Pobanz 1

Allison Pobanz

Professor Parry

English 2010

June 21, 2017

The Greatest Food Fight of All Time

[Revisions made to this text:

In order to strengthen this essay, a couple revisions were made during the writing

process. The main revision was adding specificity to the thesis. Initially, it did not explain the

ways in which each case had differing viewpoints. Adding the information by explaining the

side of the debate that is best known to their field of expertise and passion to the thesis

statement provided specifics about how the authors have differing views on the matter. The

second revision was enhancing the academic tone used in the conclusion section of this essay.

Instead of using me and I think, phrases that create a more objective argument are now

used.]

When an American consumer is grocery shopping, the food items that are picked up by

the individual and placed in the grocery basket have a plethora of labels. Much of the

information on those labels are considered mandatory by the federal Food and Drug

Administration; such as, a foods containment of peanuts and other potentially hazardous risks

(Cardineau et al. 35). However, currently, labeling a food that has been genetically modified is

not mandatory because the FDA has not found significant evidence to prove that GM food is

more harmful than non-GM food (Cardineau et al. 35). Consequently, heated debates fighting
 Pobanz 2

over whether or not manufactures for the United States should be required to label GM foods

have occurred.

Although this may seem like a simple battle with only two sides, a closer look reveals

the complexity of the issue. There are angles from business, consumer, government, and science

perspectives. For example, some companies, like Ben and Jerrys ice cream, may take on a

strong pro-labeling stance. Whereas, notable scholars and scientists provide a range of reasons

why labeling GM foods would adversely effect American society. There are then grass root

campaigns composed of stubborn citizens that vocally call for nationwide mandatory GMO

labeling laws. Each case presents differing viewpoints on how genetically modified foods should

be labeled by explaining the side of the debate that is best known to their field of expertise and

passion. The authors also prove to present useful and respectable information that ultimately

supports the common cause of maintaining a healthy democracy, economy, and society in the

United States.

As previously mentioned, some companies may take on a pro-labeling stance. Andy

Barker, the policy manager for Ben and Jerrys, argues that their company has a legacy in being

transparent about what is in each bite of ice cream. The business has fought for mandatory

labeling laws in regards to milk treated with rBGH, an artificial growth hormone, and for GM

products in the past, and plans to continue this platform in the future. According to the author,

those who support Ben and Jerrys are pleased that the company is straight-forward concerning

their labeling, and several studies have shown that the majority of people, about 90%, are in

favor of mandatory GMO labeling (19). It is evident that some companies, like Ben and Jerrys,

are passionate about the route they have chosen to take when it comes to being GMO and rBGH
 Pobanz 3

free. This may allow a business to rally with pride alongside the public that also supports similar

values.

Representing the viewpoint of citizens in Massachusetts, Martin Dagoberto, who is the

GMO Labeling Campaign Coordinator with Citizens for GMO Labeling, argues for the voice of

the people and their right to know. He states, Consumers have no shortage of legitimate reasons

why they need to know what theyre buyingthe public will settle for nothing less than clear,

conspicuous on-pack labeling of genetically engineered ingredients (Dagoberto 21). It is evident

that this argument is mainly based on the publics view of the matter. By advocating for the

people, this mans case sides with the hope that grassroot organizations and the power of the

state can influence the greater federal political scene.

A much different, and opposing view point from Martin Dagobertos, is that of the Gary

Merchant, Guy Cardineau, and Thomas Redick who wrote Thwarting Consumer Choice: The

Case against Mandatory Labeling for Genetically Modified Foods. Cardineau et al. propose

critiques against the arguments of mandatory labeling; such as, the right to know, consumer

choice, and public opinion (14). It digs deeper into the scientific and economic impact that

requiring GM labeling would have. As the authors mainly argue against labeling, the critical

thinking that takes place from the research in this book provides insight that compares and

contrasts with Ben and Jerrys claims and Martin Dagobertos stance.

