Cintron 1

AmandaCintron
ENC1102
ProfessorWolcott
TheDawnGurus
23March2015
ThereismuchcontroversyaswhetherthecurrentpolicyofGeneticallyModified
Organisms(GMOs)labeling(voluntarylabeling)isthebestapproach.Eventhough
proponentsofGMOsclaimittobeperfectlysafe,somerefusetolabelit.Thisannotated
bibliographyaimstoprovideanoverviewofthecurrentdebatebyprovidingseveral
rationalessupportingandagainstmandatoryGMOlabeling.Itincludespeerreviewed
journalarticles,reportsbyscientistswithaccreditations,periodicalsthatgivecontext,
andknownAmericanmagazines.Mostinformationisrecent,(last5years),butsomego
backto2000.Topicsdiscussedarepreferencesofthepublic,thelegalaspectsofthe
differentpolicies,theconcernsandfearsofthepublic,thepoliciesofothercountries,
consequencesoflabelingornot.Itdoesnotgoingintodetailofthedifferenttechniques
ofgeneticmodification.Thefocusisonthepoliciesoflabelingandthecomplexitiesofit.
ThisannotatedbibliographyservesasaguideforanyoneresearchingGMOs,
specificallythelabelingaspects.Itincludespeoplewhohavestrongfeelingstoward
eithersideofthedebateorpeoplewhowanttobeinformedofseveralcurrentissues.Itis
forthegeneralpublicsincetheterminologyusedissimple.
Annotatedbibliography
Appleton,ArthurE."TheLabelingOfGMOProductsPursuantToInternationalTradeRules."
NewYorkUniversityEnvironmentalLawJournal8.3(2000):566578.IndextoLegal
Periodicals&BooksFullText(H.W.Wilson).Web.23Mar.2015.ArthurE.Appleton,
J.D.,Ph.D.isanattorneywithLalive&Partners,Geneva,Switzerland.Thistextisan
editedversionofhisconferencepresentation.Theauthordiscussesseveralpointsonthe
labelingofGMOproducts,andthendiscussesthelegalityoflabelinginregardstothe
MarrakeshAgreementEstablishingtheWorldTradeOrganization(WTOAgreement).
Hebeginsbycitinggroundsforandagainstlabeling.Themostimportantargumentin
supportofGMOlabeling,thatrepeatedlyreceivesthemostattention,istheconsumers
righttoknow.Hesaysitisdifficulttodisputeandweareplacingalotofconfidencein

Cintron 1
governmentofficialstomakethecorrectagriculturalpolicydecision.Labeling
proponentsalsocitehealthconsiderationssuchasprotectingpeoplewithallergens.
AnothercitedrationaleisthatGMOlabelingisenvironmentallybeneficialbecauseit
makesiteasierforconsumerstobasetheirdecisionsonenvironmentalfactors.However,
heexplains,GMOlabelingitselfisnotlikelytoeliminatetheserisksordiminishthese
environmentalproblemsassociatedwithGMOproducts,iftheseallegationsareprovento
betrue.Inthatcase,regulatoryschemesandprohibitionsshouldbeimposed.Another
groundinfavoroflabelingisitsabilitytoinfluenceforeignanddomesticproduction
practicesandhetheroleoftheWTObasedtradingsystem.Hethengivestheseveral
rationalesagainstGMOlabeling.Oneofthemisthatmanybusinessinterestsfearthatthe
labelwouldstigmatizetheproducts.Somepeoplesayitevendiscouragesthe
developmentofthispromisingtechnology.Hequestionsthevalidityofthesefears
becausehegavetheexampleofatomatopastethatdeclinedinsalesbecauseofitsGMO
labelintheUKbutthengaveanotherexampleofhowothercompanieshavetakena
positiveviewonGMOlabeling.Anotherargumentagainstlabelingisthecostthatwould
comewiththedirectandindirectcostsoflabelingandsegregationprocesses.Lastly,
manytradespecialistsandbusinessleadersopposeGMOlabelingbecauseofits
perceivedimplicationsfortheinternationaltradingsystem.ManyWTOmembersobject
totheuseoflabelingtoinfluenceforeignproductionprocesses,technicalregulations,and
standards.Hegivesmanyexamplesofthelegalcomplicationsthatariseduringtrade
becausedifferentcountrieshavedifferentrequirementsforfoodlabeling.TheWTOs
membersaretryingtoreachaconsensusonhowtoapplyWTOrulestotheGMOissue.

Cintron 1
Onereasonforthistensionbetweendomesticpolicyinterestsrelatedtobiotechnology
andinternationaleconomiccommitmentsisthattheWTOAgreementwasnotdrafted
withthefullunderstandingofbiotechnologyissuesinmindsoseveraluncertainties
remain.Hethenaddressesthosemisperceptionsanduncertaintiesofrelationship
betweentheWTOandGMOlabeling.Eventhoughthistextgoesintodetailsoflaw
technicalitiesandinternationalissuesthatarebeyondmycomprehensionandtopic,it
givesexamplesofrationalesforandagainstlabelingandexplainstheissuesand
consequencesthatariseinregardsoftheWTOifthereislabelingandifthereisnot.It
showsthatlabelingisaverycomplexissuethathaseconomiceffectsoninternational
trade.

Bailey,RonaldE.,andLindaM.Bolduan."Geneticallymodifiedfoods:labelingissuesare
drivingtheregulatorsandcounsel."DefenseCounselJournalJuly2001:308.Academic
OneFile.Web.1Mar.2015.Eventhoughthisarticleisnotrecent,itgivesalegal
perspectiveastowhyGMOsshouldbelabeledandseveralgroundsforit,aswellasthe
legalreasonswhythesegroundswereshutdown.ThisarticlefromtheDefenseCounsel
Journaltalksabouthowin1992,theU.S.FoodandDrugAdministration(FDA)adopted
apolicyongeneticallymodifiedfoods.In2000,acoalitionofconsumergroupsand
individuals,InAllianceforBioIntegrityv.Shalala,challengedtheFDAspolicy,butthe
federalcourtrejectedit.Theychallengedthepolicyon6differentgrounds.Iwilldiscuss
the2ofthemthatwererelatedtolabelingandarerelevanttothisconversation.Oneof
thegroundsstated,TheFDA'sdeterminationnottorequirespeciallabelingfor

