BMEN 202

Fall 2014
Position Paper
Group 4
Jacob Heuker, Cleome Hubbell, Danielle Godfrey, Michael Kempner, Kirsten Murphy, Caroline
Bullock, Liam McNamara

Debating the Ethical Justifiability of Mandatory Labeling on Genetically Modified Products

The topic of genetically modified organisms, and whether or not the consumer has the

right to know what food products contain them, is a subject of heated ethical debate in American

society. With sixty-four nations worldwideincluding Japan, Australia, Brazil, China, and

fifteen nations in the European Unionmandating that all GMO products have to be labeled,

United States citizens are beginning to wonder if the rest of the world knows something they do

not. Most people do not realize, however, that the foundational principles of genetic engineering

(GE) and agricultural biotechnology have been practiced by the human race for thousands of

years, or that what is considered the modern era of GMOs began almost forty years ago.

One of the original cases of a GMO was in 1978 when Genentech, a biotechnology

company, was able to produce insulin by transferring the human insulin gene into an E. coli

bacteria strain [1]. This implementation enabled the E. coli to produce human insulin by

themselves that was able to later be collected for treatment of patients with diabetes [1]. The

success of this experiment paved the way for the future of biotechnology and GMOS. During the

past thirty-six years there have been many other organisms that have been successfully

genetically modified to specifically benefit the human race. Two popular examples are Bt Corn

and Golden Rice. The former is a GM crop that contains Bacillus endotoxin, toxic to the corn

borer larvae plaguing the U.S. and Canada in 1996 but safe to most other organisms, including

humans [2]. The latter is infused with beta-carotene-producing genes, causing the rice to contain

a large amount of Vitamin A, and it was created to nourish the large populations in the world that

1
had a Vitamin A deficient diet [3]. Genetically engineered organisms have also been used to

increases crop yield, fortify food with needed vitamins, and reduce crop death due to pests [1].

It is apparent that with the introduction of these genetic engineering applications almost

forty years ago and their integration into American agriculture and manufacturing, GMOs and

their biotechnological processes are here to stay. The debate that exists at present, then, is not one

over whether foods entering the countrys markets and grocery stores should be genetically

modified at all. Rather, it is one that argues vehemently whether or not all genetically modified

foods should be required by law to be labeled as such. Although there is validity to both sides of

the debate, it is our belief that there should be no nationwide mandates on the labeling of GMOs.

In spite of the FDAs statement on GMOs that explicitly states that they do not pose any

health concerns presently, 91% of Americans support mandatory labeling of foods containing

genetically modified products [4]. Consumer interest in a products GMO content is a major

reason that this issue of labeling has emerged [5]. Many of these consumers feel they have a right

to know the process by which the food that they eat is created [4]. Consumers could more easily

determine and vary their personal intake of GMOs following a government mandate to label the

products which contain these ingredients. The consumers argument is that information about

GMO-labeled foods could be used to make decisions in the foods they buy in the same way that

mandatory nutritional facts have allowed consumers to determine the relative healthiness of

products [6]. Labeling of genetically modified ingredients would also allow consumers to verify

that the products that they buy fit into their particular ethical or religious ideology [7]. Certain

vegetarians may wish to avoid buying plant or fungal foods which have had genetic information

from animals injected into them [7]. Consumers who follow Judaism may also wish to avoid

genetically modified products, since the lines in both the Mishnah and the Bible forbid the

2
mixing of organisms of different species [7]. Some people may also veer away from certain

kinds of genetically modified organisms that they personally believe to be environmental

hazards. These consumers cite concerns with GMOs having adaptations that allow them to be

exposed to higher amounts of pesticides, which may harm nearby nonresistant organisms, as well

as adaptations that may allow them to out-compete other plants in their respective ecosystem if

they spread outside of their original agricultural setting [8]. Regardless of whether these

environmental concerns are plausible, mandatory labeling would provide the American public

with a greater body of knowledge on the products which they consume, thus enabling them to

choose to buy, and therefore financially support, products which they perceive as greener

alternatives. Many view the effects of genetically modified organisms on the environment, as

well as human health, as an area in which more research is necessary [5]. While many consumers

may not believe that genetic modification of organisms effects the safety of the final product,

they may wish to limit their consumption of these products until more research is completed on

this topic, since currently it has not been proven either way whether genetically modified

organisms are safe to eat [6].

Arguments that support the mandatory labeling of GMOs are both plentiful and valid.

However, it cannot be denied that the majority of the points brought up when proponing

mandatory GMO labeling are based out of concernconcern that GMOs may be harmful for

human ingestion, or that they may be detrimental to the ecosystem. The fact is that genetically

engineered crops have been planted, produced and consumed throughout the world since 1996

[3]. Meals have been made and eaten containing these foods for years, in mass amounts, and

there has still been no substantial instance of illness or harm recorded from consuming these

[14]. The FDA has no scientific evidence of genetically engineered foods that would cause them

3
to deem GMOs unsafe. The FDA argues that because genetically engineered foods do not

propose any health concerns it is unnecessary to label them [11]. A label would imply a warning

of a health effect; this opposes the view that genetically engineered foods have no negative

effects on human health [12].

