As Courtney mentioned earlier, genetically modified salmon from AquaBounty Technologies Inc. may be the first genetically modified animal that is meant to be eaten (with the approval of the FDA). There is now a debate about whether or not the genetically modified salmon should be labeled to notify consumers that the salmon has been genetically altered. The industry representatives want the FDA to continue following the current labeling rules, which only requires GMOs to be labeled if there is "something materially different about the product" (Jennifer Corbett Dooren, Wall Street Journal). The industry representatives would not be in favor of labeling the genetically modified salmon because the labels will cause consumers to think twice about what they are buying and could deter the consumers from buying the genetically modified salmon even though there is no significant "material" difference, it just grows twice as fast as a normal salmon. No, the engineered salmon may not be different if we are talking about the "level of fatty acids," which is the same as conventional salmon, but there is a "material" difference in every single cell of the salmon. And, that "material" is DNA and there is a difference in the nucleic acids of the fish. True, if we considered DNA and the nucleic acids, all GMOs would need to be labeled, but there is a difference that consumers should know about because consumers should also have the right to know that their food has been genetically modified. This is different from the example in the Wall Street Journal article about the labeling of milk from cows that were given a growth hormone to produce more milk because the "milk produced by treated and untreated cows is exactly the same" (www.dairycouncilof ca.org) and the hormones only affect the cow to make it produce more milk. The salmon on the other hand is genetically different in every cell, and consumers ought to know if the salmon they are buying is genetically modified.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703399404575506340629229692.html?mod=WSJ_WSJ_US_News_5
9 comments:
I think it is interesting to see how people react differently when there is a slight change to their products. For example, and this may seem silly, but let's say that you have two hamburgers. One hamburger is the typical, meaty brown color that it is, and one hamburger is green. They essentially are the same thing in taste and size, just not in appearance. I would assume that most people would not want to eat the green hamburger, mainly due to its unfamiliarity. This is an odd quality that most of us have.
The salmon taste the same, but they differ in composition. So what? I am in favor of labeling genetically modified foods, mainly because I myself would like to know if I was eating a GMO, but I do not think that this should make a difference in the consumption of salmon, whether it is a regular salmon or if it is genetically modified. People ought to take into consideration that with this genetically modified salmon, they will have their food in a quicker amount of time, seeing as how the salmon grows twice as quickly as regular salmon. Would you rather wait for essentially the same thing, or get over your fear of unfamiliarity and have your food at your own convenience?
I am in favor of labeling GMOs. Although one may argue that GMOs can immensely help the economy and our lives by producing more food cheaper, thus lowering prices, and providing more food for people, there is still a risk that should be taken in account. Nucleic acids in the fish are changed, ultimately changing the composition or "material" as Andrea said. As a result, when one unlucky person comes along and eats unlabeled GMO salmon, he or she could be in the risk of having his or her allergies triggered. The change in composition and material could be just the thing that causes someone's allergies to act up and cause them severe discomfort and many other effects allergies have on people. In the most severe cases, they can cause anaphylatic shock which can even lead to death. Although people might say only in very rare cases this will happen, how would you feel if you were the victim of this? Even despite a small risk of people developing horrible allergies, it should not be a risk taken to help people get more money by not labeling GMOs and selling more of their products. Labeling would be the best idea which can allow consumers to think best for themselves and it is up to their own judgement to have genetically modified food or not. It should not be out of their own will to risk these allergies.
The labeling of GMOs is comparable to the forced wearing of the Star of David for Jews in Nazi Germany. Forcing producers to label their fish is in essence sentencing them to a slow, economic death, especially with the recent bias towards organic foods, among other reasons, something Ryan will expound on latter.
Also, GMOs have no credible health detriments, something Jesvin will explain later.
Finally, corporations don't have ethical obligations to label GMOs, as Amrit will explain shortly.
We need GMOs, they are the future.
There is no convincing evidence to say that genetically modified foods pose a greater risk to one's health. Genetically modified simply means the transfer of genes to simply allow a beneficial trait to be expressed. There is no use of toxins or chemicals in this process. Some may argue that while this process is entirely biotechnology at work, they still fear foods derived from GMOs are hazardous to one's health. According to the World Health Organization, Food & Drug Administration, National Academy of Sciences, US Department of Agriculture, US EPA, and many other trusted organizations have conducted research and concluded there is no different in the health risks of foods produced by genetic modification and foods produced by traditional methods. Their scientists compared nutrient content (protein, fat, carbohydrates, fiber, etc.), even analyzing the amounts of the different kinds of amino acid that make up proteins. They also compared so-called anti-nutrients (such as lectins), undesirable substances that occur in small amounts in many foods. In all cases they found no substantial differences in composition or amount between genetically modified foods and traditionally produced foods.
Despite the amount of research suggesting foods derived from GMOs are no more dangerous than regular foods, many people still believe GMOs are largely dangerous. Why does this happen? I'll let Ryan explain:
To continue with Daniel and Jesvin's fantastic points, one must consider the very large bias our public currently holds against GMOs in general. This bias positions the public against these vital components of the food industry, and is completely irrational.
