While I agree with the heading of Amanda Sookdeo's article from Tuesday's letter to the editor, "GMOs represent technology of the future," new technologies shouldn't invalidate good old American values.
Since its inception, America has experienced unprecedented change primarily due to technological advances analogous to that of GMOs: From cars and color TVs to the Internet and the iPhone. However, even in the wake of such enormous change, the fundamental rights our forefathers granted us have all but disappeared: The rights to vote, speak freely and even write opinion editorials. Why, then, are we suddenly being denied the right to know whether the food we eat has been genetically modified or not?
Opponents of genetically-modified-food labeling argue the added cost of differentiating between GM and non-GM foods is unnecessary. Sookdeo takes this argument a step further, suggesting people would view GM foods as "a harmful substance and not buy the product." But since when is the profitability of a biotechnology company of a higher priority than the freedom of choice?
As Peter Phillips put it in his article, "A Survey of National Labeling Policies of GM Foods," in the 2000 edition of The Journal of Agrobiotechnology Management and Economics, "There appears to be universal agreement that consumer choice needs to be enhanced through effective labeling, to allow consumers to choose between competing GM and GM-free food products." Apparently we've missed the memo.
