This document discusses the debate around mandatory labeling of genetically modified (GM) foods. While consumers fear potential negative health impacts of GM foods, evidence suggests GM crops provide economic benefits to farmers by reducing costs and increasing yields. Mandatory labeling could negatively impact farmers if consumers avoid GM foods due to misconceptions about health risks, as GM seeds are more expensive. However, theories about GM foods' health effects lack proof, while benefits include lower pesticide use and residues. Therefore, the document concludes mandatory labeling may harm farmers' livelihoods and cause unintended health consequences while not providing meaningful information to consumers.

1. 1
Introduction: The labeling of genetically modified (GM) foods is much debated.
GM foods have a poor reputation among most consumers due to fear of negative health
impacts. However, positive health benefits of GM organisms have more legitimate
support. In addition, the misconceptions of GM foods result in negative economic
consequences for farmers, as consumers are more likely to avoid the foods they know to
be genetically modified (Anderson, 2010). Therefore the labeling of GM foods should not
be mandatory, because of negative economic results and unwarranted theories of negative
health impacts.
The Economic Harm from Labeling: The labeling of GM food products could
end up being economically positive for the farmers. Those farmers who raise crops that
contain a GM content below 5% qualify as organic farmers (Demont & Devos, 2008),
and are then able to benefit from mandatory labeling by charging more for their produce
(Constanigro & Lusk, 2014). But ultimately, GM crops are good for the farmer. Qaim
(2009) tells us that farmers who use GM crops spend less on herbicides and labor.
Additionally, U.S. farmers that produce GM crops have larger gross margin gains
averaging $12 per hectare, a net economic benefit from GM crops that reduce the use of
insecticides by 8%, and have increased yields averaging 5% (Qaim, 2009). Labeling
means that consumers would avoid purchasing foods with GM ingredients – Constanigro
and Lusk (2014) found that consumers would be willing to pay about 10% more for foods
that are not GM. Considering the premium consumers would still pay to avoid GM foods,
all those farmers mentioned would face losses – GM seeds are more expensive, so
without the consumers to buy their produce and balance the expense of the seeds, smaller
farmers face large losses (Qaim, 2009).

2. 2
The Unknown Health Effects of GM Foods: The effect of GMOs on human
health is not confirmed, but there are many pessimistic theories. The Ghana Public Health
Association tells us that there are concerns that GMOs may be a source of endocrine
disruption (Amofah 2014) – just like DDT, a pesticide banned in 1972 because of its
negative health effects on the human endocrine system (Strong 2015). However, the key
word from that proceeding document (and many others on this topic) is may. Ultimately,
there is no true proof that GMO’s negatively affect one’s health. Furthermore, the use of
GMO’s can actually be beneficial. One of the main concerns of pesticide use is the
residue that remains on the crops and is ingested by the consumer – this is why organic
foods are so popular. With GM crops, pesticide residuals are lower both on the food and
in any water sources near the farming site (Qaim, 2009). Wu (2006) chronicles in a paper
the benefits of a specific GM crop – maize that contains the pesticide Bacillus
thuringiensis (Bt) – and explains that this particular grain has lower levels of cancer
causing mycotoxins than non-GM corn. The farmers of the crops benefit as well –
without the need for the application of pesticides, farmers have less exposure to
dangerous chemicals, particularly in less developed countries where the poisons are
applied manually (Qaim 2009). Though negative theories of the effects of GM foods are
popular, those theories have no proof, while the opposing side has clear benefits.
Conclusion: The controversy of labeling GM foods is complex. Consumers want
to know exactly what they are eating, but the choices they make based on labeling may
come from a fearful mindset. In this situation, the consequences are more than just quirks
on the customers end, but extend to affect the livelihood of farmers everywhere. The
choices that consumers make about which foods to purchase have a ripple effect that

3. 3
could severely harm the livelihood of a small farmer growing GM corn in an attempt to
cut down on pesticide use. In addition, by avoiding foods that they know to be GM,
consumers may unintentionally missing out on health benefits for themselves or cause
damage to the health of those who end up ingesting the pesticides that need to be used.
Mandatory labeling of GM foods is advertised as being advantageous for the consumer,
but the repercussions of labeling are more important than fretting over unsubstantiated
theories.
References
Amofah, G. (2014). Recommendations From a Meeting on Health Implications of
Genetically Modified Organism (GMO). Ghana Medical Journal. 48(2), 117-119.
Retrieved from EBSCO Host.
Andersen, L. B. (2010). The EU Rules on Labelling of Genetically Modified Foods:
Mission accomplished?. European Food & Feed Law Review, 5(3), 136-143.
Retrieved from EBSCO Host.
Costanigro, M., & Lusk, J.L. (2014). The signaling effect of mandatory labels on
genetically engineered food. Food Policy, 49(1), 259-267. Retrieved from
EBSCO Host.
Demont, M., & Devos, Y. (2008). Regulating coexistence of GM and non-GM crops
without jeopardizing economic incentives. Trends in Biotechnology, 26(7), 353-
358. Retrieved from Google Scholar.
Strong, A.L., Shi, Z., Strong, M., Miller, D.F.B., Rusch, D.B., Buechlein,
A.M.,…Bunnell, B.A. (2015). Effects of the Endocrine-Disrupting Chemical
DDT on Self-Renewal and Differentiation of Human Mesenchymal Stem Cells.
Environmental Health Perspectives. 123(1), 42-48. Retrieved from EBSCO Host.
Qaim, M. (2009). The Economics of Genetically Modified Crops. Annual Review of
Resource Economics. 1. 665-694 Retrieved from Google Scholar.
Wu, F. (2006). Bt Corn’s Reduction of Mycotoxins: Regulatory Decisions and Public
Opinion. Natural Resource Management and Policy. 30. 179-200. Retrieved from
Google Scholar.