Cintron 1
geneticallymodifiedfoodswasarbitraryandcapricious.TheFederalFood,Drug,and
Cosmeticact(FFDCA)requireslabelingtorevealmaterialfactsrelevantto
representationsaboutandtheconsequencesofusingafoodproduct.UndertheUSC
Section321,itstatesthatfoodsareconsidered"misbranded"iftheirlabelingfailsto
revealtherequisitematerialfacts.Inthepolicystatement,theFDAconcludedthat
foodsdevelopedthroughgeneticmodificationtechniquesdonot"presentanydifferentor
greatersafetyconcernthanfoodsdevelopedbytraditionalplantbreeding."Therefore,the
FDAdecidedthatthemethodsusedinthedevelopmentofanewplantvarietywouldnot
"normally"constitute"material"informationwithinthemeaningofSection321and
consequently"wouldnotusuallyberequiredtobedisclosedinlabelingforthefood."
Theplaintiffsarguedthatthegeneticmodificationprocessitselfwasamaterialfactunder
Section321.However,thecourtpointedoutthatdisclosureofthe"conditionsormethods
ofmanufacturehaslongbeendeemedunnecessary"undertheFFDCAsincetheproduct
ofthosetechniquesdonotpresentanydifferentorgreatersafetyconcernthanfoods
developedbytraditionalplantbreeding.TheothergroundpresentedwasthattheFDA's
decisionnottoregulateorrequirelabelingforgeneticallymodifiedfoodsburdenedthe
plaintiff'sreligioninviolationoftheReligiousFreedomRestorationActof1993
(RFRA),42U.S.C.Subsection2000bb2000bb4.Thecourtrecognizedthatthelackof
labelingmightresultin"potentialinconvenience"becausethoseplaintiffswhose
religiousbeliefrequiredsomedietaryrestrictionswouldnotknowwhichfoodswere
geneticallymodified.ThecourtstatedthattheFDA'sdecisionnottomandatelabeling

Cintron 1
didnotsubstantiallyburdenplaintiffs'religiousbeliefs,anddecidedthattheFDA's
policystatementdidnotforceplaintiffstoabandonthosebeliefs.

Beales,J.Howard,III."Modificationandconsumerinformation:modernbiotechnologyandthe
regulationofinformation."FoodandDrugLawJournalJan.2000:105117.Academic
OneFile.Web.1Mar.2015.Thisarticlealsogivesseveralcommonrationalesthatpeople
whoadvocatemandatoryGMOlabelingandheexplainsreasonbyreasonwhythese
groundsareinvalid.Mr.BealesisanAssociateProfessorofStrategicManagementand
PublicPolicy,SchoolofBusinessandPublicManagement,TheGeorgeWashington
University,Washington,D.C.HewasformerlyAssociateDirectorforPolicyand
EvaluationintheBureauofConsumerProtectionattheFederalTradeCommission.The
articlebeginswithadiscussionofmodernbiotechnologyandthetypesofbiotechnology
products.Thenheaddresseslabelingofgeneticallymodified(GM)agriculturalproducts.
Hedoesnotaddressenvironmentalimpacts,justdiscusshowtheinformationofGMOs
shouldberegulated.Firsthesaysthatallmoderncropsareinsomewaygenetically
modified.Forexample,heexplainsthatmanyplantsareselectedandcrossbredwith
otherplants(ordifferentspeciesusingtissueculturetechniques)toproducetraitsthat
willdonotoccurnaturallyinnaturebuthelpthemsurvive,suchasresistancetodrought,
diseaseandinsects.Theproductofthesetechniquesresultedinplantsthatprobably
wouldnothavesurvivedwithouthumanintervention.Nonetheless,thereapparentlyhas
neverbeenanyinterestinidentifyingsuch"modified"organismsinlabeling.Forthe
purposesofthisarticle,geneticallymodifiedmeanstheproductofrDNAtechniquesof

Cintron 1
modernbiotechnology.Hegoesontogiveseveralrationalesforspeciallabelingandgoes
ontosaywhytheyarenotgoodreasons.First,heexplainsthatitwouldenable
consumerstoavoidrisksoftoxicity.Hethensaysthatiflabelingcanhelpminimizethe
problem,thecrucialinformationisthenatureofthetoxicity,nottheprocessthat
introduceditintothefood.Second,GMOsmayintroducenewallergensintoproducts
whereconsumerswouldnotexpectthem,butthecrucialinformationisthenatureofthe
addedallergen,notthemeansbywhichitwasincorporatedintheproduct.What
consumersneedtoknowisthattheallergensarepresent.Whetherconventional
crossbreeding,rDNAtechniques,oreventhemixingofperfectlyconventional
ingredientsintroducedtheprotein,theeffectsonallergicconsumerswillbeexactlythe
same.Third,someclaimthatGMOfoodsshouldbelabeledbecauseofaconsumer's
"righttoknow."A"righttoknow",hesays,couldbepetitionedtojustifylabelingabout
anydetailoftheproductionprocess,fromuseofchemicalfertilizers,tothewagerateand
nationaloriginoftheworkerswhoplantedandharvestedthecrop,tothelaborpractices
ofthemanufacturer,tothesoilconservationpracticesofthefarmer.Itisimpossibleto
listallthethingsthatmightmattertoeveryone.Otherspeciallabelingadvocatesclaim
thatsomeGMOsmayraiseethicalconcerns.Forexample,animalgenesmaybe
incorporatedintoplants,possiblyraisingissuesforvegetarians.rDNAtechniquesemploy
copiesofgenesthatmayhaveoriginatedfromanimals,buttheresultinggenetic
combinationisaplant.Itdoesanyanimalcharacteristics.Anotherreasonpeoplewant
labelingisbecausethatrisksstillremainbecausetheylackthehistoryofsafeusethat
conventionalposses.Hesaysthatbiotechnologypresentslessrisksthanconventional

Cintron 1
breedingtechniquesbecauseitismoreprecise.Finally,speciallabelingofGMOfoods
hasbeenadvocatedbecausewhenqualitytraitsareinvolved,theproductmayhave
significantlydifferentfunctionalcharacteristics.However,thekeyinformationthat
consumersneedisthefactofthedifference,notthemethodusedtoproducethat
difference.Forexample,asoybeanvarietyhasastearicacidcontentthatdiffers
substantiallyfromconventionalsoybeans,theimportantfactforconsumersisthatafood
containshigherorlowerlevelsthantheymightexpectordinarily.Inconclusion,
informationabouthowthedifferencewasproducedmaymislead,ratherthaninform
manyconsumers.Alabel"containsGMOsorGMOderivedingredients"providesno
usefulinformationonspecificqualitiesthathavechangedandmayevensuggest
differencesthatdonotexist.Heclaimsthatvoluntarylabelingisthemostefficient
becausetheconsumerswhovaluetheinformationaretheoneswhomustpaythecosts
associatedwithitandthosewhodonotcarearenotimposedwiththecostofinformation
thattheydontcareabout.

