled as such, allowing consumers to fully understand what they are purchasing, and eventually putting into their bodies.  They would not place any bans or limitations on these products, rather simply allow the public to make an informed decision before purchasing them.  While the likelihood of passing such a law at the federal level is seemingly reasonable, so far only a tiny amount of progress has been made with Maine and Connecticut recently becoming the first two states to pass such measures.  There have been many challenges and obstacles that have slowed efforts for labeling legislation in the U.S., most of which involve large corporations in opposition.  

       One particular example of a failed effort includes California’s Proposition 37, a ballot proposition that would simply require the labeling of all foods containing GMOs within the state.  While there seemed to be a great deal of support for the proposed legislation, just under 50% voted against the bill, and it was ultimately done away with.  This loss may be attributed to the significantly greater amount of donations that came from the opposing side, with Monsanto contributing the most with an 8 million dollar donation.  The passing of this law would have made California the first state to pass such a policy, however it seems that the power of multinational corporations may be too heavy to match in many cases.

       It seems that there are also many arguments that are held against labeling laws.  Such claims include the idea that it is unnecessary to require labels on foods if they are safe to consume.  However, due to the relatively recent use of GMOs on a mass scale, there have been no long term studies conducted to appropriately assess whether or not foods containing GMOs are in fact completely safe.  Other arguments center on the idea that labeling laws will place limitations on the options of consumers.  While this may be true in a sense, people will still be free to purchase products containing GMOs if they choose to do so.  Labels would simply give them the power to make an informed choice. 

  

       While there is still a great deal to be learned about the potential benefits and dangers of GMOs, it only seems fair that people should have the choice of whether or not to incorporate them into their daily lives.  Labeling may be a way to deal with many of the concerns for GMOs, while also adhering to the needs of individuals who they may potentially benefit.