It may appear that Ben and Jerrys business perspective compares perfectly with the

views of citizen campaign coordinator Martin Dagoberto, and they do to some degree, but it is

important to point out the possible intentions of the authors to notice the differences. Andy

Barker claims that GMO labeling aligns with the trend and that the non-GMO market is one

that is gaining noticeable consumer attention, with sales increasing by 14% each year (Barker
 Pobanz 4

19). From a business perspective, this seems to be a valid argument. It may also provide some

interesting insight to the motives of Ben and Jerrys passionate platform of being transparent in

their labeling strategies. The intent behind Dagobertos campaign seems to mainly be for

empowering the public, as seen in his example of illustrating the process of the first state,

Vermont, to enforce a mandatory GM food labeling law that was fueled by the people (21). This

alludes that the most important aspect of his argument is not for business or scientific purposes,

but for keeping democracy alive. However, the two viewpoints are once again adhesive when

Andy Barker informs that the home of Ben and Jerrys is in fact Vermont, which may point to

bias coming from the ice cream company (Barker 20).

The overarching similarity between Dagobertos and Barkers claims is the consumers

right to know. The authors of Thwarting Consumer Choice combat this argument. In the chapter

titled Consumer Choice, Cardineau et al. describe a phenomenon that is taking place. They

assert once GM products have been labeled, they can be specifically targeted for removal by

either governmental regulation or by pressure tactics against grocery store chains, other retailers,

food processors, and other participants in the food supply chain, (Cardineau et al. 42) thus

actually eliminating the choices that consumers have, rather than creating more options. This

argument contrasts greatly with those of activists, like Dagoberto, who build their claims around

the power labels have to promote informed consumer decision-making (22).

The public has voiced that labeling GM food is important. One of the main claims that

Andy Barker makes in behalf of Ben and Jerrys, as mentioned previously, is that the companys

fans are in favor of GMO labeling, with studies showing over 90% of people being in favor

(Barker 19). The Authors of Thwarting Consumer Choice agree that studies have shown these

statistics, but that there are flaws in the polls that measure consumers preferences on the matter
 Pobanz 5

(Cardineau et al, 47). It is also argued in the chapter Public Opinion that consumers do not

actually have a genuine interest in discerning between GM labels and non-GM labels when

buying food items at the store. This was found from a study conducted in France, the strongest

opposing country to GM food, when social scientists recorded that participants were indifferent

about the amount of money they would pay for a GM labeled chocolate bar compared to an

unlabeled chocolate bar after analyzing it for the space of three minutes (Cardineau et al. 48).

This study provides evidence for the critique the authors are formulating against those who argue

that public opinion is worthy validation for mandatory labeling. In response to scientific

discoveries such as this, Martin Dagoberto states transparency opponents will continue to cry

wolf and muddy the water, saying GMO labeling is meaningless and unnecessaryat the end

of the day, however, consumers have demonstrated that this information is important to them

(22). There are obviously stark differences in opinion relating to GM labeling and public

opinion. Some boldly proclaim that science proves that labels are meaningless, while others

place aside counterfeits that relate to scientific evidence and hold the ground that consumers will

have the last say.

It appears that there is an underlying cohesive motive that binds each viewpoint- that is

that each side is ultimately concerned for the general welfare of society. Whether it be a business

worried about giving customers what they want, and also gaining profit while doing so, or a

social figure advocating that democracy live on as the voice of the people is heard, there is a

common interest of providing only the best for consumers. This is even seen in the arguments

from Thwarting Consumer Choice. In the introduction of the book, the authors express their

concern for humanity by reflecting tragic would be the impacts of mandatory GM labeling in

denying populations in developing countries the many urgently needed benefits of food
 Pobanz 6

biotechnology (Cardineau et al. 13). This showcases that even opposing viewpoints to the issue

of mandatory GM food labeling is meant to be of benefit to the people, not just to big businesses

and the scientific community. At least, as consumers, we would like to believe that this is the

case.

During this point in time, it seems that placing a food item in the grocery cart without a

mandatory GM label is fine. The best route, that has the potential to lead to a clearer consensus,

will involve extensive research about the adverse effects that passing such a law will cause for

businesses and about how GMOs impact the human body. It appears that this genetically

modified food fight will not be finishing anytime soon, but until it does, the arguments will most

likely continue to become even more complex and heated.

 Pobanz 7

Works Cited

Barker, Andy. "A Business Perspective on GMO Labeling and Transparency." GeneWatch 29.1

(2016): 19-20. Academic Search Complete. Web. 15 June 2017.

Cardineau, Guy A., et al. Thwarting Consumer Choice: The Case against Mandatory Labeling

for Genetically Modified Foods. Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute for

Public Policy Research, 2010. Print.

Dagoberto, Martin. "The Status of GMO Labeling in the Laboratories of Democracy."

GeneWatch 29.1 (2016): 21-22. Academic Search Complete. Web. 15 June 2017.