BrianRoe,MarioF.Teisl,Geneticallymodifiedfoodlabeling:Theimpactsofmessageand
messengeronconsumerperceptionsoflabelsandproducts,FoodPolicy,Volume32,
Issue1,February2007,Pages4966.Duringthesummerof2002,BroeandTeisl,
DepartmentofAgricultural,EnvironmentalandDevelopmentEconomicsatOhioState
UniversityandDepartmentofResourceEconomicsandPolicyatUniversityofMaine,
respectively,administeredamailsurveytoanationallyrepresentativesampleof6172US
residents.Intotal2387individualsrespondedtothesurveyforaresponserateof39%.

Cintron 1
Theyaimedtoansweraquestionthatisrepeatedthroughoutmybibliography,whichis
whetherthepublicisbestservedbyalabelthatstatesthepresenceorabsenceofGM.
WhiletherelativecostsofeachtypeoflabelwilldependupontheamountofGMand
GMfreeproductsandtherequirementsofproductsegregationandtesting,thebenefits
maydependonwhichmessagewillbebelievedbyconsumers.Theydiscusshowthe
informationcontainedintheGMlabel,otherthancontainsornotcontainsGM,mayhave
asignificantimpactonhowsuccessfulthelabelingpolicyisandonhowpeopleperceive
thosefoods.Fewbenefitswillcomefromalabelingpolicyunlesstheinformation
conveyedtotheconsumerisviewedascredibleandadequate.Resultsfromthestudy
suggestedthatprovidingaformofcontactinformationonthelabelsignificantly
improvesthecredibilityandadequacyratingsofboththeGMandNoGMclaim.The
datashowedthatthecredibilityoftheGMandNoGMlabelarenotstatisticallydifferent
whencontactinformationispresentedbutwithoutcontactinformation,theGMlabelis
significantlymorecrediblethantheNoGMlabel.Thisprovidesaccesstomoredetails
aboutgeneticmodificationandthelabelingandallowsinterestedconsumersawayto
betterunderstandexactlyhowtheagencysupportsthelabelsclaim.Providinggreater
transparencyimprovescredibility,whichisneededtothesuccessoflabelingpolicies.
Also,thedatasuggeststhatwhenthelabelexplicitlystatesthatgeneticmodificationmay
havelongtermhealthconsequencesperceivedhealthratingsarenotperceivedmuch
differentlyfromsimilarclaimsthatdonothavethislanguage.Thissuggeststhatthe
languagehaslittleimpactonconsumerspreconceivedhealthperceptionsfortheproduct.
ThedataalsosuggeststhattheadequacyoftheGMlabelisincreasedifthelabelalso

Cintron 1
declaresthereasonwhyGMtechniquesarebeingused.Insummary,thestudyshowed
thatthelabelviewedasmostcredibleandwasaNonGMlabelcertifiedbyFDAthat
includedcontactinformationwhichwoulddirectconsumerstodetailsofthecertification
process.Aproductcarryingsuchaclaimwasviewedbythesubjectsashavingfewer
longtermhealthimpacts.

Buckingham,D.(2000).ThelabelingofGMfoodsTheLinkbetweenCodexandtheWTO.
AgBioForum,3(4),209212.BeforeassumingthepositionofChairpersonoftheCanada
AgriculturalReviewTribunal,Dr.Buckinghamactedasaprivatelawyer,government
lawyer,lawprofessor,authorandconsultantintheareasofagriculturallaw,foodlawand
internationaltradeinagriculturalproducts.Thisarticlesfirstdiscussesthehistoryofand
operationofCodex,itsinvolvementinmattersaffectingtradeinproductsof
biotechnologyandconcludeswithchallengesthatlieinthefuture,regardingtheongoing
discussionsatCodexconcerningthelabelingofGMfoods,andhowthesemightplayout
intheWTO.TheCodexAlimentariusisacollectionofinternationallyrecognized
standards,codesofpractice,guidelinesandotherrecommendationsrelatingtofoods,
foodproductionandfoodsafety.ItusedbytheWorldTradeOrganization(WTO)asan
internationalreferencepointtoresolvedisputesconcerningfoodsafetyandconsumer
protection.TherearecurrentlynoCodexstandardsinplaceforproductsof
biotechnology.However,therehasbeenanincreasingconcernforthistopic.Thearticle
goesintolegalissuesandtechnicalitiesbeyondmycomprehensionandmytopic.They
discussthechallengesbeforeCodexrelatingtotheregulationoftheproductsof

Cintron 1
biotechnology.Howeveritisimportanttonotethatthisdebateofbiotechnologyproducts
hasbeengoingonforalongtime,usuallywithouttakinginternationalstandardin
consideration,despitethefactthatsomememberstatesarebeginningtoenactnational
legislationonthisissue.
Carter,C.,Grure,G.(2003).Mandatorylabelingofgeneticallymodifiedfood:Doesitreally
provideconsumerchoice?TheJournalofAgrobiotechnologyManagementand
Economics6(1&2),6870.ProfessorintheUniversityofCalifornia,Davis,aimto
explainwhymandatorylabelingofGeneticallyModifiedfoodsfailtoprovideconsumer
choicewhentheoppositeiswhattheystrivefor.TheyusetheEuropeanUnion(EU)as
anexample.TheEUofficiallyrecognizesthatapprovedGMfoodsareassafeas
conventionalfoods,andmandatorylabelingisjustifiedsolelybythedesiretoprovide
informedconsumerchoice:"WeareallowingGMfoodontothemarketbutonourterms
sopeoplecanmakeafullandinformedchoice."However,withtheimplementationof
thispolicy,GMproductsvanishedintheEU.AnotherexampletheygiveishowJapan
alsoadoptedmandatorylabelinganditisdifficultorimpossibletofindfoodswiththat
label.Sincethesefactsarenotwellpublicized,theresultisthatmanyobserversstill
questionhowmanypeoplearestillopposedtomandatorylabelingifitprovides
informationtoconsumers.Otherthanfailinginitsgoalofprovidingconsumerchoice,it
willcostadditionaltaxpayermoneyasaresultofenforcementandtesting.Themost
importantpointforhimisthatmandatorylabelingactsasamarketbarrier.Hesaysthat
GMlabelingprovidesfoodprocessorandretailerchoice,nottheconsumer.Ifprocessors
wereusingGMingredientspriortotheintroductionofthelabelingpolicy,theywould

