Political Implications


To the previous article To the next article

Food labeling has been a topic of controversy around the world since the introduction of genetically modified foods to our supermarket shelves. Different nations have proposed various regulations concerning the consumers right to be aware of the contents of their food. It has been estimated that 25percent to 45 percent of major crops grown in the United States are genetically modified. However, legislation regarding GM foods has been reluctant thus far as the US does not want to jeopardize the trade surplus of agricultural exports.

Not all nations, however, feel the same sentiment. Other countries have hesitated to allow genetically modified food to be imported. European Union nations have added an amendment that effectively bans all GM food. The Supreme Court of India recently prohibited GM cotton until further information regarding its safety has been acquired. Australian and New Zealand health ministers have also recommended that GM foods be properly labeled. Here is a look at what a few other nations have decided, and thair stance on the labeling issue:


Foods derived from genetically modified organisms should always be labeled. It is important to give the consumer the opportunity to make informed choices.


The UK agrees completely with the Netherlands


Norway is especially concerned with the ethical and environmental effects of GM food. Thus, they too agree that food must be labeled.


Japans own consumers expressed an interest in GM foods and stressed that they are in support of proper labeling. The country is working internally to formulate a policy.


Supports labeling based on health and safety issues.


Argues that the only way to gain the confidence of consumers is to label GM foods as such.

ConclusionsNext page in the subjectPrevious page in the subjectEutrophication and hypoxiaAgricultural biotechnologyJoin the discussionReferences and readingsBack to homepageConclusions