Anyone who's read the paper or watched the news recently is well aware of the debate swirling around the (perceived) dangers of genetically modified foods or "Frankenfoods" as the activists have dubbed them. Because of the misleading and often untruthful allegations, many are clamoring for mandatory labeling of products containing genetically modified foods. .
.
On one hand you hear Senator Tom Hayden saying, "I want to know what I'm putting into my stomach. My primary concern would be the preservation of the democratic process against manipulation and invisibility." (Wall Street Journal, 12/22/99) On the flip side you have the California Farm Bureau Federation's Cynthia Cory, director of marketing and labor for the 85,000-member state farming organization, saying, "We're not against consumer information if it tells you something. But we are against warning labels when we think they're warning you about something that's not a threat." (Wall Street Journal, 12/22/99).
This paper will give a brief explanation of why I do not believe that mandatory labeling should be required.
What is meant by genetically engineered food crops? (Other terms that you might hear, and which are often used interchangeably, include biotechnology foods, bioengineered foods, and genetically modified organisms (GMO's).) The terminology describes crops that have been developed using the latest biotechnology techniques wherein a breeder is able to insert a gene that produces a specific characteristic directly into a plant. .
Traditional breeding methods involve crossbreeding plants in order to produce desired changes in that particular crop. These changes might be increased hardiness, more productivity or enhanced color. "The traditional method is quite imprecise because the farmer is shuffling thousands of genes in the offspring, causing them to have some of the characteristics of each parent plant. They then look for the plants with the most desirable new trait," states Dr.