Cintron 1
decidewhethertokeepthesameformulationandlabeltheirfinalproducts,orswitch
ingredientstoavoidlabeling.MostfoodprocessorssellingintotheEUandJapanhave
shiftedingredientsawayfromGMduetoperceivedpressurefromconsumersand
retailers.Thus,theirdecisioniswhatwilldeterminetheoutcomesofanyfoodlabeling
policy.Also,mandatorylabelingwillmakeiteasierforpressuregroupsopposedto
geneticmodificationtotargetanyproductthatcarriessuchlabelandtheprocessingfirm
thatproducesit.HesaysthatthereasonpeoplethatopposeGMfoodssupportlabeling
evenifitssupposedtokeeptheGMfoodsinmarketisbecausetheyknowthatthispolicy
willleadtonochoiceinpractice.HesaysthatThemandatorylabelingschemesinplace
todaymaybecomparedtoavotingsystemwithmajorityrepresentation,wherethe
winnertakesall.SomeconsumerswouldprobablybuyGMproductsiftheyhadthe
choice,butthemandatorylabelingsystemdoesnotgivethemanychoice.Theonlyway
thattheyfoodscouldcoexistinthemarketinthelongrunisifthepublicisproperly
educatedandtheacceptancechangesdrastically.Heagreeswiththeeconomiststhat
arguethatvoluntarylabelingismoreefficientbecauseitprovidesconsumerchoiceas
longasthemaximumwillingnesstopayfornonGMproductsexceedsthepremiumprice
(changefromthebenchmarkprice).

Crespi,JohnM.,andStephanMarette."'DoesContain'vs.'DoesNotContain':DoesitMatter
whichGMOLabelisUsed?"EuropeanJournalofLawandEconomics16.3(2003):
327.AcademicOneFile.Web.1Mar.2015JohnE.Crespi,DepartmentofAgricultural
EconomicsatKansasStateUniversityandStphanMaretteUMREconomiePubliquein

Cintron 1
Paris,France,aimtoanswerthequestionofwhichproductshouldcontainthelabelif
GMOlabelingismademandatory,withconsumerwelfareasthegoal.Theydiscusstwo
simplifiedlabelingpossibilitiesforaproduct:DoesContainGMOsandDoesNot
ContainGMOs.Theselabelswouldcorrespondtotwodifferentfinancingoptions
becausethecostwillbepassedoninoneortheotherproduct.Theyconcludethateither
labelundermandatorylabelingprovidesperfectinformationtoallconsumersbecause
onelabelsignalstheunlabeledproductsidentity.Underamandatorylabelingpolicy,a
labelnotonlysignalsthequalityofthelabeledgood,butimplicatesthenonlabeled
product,aswell.Itmightseemthatthewelfareeffectsforeitherlabelwouldbe
equivalentbuttherequirementofalabelalsoimposesacostonthelabelingfirm.
Becauseofthis,thereisawelfaredistortionthatpolicymakersneedtoconsider.They
useasimple,singleperiod,asymmetricinformationmodel(whichisoutofmy
comprehension)thattakesintoaccountboththediversityofconsumerspreferences,
whichismeasuredbytheirwillingnesstopay,andthelinkbetweenlabelinganditscost.
TheyconcludethatthelabelDoesContainwillbeselectedbyawelfaremaximizing
governmentiftherearemanyconsumers,relativetoindifferentconsumers,whoare
reluctanttopurchaseproductscontainingGMOs,whilethelabelDoesNotContain
willbechosenifthatratioissmall.Usingthismodel,theyprovidesupportinsome
nationsandquestionthepoliciesofothers.Somedisputeshaveariseninregards
internationaltrading.CountriesliketheUS,whoaremorelikelytouseGMOs,have
accusedimportingcountriesofrequiringmandatorylabelsthatsayDoesContain
GMOsinordertoplaceburdensonUScompetitors.Withthismodel,theyanalyzedthat

Cintron 1
thisisnotthecaseandthelabelingdifferencesindifferentcountriesarenotbecauseof
protectionisttraderegulations.

Dahl,Richard.ToLabelorNottoLabel:CaliforniaPreparestoVoteonGeneticallyEngineered
Foods.EnvironmentalHealthPerspectives120.9(2012):a358a361.PMC.Web.1
Mar.2015.TheauthorisafreelancewriterandwritesforMassachusettsInstituteof
Technology.Heisnotadoctororscientistbutquotesscientistsfrombothsidesofthe
argument.Itwaswrittenin2012beforeCaliforniavotedonProposition37andeven
thoughitdidnotpassitstillgivesusefulinformation.ItexplainstouswhatProposition
37isandheprovidesseveralpointsofthepeopleforandagainstit.Ifpassed,the
CaliforniaRighttoKnowGeneticallyEngineeredFoodActalsoknownasProposition
37wouldrequirethatallrawfoodproductscontainingGMOsbelabeledas
geneticallyengineeredandthatanyprocessedfoodscontainingGMOsbelabeledas
partiallyproducedwithgeneticengineeringormaybepartiallyproducedwithgenetic
engineering,withimplementationdue1July2014.Thelawwouldexemptmeat,dairy,
andotherproductsfromanimalsthatGMOcontainingfeed.Itwouldnotexemptthse
productsiftheanimalsthemselvesweregeneticallymodified.Itwouldalsoexempt
restaurantfoodandalcohol.Peoplethatopposeitsaythatthelabelhasnovaluesince
anythingthatisapprovedisalreadysafeandthatcostswouldgoupbecauseoflabeling.
Peoplethatareforitthinkthatthesafetyofthesefoodsisquestionableandthatpeople
shouldbegivenachoice.