Due to the indifference between genetically engineered foods and their natural

counterparts, it is not the production of the organism but rather the final health of the organism

that needs to be evaluated [11]. The safety of the final organism will depend on what genes are

changed [11]. The FDA allows for a voluntary consultation process in which the developer

performs a safety assessment; this determines the effects of newly present genetic traits [9]. The

test observes if anything contained in the organism could be toxic or allergenic, and also

compares the nutrition of the new organism to that of the traditionally bred plant [9]. The

organisms health is then confirmed by which gene is altered and how this new trait affects the

organism, rather than if it was simply genetically engineered [9]. The FDA has specific standards

that all food must meet regardless of the genetic origin to ensure it is safe to consume [10]. Those

who do not wish to consume genetically engineered already have the option to buy organic or

non-GM foods [12]. Labeling GMOs may push uneducated and wary consumers away from

buying products which have been genetically engineered, even though they might be less

expensive and equally or more nutritious [11]. If this trend reaches great enough amplitude, the

market may shift away from these products, potentially resulting in an overall higher cost and

less nutritious food supply. Because the public as a whole is not well educated about GMOs, it is

better to leave the foods unlabeled so consumers do not decide whether or not to purchase food

off of uneducated views [11].

4
 Another concern with mandating that all GMOs be labeled is the expense of labeling and

determining the genetic content of food and the burden it will put on the taxpayer [14]. In order

to ensure honest and reliable manufacturer labeling processes, DNA testing must be performed

by a third party entitynamely, the government. The resources and labor required to carry out

these tests will cost manufacturers money, which will be passed on to the consumer. The costs to

label food will raise prices of food and affect all consumers, even those that did not find labeling

necessary [13]. Due to lack of funds the food system infrastructure could not accommodate the

amount of money it requires to differentiate genetically engineered and non-genetically

engineered organisms [13].

As is typical of any ethical debate, there is validity in both supporting and opposing the

mandatory labeling of all GMO products. While there is presently no damning scientific

evidence or substantiated instance of harm from consuming genetically engineered food, there

are certain cultural and religious views that a select group of consumers may have conflict with.

However, the FDA reiterates that it is unnecessary to label GMO products because there is no

evidence that they are any more harmful than their natural counterparts. Although some argue

that they have the right to know what they are putting in their bodies, food manufacturers already

include a list of ingredients and nutritional facts on their packaging, and companies that do not

make their product with GMOs proudly display that fact with a GMO-Free or 100% Organic

label on their packaging. The demand for mandatory labeling is bred by the ignorance and

laziness of the American public. It is not the governments responsibility, but the consumers, to

find out what they are putting in their body.

5
References:

1) N.p., n.d. 22 Nov. 2014. "How Are GMOs Made?" HudsonAlpha Institute for
Biotechnology. <http://archive.hudsonalpha.org/education/kits/gmod/gmos-made>.

2) Bessin, Ric. "Bt-Corn: What It Is and How It Works." University of Kentucky

Department of Entomology, 01 Nov. 1999. Web. 24 Nov. 2014.
<http://www2.ca.uky.edu/entomology/entfacts/ef130.asp>.

3) Ye, X; Al-Babili, S; Klti, A; Zhang, J; Lucca, P; Beyer, P; Potrykus, I (2000).

"Engineering the provitamin A (beta-carotene) biosynthetic pathway into (carotenoid-
free) rice endosperm".Science 287 (5451): 3035
4) N.p., n.d. 23 Nov. 2014. "Right to Know-Why Label It?" Just Label It.
<http://justlabelit.org/right-to-know/>

5) Public Health Association of Australia. 2007. 23 Nov. 2014. Genetically Modified

Food. PHAA Annual General Meeting.
<http://www.phaa.net.au/documents/policy/GMFood.pdf>

6) N.p., n.d. 23 Nov. 2014. The Science of Genetically Modified Foods. Label GMOs.
<http://www.labelgmos.org/the_science_genetically_modified_foods_gmo>

7) Shoot, Brittany. 2009. 23 Nov. 2014."GMO or No: Problematic Intersections of Religion,

Biotechnology, and Food." Religion Dispatches. SUNY Press.
<http://religiondispatches.org/gmo-or-no-problematic-intersections-of-religion-
biotechnology-and-food/>.

8) Glass, Emily. 2 Aug. 2013. 23 Nov. 2014. The Environmental Impact of GMOs.
OneGreenPlanet. <http://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/the-environmental-
impact-of-gmos/>

9) 8 Apr. 2013. 20 Jun. 2014. Foods Derived from Genetically Engineered Plants. U.S.
Food and Drug Administration.
<http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodScienceResearch/Biotechnology/ucm346858.htm>.
10) Food and Drug Administration, Statement of policy. Foods derived from new plant
varieties. Federal Register, Vol. 57, No. 104, U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 29 May
1992.
11) H-480.958 Bioengineered (Genetically Engineered) Crops and Foods. American
Medical Association. <https://ssl3.ama-assn.org/apps/ecomm/PolicyFinderForm.pl?
site=www.ama-assn.org&uri=%2fresources%2fhtml%2fPolicyFinder%2fpolicyfiles
%2fHnE%2fH-480.958.HTM>.
12) 23 Oct. 2014. P. Byrne, D. Pendell, & G. Graff. Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods.
Colorado State University. Extension no. 9.371

6
13) Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST). The Potential Impacts of
Mandatory Labeling for Genetically Engineered Foods in the United States. 2001, Issue
Paper 54. CAST.
14) 22 Mar. 2012. Voters Overwhelmingly Support A Labeling Requirement For GE Foods.
The Mellman Group Inc. <http://justlabelit.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Mellman-
Survey-Results.pdf>.