|
|
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
GMO labeling is a consumer right
Last Friday, the Minneapolis City Council passed "the zucchini resolution" by an 11 to 1 vote. The resolution, which urges Congress to label all genetically modified foods and Minneapolis schools to offer organic foods as an alternative, enraged Minnesota's biotechnology industry. Although criticized for its "unnecessarily alarmist and inflammatory" wording, the resolution represents and catalyzes the growing concern among Americans about the safety of genetically engineered products.
Besides advocating the labeling of modified foods, the resolution requests Congress place a moratorium on genetically altered products until they have been adequately tested for possible long-term effects. It also suggests liability be assigned to the commercial developers of the controversial foods. The resolution urges city departments to include certified organic food vendors during all contract negotiations and special events, and the Minneapolis School District to provide certified organic lunches as an option.
The state's biotechnology industry implored the council to reconsider their decision, stating the resolution "serves no purpose other than to degrade and discredit the research in food betterment." To the delight of environmental activists, their ardent complaints had little impact. "It really boils down to people's right to know what's on their store shelves," said Council member Jim Niland, the resolution's author.
Can anyone really argue with the need to familiarize consumers with the products they are buying? Genetically modified products can be created more cheaply than organic food, making farmers who abstain from pesticides and genetically modified material less competitive. Americans should at the very least be allowed to make an educated decision at the grocery store.
Although the Food and Drug Association has declared modified foods to be safe, the long-term effects have yet to be fully understood. The resolution states reliable experts and biotechnology scientists have testified it is "highly probable" bioengineered foods contain "a host of undesirable health and environmental risk factors."
It is proven some genetically modified crops have detrimental consequences for surrounding ecology. The monarch butterfly is just one of many insect species to be endangered and threatened by genetically engineered crops.
Genetically modified foods are also under suspicion for causing serious damage to the immune system and antibiotic resistance levels. Current studies are pondering a possible connection between pesticides and cancer. Allergic reactions have already been assigned to several types of genetic modifications. If genetically modified foods prove harmful to humans, the clause assigning responsibility to commercial developers will come in handy when deceived consumers are searching for someone to sue.
Until theories linking genetically altered foods with fatal diseases have been dispelled, a moratorium on these products is logical. France, Germany and Luxembourg currently have moratoriums in place and the European Union and Japan mandate labels on foods prepared with modified materials.
The biotechnology industry believes this resolution has no purpose. But if nothing else, it stands to put a growing concern about biotechnology health risks to rest. The industry should welcome any probe into the quality of its products.