Cintron 1
Fredland,JohnStephen."UnlabeltheirFrankensteinfoods!EvaluatingaU.S.challengetothe
EuropeanCommission'slabelingrequirementsforfoodproductscontaininggenetically
modifiedorganisms."VanderbiltJournalofTransnationalLawJan.2000:183.
AcademicOneFile.Web.1Mar.2015.TheUnitedStatesmightbeveryacceptingof
GMOs,butEuropebelievesthatthesocalled"FrankensteinFoods"maybeharmfulto
healthandtheenvironment.Forthisreason,theEuropeanCommissionpassed
regulations,tolabelGMagriculturalproductsassuch.Eventhoughitmightthismight
nothavebeenintended,theregulationsstandtomakeU.S.producerslesscompetitivein
theEuropeanmarketthantheirEuropeancounterparts.ThisarticleexplainshowUnited
StatesshouldchallengetheEuropeanCommission'slabelingrequirementsbeforethe
WorldTradeOrganization(WTO).ItconcludesthattheWTOwouldmostlikelyfindthat
thelabelingrequirementsviolatethe1994UruguayRoundoftheGeneralAgreementon
TariffsandTradeandforcetheEuropeanCommissiontorepealtherequirements.Even
thoughthisarticlegoesbeyondmydiscussionitisimportantbecauseitbringstothe
conversationhowlabelinghasindirectconsequences,evenoutsidethecountry.
GurianSherman,Doug.FailuretoYield:EvaluatingthePerformanceofGeneticallyEngineered
Crops.Cambridge,MA:USCPublications,2009.Web.ThisreportwaswrittenbyDoug
GurianSherman,aseniorscientistintheUnionofConcernedScientists(UCS)Foodand
EnvironmentProgram.Itevaluatestheperformanceofgeneticallyengineeredcrops.
OtherarticlesexplainedthatanimportantreasonthatGMOlabelingisabadideais
becauseitwouldincreasethestigmaagainstit,andifthepublicisagainstGMOsthenit
wouldeventuallybeshunned.Ifthathappens,developingcountrieswillsufferbecause

Cintron 1
theyrelyonthebenefits.Thesebenefitsincludehigherandfasteryieldsofcrops.The
authorexplainsthatpeoplehavepointedtotheallegedpromiseofgeneticengineering
(GE)fordramaticallyimprovingtheyieldsofstaplefoodcrops.Butahardnosed
assessmentofthisexpensivetechnologysachievementstodategiveslittleconfidence
thatitwillplayamajorroleinhelpingtheworldfeeditselfintheforeseeablefuture.
ThisisthefirstreportthatevaluatesindetailtheaggregateyieldeffectofGEaftermore
than20yearsofresearchand13yearsofcommercializationintheUnitedStates.Based
ontheinformationgathered,theyconcludethatGEhasnotdonemuchinincreasingcrop
yield.Eversincetheirintroductioninthe1990s,thebiotechindustryhasassertedover
andoverthatGEcropsarethesolutiontofeedingtheworldsfuturepopulation.This
reportexplainswhyGEcropsarefailingtoliveuptotheirpromiseforincreasingyields,
bypointingoutseveralfindings.Thefirstoneisthatgeneticengineeringhasnot
increasedintrinsicyield.Theintrinsicyieldsofcornandsoybeansdidriseduringthe
twentiethcentury,butitwasnotaresultofGEratherthantraditionalbreeding.Other
pointsarethatthatmostyieldgainsareattributabletonongeneticengineering
approachesandexperimentalhighyieldgeneticallyengineeredcropshavenotsucceeded.
Hediscusseseachofthesepointsinmoredepth,howeverthatisbeyondmydiscussion.
Hethenexplainsthatmanyofthesecropsshouldhavegonethroughmoretestingbefore
beingcommercialized.Hegoesontosaythatitisimportanttokeepinmindthatwhere
increasedproductionismostneededisinpoor,developingcountries.Variousrecent
studiesshowthatlowexternalinputmethodssuchasorganiccanimproveyieldby100
percent.Methodsthatrelysolelyonknowledgeratherthancostlyinputsaremore

Cintron 1
accessibletopoorfarmersthatcannotbuyexpensivetechnology.Thisalsorefutesthe
argumentthatGEfoodsaredependedonpoorcountriesandthattheywillsufferifthis
technologyisshunned.
Hilbeck,Angelika,etal."NoScientificConsensusOnGMOSafety."EnvironmentalSciences
Europe27.1(2015):1.SupplementalIndex.Web.23Mar.2015.Themainargument
againstGMOlabelingisthattheyposenohealthrisksandlabelingthemwillunfairly
heightentheperceptionthattheyare.ManypeoplearguethatsinceGMOsareno
differentthantraditionalproductstheydonotneedthelabel.Thisarticleisajoint
statementdevelopedandsignedbyover300independentresearchers,whichdoesnot
assertwhetherGMOsaresafeornot.Somethingthatmakesthisarticleverycredibleis
thatitspecificallystates:Qualifyingcriteriaforsigningthestatementweredeliberately
selectedtoincludescientists,physicians,socialscientists,academics,andspecialistsin
legalaspectsandriskassessmentofGMcropsandfoods.Scientistandacademic
signatorieswererequestedtohavequalificationsfromaccreditedinstitutionsatthelevel
ofPhDorequivalent.LegalexpertswererequestedtohaveatleastaJDorequivalent.
Also,itisveryrecent,beingpublishedinJanuaryofthisyear.Itclaimsconsensusthat
thepublishedevidenceiscontradictoryandthereforepreventsclaimsofsafetyorlackof
safety.TheclaimthatthereisaconsensusinthesafetyofGMOsisrepeatedlyand
uncriticallyperpetuated.Theydiscusssevenimportantpoints.Thereisnoconsensuson
GMfoodsafety,Therearenoepidemiologicalstudiesinvestigatingpotentialeffectsof
GMfoodconsumptiononhumanhealth,Claimsthatscientificandgovernmental
bodiesendorseGMOsafetyareexaggeratedorinaccurate,EUresearchprojectdoes

Cintron 1
notprovidereliableevidenceofGMfoodsafety,Listofseveralhundredstudiesdoes
notshowGMfoodsafety,ThereisnoconsensusontheenvironmentalrisksofGM
crops,andInternationalagreementsshowwidespreadrecognitionofrisksposedby
GMfoodsandcrop.Theygointodetailineachpointbutthatisbeyondmytopic.What
isimportanthereisthatthedecisionsregardingGMOsandourfood,mustinvolvethe
public,andnotbebasedonmisleadingandmisrepresentativeclaimsofascientific
consensusonGMOsafetybyasmallgroupoflikemindedpeople.Thedocument
continuestobeopenforsignatureonthewebsiteoftheinitiatingscientificorganization
ENSSER(EuropeanNetworkofScientistsforSocialandEnvironmentalResponsibility).