Currently, a majority of the American public holds a negative stance against GMOs, which accounts for the shift in consumer interest to so called "organic" and "natural foods."
(source: http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/labeling-genetically-modified-foods)
The success of supermarket chains such as Trader Joe's and Whole Foods owes itself to this bias. In fact, as Jesvin has explained above, this negative outlook on GMOs is wholly unjustified, given that there is no substantial evidence that GMOs actually affect our health negatively.
In actuality, GMOs have become a sort of "shock" label: consumers frequently are turned off by these foods just because they are "modified." Foods on today's market are indeed more "modified" than one might think: for instance, about 45% of corn and 85% of soybeans grown in the United States are, at this time, genetically modified. And there is still no overwhelming evidence to prove that GMOs are actually detrimental to human health.
As for the fish, there is also no evidence to prove that GMOs are actually detrimental to human health. A study about these modified fish found "only vitamin B6 content differed significantly, but still not enough to raise concerns."
Also, one must consider the lack of obligation on the part of the corporations to label these GMOs. The brilliant Amrit Saxena will expound on this point:
As suggested by Ryan Yu, I am a firm believer of the notion that there is no corporate ethical obligation to label products consisting of GMOs. Past posts have shown that there is little reason to believe that GMOs pose potentially detrimental health effects. As such, mandating the labeling of GMOs will only serve to hinder the tenants most central to our society: free enterprise and social and economic justice. The labeling of GMOs will only serve to dissuade misinformed consumers from purchasing genetically modified foods and will significantly damage the financial performance of relevant corporations, stifling research and ingenuity in this extremely necessary sector.
I have two central arguments to refute the corporate ethical obligation to label.
The first is that of potential detriments to human health (or lack thereof). As already noted, GMOs contain no toxins, chemicals, or otherwise directly harmful components and bodies as prominent as FDA and WHO have determined that there is no difference in health effects between traditional foods and genetically modified foods. Thus, there isn’t sufficient credible scientific evidence to support the notion that GMOs are harmful to human health. As such, companies have no obligation to label GMOs as they are not in any way endangering the wellbeing of their customers.
The second argument is that of environmentalism. Many argue that GMOs are inherently dangerous to the environment and should be labeled as a result. However, there is no largely-supported, scientific evidence to verify the notion that GMOs are ecologically-detrimental, and their labeling does not add any value in environmental efforts. Even if this were to be a substantiated concern, dealing with large environmental problems is not effectively done at the individual level, something that is stimulated by labeling. If GMOs were actually dangerous, it would be best for there to be concrete government action, not “niche consumerism.”
Thus, we need to stop squandering time in irrelevant and unnecessary debates such as GMO labeling and move on to assessing issues with legitimate environmental and health-related consequences.
As i said in Courtney's blog post i find it fine on some cases to allow these fish to be genetically modified as long as it is not harmful to peoples health. Also, the debate about labeling the fish i find is a good thing. People should be notified that they are eating a genetically modified fish because people should know what they are eating. I seem to recall that on the back of any packed food there is a nutrition box that explains what ingredients are in that food and everything else. AS with these fish i feel a nutrition label should be provided with an explanation that the fish is genetically modified and any other substance that is in that fish. It is just what the people deserve. Also, if the businesses find that telling consumers that they are eating a genetically modified fish such a big problem then why do this modification. They just need to see how it goes for them and if people don't want those fish then i guess it doesn't work out for them.
I think genetically motified foods are essential for the future of our planet. Resources are depleting each and every day,thus preperation for replacing essential foods such as:fish, grains,meat,dairy- is necessary. I agree with Christian who believes that labling should be required of genetically motified salmon. We have the right to know not only what we are paying for, but also what exactly we are putting into our bodies. Not saying that i beleive GMOs are bad, but knowledge of the product should just be a given to the consumer. I mean, what kind of society would we be if their indentities were hidden? How does that give someone trust in any other product they are eating?
So, many people have commented on GMO's not having any negative effects to the human body. But in reality, there hasn't been enough time to tell whether GMOs have a significant side effect on humans. And there hasn't been a study saying that guaruntees that GMOs are 100 percent safe. Also, having GMO in our food is not normal. Yes humans have harvested and cultivated the best of the yield and that could be called genetically modifying organisms. But, to make a real change, it take years and years but with today's technology, scientists are inserting manmade genes into natural products. We are the first generation to be totally dependent on GMO produce and therefore we are used to it. In a way we are allowing ourselves to be guniea pigs for testing whether GMOs have a harmful effect on the human body or not. It is not impossible for there to be a study done 40~50 years from now saying that GMO's have a negative effect on the human body because it takes that long to see a significant effect of continuously consuming genetically modified produce. And the bottom line is, it isn't natural and I am appalled at the fact that so many people submissively states that GMOs are safe because trusted government agencies claim they are.
Post a Comment