'“Labeling of Genetically Modified Food Products” Essay\r'

'genetically Modified Organisms or GMOs were starting time introduced into Americas’ victuals supply in 1996, and in that respect were 7 jillion farming of currys worldwide that were using GMO seeds. As of 2004, the crop size worldwide that usances GMO seeds had swelled to 222 million acres with approximately 63% of those in the get together States alone (253). As of 2008, more than than 90 percentage of soy crops and 75 percent of corn in the united States were raised from genetically limited seeds.\r\nAs of now, in the get together States, there ar still no regulations to mandate the branding of forage products that contain GMOs. The United States only requires labeling of genetically modified nourishments if the diet has a significantly different nutritionary property, or unexpected allergens, or if the food contains toxins that argon high than acceptable levels. Most moderniseed countries passim the world strike adopted differing regulations perta ining to labeling food products containing GMOs, although with some controersy.\r\nWhile the mandatory labeling requirements were enacted to part with consumer choice of whether or non to acquire foods that contain GMOs, mandatory labeling in the European Union and Japan for example, has resulted in retailers not stocking genetically modified foods on their shelves delinquent to the perceived consumer aversion to genetically modified foods. Advocates of genetically modified foods con lieur that consumers already fool a choice in what they can purchase, whether it is processed foods with traditionally cock-a-hoop ingredients, genetically modified processed foods or organic foods.\r\nThe consumers of these nations voiced their opinions loudly, that they had the chastise to have intercourse if GMOs were in the food products they were buying, and their political relations listened. In the United States, the FDA has close scrutiny protocols that biotech firms must deduct ou t when developing a dose to conduce to market. This protocol consists of different casts of medicine trials with the first cosmos a study of the assertable side effects of said proposed dose on wellnessy subjects (meaning that if said drug is for treating colon cancer, the test subjects will be free from the disease) to determine if the subjects develop all side effects.\r\nIf the phase 1 tests audition to meet FDA satisfaction, they atomic number 18 allowed to proceed to phase 2 of clinical trials which involve subjects that presently have the disease they be toilsome to treat with the new drug and the tests be done to see if the proposed drug rattling treats the disease that they are aiming at. Some ask, that with such(prenominal) stringent testing done with drug chemicals that will be ingested by consumers, why aren’t those same stringent testing regulations implemented into the genetically modified food industry.\r\nThere is much controversy on this matter in the United States, as Delborne and Kinchy write in the article â€Å"genetically Modified Organisms”; Promoters of GMOs tend to favor science-based happen assessments (â€Å"sound science”), whereas critics tend to guidance the precautionary commandment. Calls for science-based risk assessments often come from stakeholders who oppose increased regulation and indirect request to see GM technologies developed and marketed. Specifically, they argue that before a technology should be regulated for possible risks, those risks must be demonstrated as scientifically solid and quantifiable.\r\nAlthough the definition of â€Å"sound science” is itself controversial, proponents cite that regulatory agencies such as the EPA and FDA have been too quick to regulate technologies without frank inductionâ€arguing that such government interference not only creates fiscal disincentives for technological innovation nevertheless in truth causes social abuse by dela ying or preventing important technologies from becoming available. Such a perspective views government regulation as a risk in itself.\r\nBy contrast, advocates of the precautionary principle stress the macrocosm of scientific un acceptedties associated with many modern environmental and health issues. They have proposed a fabric for decision making that slip ones minds on the side of precaution (â€Å"better safe than lamentable”). Major components include the following: (1) look harm and prevent it; (2) place the saddle of proof on polluters to provide evince of sentry duty, not on society to try harm; (3) always examine ersatz solutions; and (4) include affected parties in parliamentary governance of technologies.\r\nCritics argue that the precautionary principle is little more than a scientific disguise for anti-technology politics (187). Testing of GMOs in our food products should be done in a similar way as drugs are tested. The way that it stands now, all co nsumers are being treated as ginzo pigs with this technology, and some are not convinced that it’s not having an impact on the health of consumers. The CDC has reported an 18 percent increase in food allergies among children on a lower floor the age of 18 from 1997 to 2007.\r\nEven though there have been no grand term scientific studies conducted to measure the health impacts of ingesting GMOs, some proponents use the absence of evidence as proof that GMOs are safe, but critics counter that absence of evidence cannot aid as GMOs safety, and accuse biotechnology corporations and governments of conducting an ungoverned experimentation by allowing GMOs into the human diet (192).\r\nAs of 2010 no scientific studies have shown conclusively that currently licensed GMO foods harm human health. However, in many cases there is continued concern that the data and studies living GMO use are insufficient to adjudge GMO use safe, especially with regard to use in the open environm ent and over successive generations (419).\r\nIn the United States, as mentioned early, manufacturers are only required to label genetically modified foods if the food has a significantly different nutritional property, or unexpected allergens, or if the food contains toxins that are higher than acceptable levels, whereas organically grown foods to which they would be labeled is considered a automatic or optional label by the FDA and USDA, and have a more stringent set of labeling requirements that producers of these products must adhere to.\r\nâ€Å"The carriage of genetically modified substances above certain very low thresholds disqualifies the organic label. extreme farmers therefore sustained economic losings because of transgenic contamination of their crops” (186). aliment label regulations in the United States are meant to tell consumers the ingredients, and nutritional composition of packaged food for sale. The affair of food labels, are to allow consumers to d ress an informed decision on whether or not to purchase a position product.\r\nThere are polls in the United States that show roughly 85 percent of Americans want food labeling for products containing GMOs, in so far government officials are resistant to mandating GMO labeling of food products stemming from pressure by the proponents of GMO production. The health and safety of this nation is at risk of being one huge nationwide experiment with genetically engineered foods, and if the biotech corporations and scientists are wrong active the safety of these products, it may have irretrievable consequences not only in the United States, but across the entire world.\r\nIt would be prudent for the government entities that were created to protect consumers, to err on the side of caution earlier than on the side corporations. Americans have the right to know what is in the food products that we are purchasing, and the confidence in government agencies that are overseeing the developme nt and manufacturing of these products, that they are 100 percent safe for us to eat rightful(prenominal) as those same agencies regulate the biotech corporations that develop and introduce new drugs to the market.\r\nWorks Cited Collin, Robert William. â€Å"Genetically Modified Food. ” Environment. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2008. 253-257. Battleground. Gale Virtual recognition Library. Web. 31 July 2011. Davidson, Tish. â€Å"Food Labeling. ” The Gale Encyclopedia of Diets: A Guide to Health and Nutrition. Ed. Jacqueline L. Longe. Vol. 1. Detroit: Gale, 2008. 407-412. Gale Virtual filename extension Library. Web. 31 July 2011. McIntosh, Philip. â€Å"Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO).\r\n” Food: In Context. Ed. Brenda Wilmoth Lerner and K. Lee Lerner. Vol. 1: publicize Food to International Fund for hoidenish Development. Detroit: Gale, 2011. 416-421. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 9 Aug. 2011. Restivo, Sal and shaft H. Denton. â€Å"Genet ically Modified Organisms. ” Science and Technology. Ed. Vol. 1. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2008. 182-195. Battleground. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 31 July 2011.\r\n'