Huffman,W.E.,&McCluskey,J.J.(2014).TheeconomicsoflabelingGMfoodsTheJournal
ofAgrobiotechnologyManagementandEconomics,17(2),(2014)156160.Availableon
theWorldWideWeb:http://www.agbioforum.org.ThisarticleiswrittenbyWallace
Huffman,PhD,distinguishedprofessorinAgricultureandLifeSciencesattheUniversity
ofIowaandFellowofAmericanAgriculturalEconomicsAssociation;andJill
McCluskey,PresidentoftheAgriculturalandAppliedEconomicsAssociation.It
discussesthedifferentlabelingoptions,voluntarylabeling,mandatorylabeling,andaban
onlabeling.Italsoprovidesanevaluationoftheprosandconsofeachpolicy.Different
contextsandfactorsareusedtoexplaincurrentdifferencesinGMpoliciesaroundthe
world.Theyevaluatethepoliciesandcometotheconclusionthatalabelingbanis
inefficientinallcases.IntheUnitedStates,thereisasmallmarketforGMfreeproducts,
somandatorylabelingforGMcontentwouldimposemajorcostsonthemajorityto

Cintron 1
benefitasmallminority.However,intheEuropeanUnion,thereisastrongpreference
forGMfreeproducts,somandatorylabelingbenefitsmostconsumersandonlyharmsa
smallminority.Inthislattercase,voluntaryandmandatorylabelingbothleadtosimilar
results.ThereasonwhytheUShasvoluntarylabelingandtheEUhasmandatorylabeling
comesfromlongtermculturaldifferences,agriculturalpolicypolitics,andthepotential
forconsumersandfarmerstobenefitsfromtheapplicationofadvancesinscienceto
agriculture.ThebiotechindustryarguesthatGMOlabelingwouldunfairlystigmatize
productsthatcontainGMingredientsandunfairlyreducesalesbecauseconsumersmight
viewthelabelsasawarning.However,foodlabelsareonepotentiallyimportantsource
ofinformationaboutattributesoffoodthatconsumerscanuseintheirdecisionmaking
process,butbotheconomicsandpoliticsareimportantfactorsindecidingonwhatcan
andshouldbeincludedonthesefoodlabels.Insmallvolumecropandlivestock
production,segregationandidentitypreservationhavebeenachievedforsometimeat
modestcostsrelativetothevalueofthefinalproduct.Inlargevolumebulkgrainsand
oilseed,includinggeneticallymodified,segregationandidentitypreservationmay
becomecostlyrelativetothevalueofthefinalproduct.Forthisreason,majortrading
countrieswouldgainfromreachinganagreementonhowtomanageGMOs.This
includesdecidingonacommonofficialtolerancelevelforeveryone.Shipmentsofgrains
andoilseedstotheEuropeanUnionorJapanthatdonotmeetlocalstandardsareabig
problemforthetradingworld.However,theEuropeanUnionandUnitedStatescometo
thetopicofGMOsandGMlabelingfromdiverseperspectives,makingacompromise
difficult.OneofthemainconcernsisthatthedecisionthatcountriesliketheUSorthe

Cintron 1
EUtake,regardingGMpolicies,willimpactdevelopingcountriesbecausetheyrelyon
aidfromothercountries.Thesecountriescannotaffordtowaitfortheaccessandbenefits
GMcroptechnologybrings,sinceitcanincreasethesupplyoffoodfasterthantraditional
techniques.

"LabelsforGMOFoodsAreaBadIdea."ScientificAmerican20Aug.2013.Print.Thisarticle
fromthispopularAmericansciencemagazinebeginswithstatingthatrecentlyMaineand
Connecticutbecamethefirststatestopassbillsrequiringthelabelingoffoodswith
GMOs,unlikeCaliforniawhichrejectedasimilarbillayearbeforethis(Proposition37).
Theauthorssaythatthestatementthatmarcherschanted,Allwewantisasimplelabel
forthefoodthatsonourtable,isfarfromsimple.Mostoftheprocessedfoodin
Americaallcontaingeneticallymodifiedingredientsalready.Labelingwouldonly
intensifythemisconceptionthatsocalledFrankenfoodsareadangertopeopleshealth.
TheyclaimthatTheAmericanAssociationfortheAdvancementofScience,theWorld
HealthOrganizationandtheexceptionallyvigilantEuropeanUnionallagreethatGMOs
arejustassafeasotherfoods.TheFDAtestsallGMOsonmarkettomakesuretheyare
nottoxicorallergenic.AntagonismofGMOspreventspeoplefromenjoyingthebenefits
itbrings.ForexampleofacupoftheengineeredGoldenRicecontainsthe
recommendeddailyvalueofVitaminA.VitaminAdeficiencyblindsasmuchas500,000
childrenworldwideandhalfdiefromitandthisproductwasmadetocurvethat
deficiency.HowevertheintroductionofGoldenRicewasbeendelayedinthe
Philippines,IndiaandChinabecauseofantiGMOorganizations,theauthorsclaim.

Cintron 1
Therearemoreproductslikethesebeingworkedonbuttheyneedthepublicssupport
andfunding.TheotherargumentthatGMOlabelingincreasesconsumerchoiceisfalse
becauseitwillcausetheopposite.TheygavetheexampleofEuropetoshowhowthey
limitpeoplesoptions.ThereasonwhyitisimpossibletofindGMOsinEuropean
supermarketsisbecausemajorEuropeanretailersremovedthoseingredientsfromtheir
productstoavoiddrivingcustomersaway.Also,nonGMOcropsoftenrequiremore
waterandpesticidessotheyaremoreexpensive.PrivateresearchfirmNorthbridge
EnvironmentalManagementConsultantsestimatedthatProp37wouldhaveraisedan
averageCaliforniafamily'syearlyfoodbillbyasmuchas$400.Theyconcludewith
sayingthatGMOlabelingdebates,whicharehappeningnowinmanystates,aremuch
morecomplicatedthanslappingonsimplelabelstosatisfyasegmentofAmerican
consumers.Thisultimatelydecideswhetherthisimmenselybeneficialtechnologywill
continuetobedevelopedoritwouldbeshunnedbasedonunfoundedfears.

