The Pros And Cons Of GMO Labeling

Introduction An increased global relationship between countries of varying development has directed many discussions related to the exchanges of resources and fair practices. The advancement of biotechnology since 20th century too has drawn the attention of many nations. While the knowledge of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) was limited to experts during early iterations, the basic concept of GMOs is readily accessible to many people today. The core definition behind GMOs is the addition of genetic material from one organism into another. The newly hybridized organism is then able to express a trait that was not present before but was found in the donor. For most individual in the population this basic understanding is sufficient. For

Since the 1997, the European Union (EU) has required mandatory labeling of all consumer products containing more than 0.9 percent of GM ingredients7. Japan, since April of 2001, has a similar requirement of a 5 percent threshold for labeling. Other countries with mandatory GMO labeling policies also include Australia, Russia and China7. With a total of 64 countries around the world willing to label GMO containing products, a majority of legislative initiatives in the US have strangely fumble expect that in Maine and Connecticut, both states who voters passed a conditional mandatory GMO labeling laws7, 10, 11. Although the step is small, it is one in the correct direction to maintain the safety of future generations of decision markers. According to one survey, 90 percent of Americans are in favor of GMO labeling in some form11. Given the example of numerous of countries and the opinion in favor of labeling, the need for action in the US is evermore present and staged for a policy addition to regulate this everyday

While proponents utilized the health uncertainties and the platform of individual choices to advance their agenda, opponents view the issue with a collective perspective. The potential health effects of long-term usage of GMOs are unknown and require future investigations. If such medical scrutiny will occur prior to a large dependency on GMOs in food sources, however, is uncertain. While the numbers of years since the introduction GM foods into market is minuscule, the integration of GMO into a majority of foods products illustrates its significance. The mandatory labeling of GMOs would result in avoidable negative consequences ranging from economic to social perspective while other potential options are available to the US public. The need for an informed decision is, undoubtedly, a continuous requirement for progress. While proponents argue that information leads to knowledge, information also leads to misconceptions and mistakes. The modern need for GMOs is not mandatory labeling but a better understanding behind the complex biotechnology before directly or indirectly influencing of the lives of many. At this time, mandatory labeling of GMOs is an unnecessary action. It, however, may change in the future as societal comprehension increases, defined supporting evidence emerges and social comfortability