MariaL.Loureiro,SusanHine,PreferencesandwillingnesstopayforGMlabelingpolicies,
FoodPolicy,Volume29,Issue5,(2004)467483Loureiro,UniversidadedeSantiagode
CompostelaSantiagodeCompostela,SpainandHine,DepartmentofAgriculturaland
ResourceEconomics,ColoradoStateUniversity,aimtofindwhetherconsumersprefer
mandatoryorvoluntarylabelingschemesthroughcontingentvaluation.Thisisamethod
thatinvolvesaskingpeoplehowmuchtheyarewillingtopayforspecificenvironmental
services.Thedatawasgatheredfrom3metropolitancitiesclosetoDenver,whichisa
popularlocationusedbynumerousfoodmarketingfirmstoconductresearchonnew

Cintron 1
foodproductsduetothefactthatitssociodemographicprofileisverysimilartothatof
theUSCensus.AllinterviewerswerefirsteducatedaboutGMOfoodssothattheywould
beabletoanswerquestionsinanobjectiveandunbiasedmannerforrespondents.They
thencalculatethepremiumthatconsumersarewillingtospendinordertofundtheir
preferredlabelingalternative.Theresultsindicatedthatconsumerswereonlywillingto
topaypremiumsthatwerelowerthanthoserequiredtofundthetotalcostsofmandatory
labeling(estimatedbypreviousstudies).Thisstudysuggeststhatmandatorylabeling
simplymaynotbeaneconomicallyfeasiblealternativeatthistime,ifitissubsidizedby
consumers.ThisindicatesthatinspiteofpressarticlessuggestingthatUSconsumer
concernstowardbiotechnologyareincreasing,consumerstrustinthecurrentFoodand
DrugAdministrationpolicy,whichdoesnotrequiremandatorylabeling.
Starkman,Naomi,andTimMarvin."GMOLabelingWillCostConsumersLessthanaPennya
Day,NewReportSays."ConsumersUnion.2014.Web.20Mar.2015.Consumers
Union(CU)isanexpert,independent,nonprofitorganizationwhosemissionistowork
forafair,justandsafemarketplaceforallconsumersandtoempowerconsumersto
protectthemselves.TheyarethepublishersofConsumerReports.Theirwebsiteposted
thefindingsofanewanalysiscommissionedbyConsumersUnion,thepolicyarmof
ConsumerReports,andconductedbytheindependentPortlandbasedeconomicresearch
firm,ECONorthwest,foundfromareviewofpublishedresearchthatthemediancostto
consumersofrequiringlabelingofgeneticallyengineeredfood,alsoknownasgenetically
modified(orGMO)food,is$2.30perpersonannually,whichmeansthatitwillcostless
thanapennyperday.Thisarticleisinfavoroflabeling.Eventhoughitisbiasedsince

Cintron 1
thismagazineisagainstGMOs,itprovidesempiricalevidencethatdisputestherepeated
claimsthatlabelingwillforcefarmersandfoodproducerstospendmillionsand
increasefoodcostsforconsumers.Thisarticlealsostatestheissuethatindustryfunded
studiesoverestimatedthecostofsimilarGMOlabelingproposalsinCalifornia,
WashingtonandNewYorkputtingthecostat$100$200annually(or$400$800fora
familyoffour).Theyprovidetheargumentthatproducersarerequiredtolabelfoods
thatarefrozen,fromconcentrate,homogenized,orirradiated,aswellasafoodscountry
oforigin.Pollafterpoll,theysay,showthatmorethan90percentofconsumers
wantfoodsthataregeneticallyengineeredtobelabeled.
Stewart,Patrick."ConsumptionChoicesconcerningtheGeneticallyEngineered,Organically
Grown,andTraditionallyGrownFoods:AnExperiment."Knowledge,Technology&
Policy13.1(2000):5869.1Mar.2000.PatrickStewart,PhD.,teacherinthe
DepartmentofPoliticalScienceandEnvironmentalScienceattheUniversityofArkansas
withexperienceasaresearchassistantforAmericanFarmlandTrustsCenterfor
AgricultureintheEnvironment,conductedandexperimentthatwouldtesttheinfluence
ofdefining/labelingproductsonthechoicesofthepublicbetweengeneticallyengineered
andtraditionalgrownfoodintheUnitedStates.Healsoteststheconsumercharacteristics
thataffectdecisionsonwhattoeat,suchasage,gender,educationandenvironment.To
dothishedidasmallscalestudyof83people.Individualsweregivenmenuchoicesof
organicallyvstraditionallygrownandtraditionallygrownvsgeneticallyengineered.It
appearedthatthosewhochosegeneticallyengineeredfoodsweredrivenbycuriosityor
trysomethingdifferentwhereassubjectswhochoseorganicallygrownand

Cintron 1
traditionallygrownarebasingtheirdecisiononperceivedsafety.Thepapercontainsa
logisticregressionmodelswithadatatable,whichisoutofmycomprehension.
However,heexplainsthatwhatismostapparentfromthestudyisthatlabelingagood
basedoneitheritsqualitiesorproductionmethodmakesadifferenceinconsumer
behaviorandthatthereappearstobeabiasingeffect.Specifically,labelingbenefits
organicproductsmorethangeneticallyengineeredproducts,whicharedefinedashaving
thesamehealthandtastecharacteristics.However,hedoesntknowifthisisbecausethe
termshaveeitherinnateorsociallyconstructedmeaning.Hedoesinferthatcontrolover
labelinganditsapplicationwillinfluenceconsumptionanditwillbeverycontroversial.
Hesaysthatthereisagrowingdemandforgeneticallyengineeredplantpolicies,suchas
labeling,inresponsetopublicconcernandinternationaltradeissues.Hesuggeststhatthe
roleofpriceshouldbetestedaswell.

Strauss,DebraM."Geneticallymodifiedorganismsinfood:amodeloflabelingandmonitoring
withpositiveimplicationsforinternationaltrade."InternationalLawyerSpring2006:95
119.AcademicOneFile.Web.21Mar.2015.TheauthorisvisitingAssistantProfessorof
BusinessLaw,FairfieldUniversity,CharlesF.DolanSchoolofBusiness;B.A.,Cornell
University;J.D.,YaleLawSchool.SheisalsoaformerFoodandDrugLawInstitute
Scholar,andcurrentlyteachesinternationalbusinesslaw.Thisarticleisrelevanttomy
topicbecausetheauthordiscussesseveraldifferentattitudestowardsGMOlabelingin
differentcountriesandgivesseveralreasonastowhyshethinksGMOlabelingshouldbe
implementedintheUnitedStates.Firstshegivesabriefintroductionofbiotechnology

Cintron 1
andgeneticengineeringandtheimpactithadintheUnitedStates.Thenshecomparesthe
attitudestowardgeneticengineeringintheUnitedStatesandininternational
communitiessuchasEurope.TheUnitedStatesseemedrelativelyuntroubledbythis
technologythatEuropehasagreatresistancefor.Thisleadstodifferentpolicies
regardingGMOs.Shefeelsitisnecessarytoexaminethesafetyconcernsthathave
causedsomanycountriestotakesucharigorousapproachinregulatinggenetic
engineeringwhentheUnitedStateshassuchanunrestrictiveapproach.Inonesectionshe
explainsthateventhoughtherearebenefitsfrombiotechnology,therearesafetyissues
andwithoutproperGMlabeling,consumersarenotabletomakeaninformeddecision.
Shesaysthatthelackofinformationalsoimpedesthedevelopmentofbiotechnologyin
thelongrun.AreportbytheAtlanticCounciloftheUnitedStatesfoundthat"consumer
confidenceisthemostimportantdeterminantofanyfuturemarket[in]biotechnology.
MandatorylabelingofGMOsgenerallydoesimposeahighercostthanvoluntarylabeling
sincetheentiremarketmustbesegregatedandlabeled.However,agovernmentshould
dowhatthepublicdesiresandpollshowthatthemajorityofpeopleareinfactinfavorof
mandatorylabeling.TheU.S.governmentshouldberesponsivetohepublicdesiresand
restoreconsumerconfidenceinthefoodsupplybyrequiringtransparency.Inadditionto
labeling,GMproductsshouldbesubjecttoarigoroussystemofpreandpostmarket
monitoring.Onlythiswaypeoplewouldparticipateininformeddecisionmaking,and
increasetheconfidenceofconsumers.Testingdoesinvolveadditionalcostsforthe
industry,butsuchtesting,isnecessarytoprotectthepublic.Sheconcludeswithsaying
thattheUnitedStatesshouldadoptalabelingrequirementsimilartointernationallaw,

Cintron 1
andbemorecautiousintheviewoftheunknownscientificeffectsandnegativereports.
Asamatterofinternationaltrade,itisimportantforthebiotechindustryintheUnited
Statestoacceptthechallengeofdevelopingandregulatingproductsthattakeinto
accountregionaldiverseneedsandconcernsofconsumersandspecificitiesofthe
environment."Onlybyaddressingthepublicsconcernsanddemandswoulditbepossible
tointroducetheGMOsworldwidewithoutstrongopposition.Iftheserisksarenot
addressed,pressurefromabroadmightleadtofurtherimpedimentofinternationaltrade,
andultimatelyabanonGMOsaltogether.

Teisl,M.F.,Garner,L.,Roe,B.,&Vayda,M.E.(2003).Labelinggeneticallymodifiedfoods:
HowdoUSconsumerswanttoseeitdone?AgBioForum,6(1&2),4854.Thisarticle
fromtheonlinepeerreviewedjournal,TheJournalofAgrobiotechnologyManagement
andEconomics,providesasuggestionofhowpeoplewantgeneticallymodifiedfoodsto
belabeled.TheyconductasurveyaskingarepresentativegroupofUSadultsthese
questionsandreportthefindings.Theybeginbysayingthatpollsshowthatthemajority
ofthepopulationisinfavorofmandatorylabelingandthatlegislationhasalreadybeen
enteredatboththestateandfederallevel.Theyexplainthatthedebatefocusesonthe
assumptionthatconsumersdesireforinformationaboutGMfoodsisonlyiftheyare
geneticallymodifiedornot.Thelabelingissueismuchmorecomplicatedthanwhetherto
labelornot.IfGMlabelingweretooccur,policymakerswouldhavetoconsidermany
factorssuchaswhetheritshouldbemandatory,onwhatshouldbelabeled,onwhat
shouldbeonthelabel,andwhoshouldbeinchargeofthelabeling.Todothis,they

Cintron 1
wouldhavetobalancetheconcernsandwantsofthepublicwiththecostsandissuesthat
comewiththelabelingprogram.Theyaimtounderstandconsumerpreferencesfor
specificattributesofalternativelabelingprogramsbyconductingasurveyofa
representativegroupofUSadults.Theirresultssuggestedthatlabelingmight,afteran
initialshortrundeclineinsales,actuallyleadtoabroaderlongrunacceptanceofthe
technology.Thiswouldhappenonlyifproducersarewillingtorideoutanyshortterm
losses.TheresultsindicatethatmostrespondentsdesirealabelingprogramforGM
foods.Adecisiontoimplementsuchmandatorylabelsshouldrecognizebothitsbenefits
andcosts,buttheanswerstothesurveywerebasedonquestionsthatdidnotposethe
benefitsaswellasthecosts.Forthisreason,theresearchheredoesnotconcludethata
labelingprogramshoulddefinitelybeinstituted.Whatthefindingsprovideisguidanceto
suchprogramifitweretobeimposed.Almostallrespondentswhowantedlabeling
wantedthislabelingtobemandatory,althoughrespondentsweredividedonwhetherthey
wantedallfoodsorjustGMfoodstodisplayalabel.Evidently,theywerenotsatisfied
withthecurrentpolicy.Astowhowouldbeinchargeofthelabeling,mostrespondents
choseeitheragovernmentagencyoranindependentorganization.Ofthosethatchosea
governmentagency,mostindividualswantedeithertheUSFoodandDrug
AdministrationortheUSDepartmentofAgriculturetoadministerlabeling.Itwasironic
thatmostpeoplewantafederalagencytoadministerlabeling,becauseofthetrustthey
haveinthem,butinrealitytheseagencieshavebeenreluctantinadoptingthistask.
However,notmanyrespondentswantedenvironmentalorganizationssuchastheOrganic
ConsumersAssociationandGreenpeace,whopromotedGMlabelingtobeinchargeof

Cintron 1
thelabeling.Theysuggestthatthereasonforthiswasthattherespondentswereawareof
thedifferenceofabilitytoadvocateandabilitytodothelabeling.Regardingwhatwould
beonthelabel,theyfoundthatrespondentswantedtoknowofanywarningsassociated
withgeneticmodification,aswellasGMbenefits.Theyalsofoundthattheywanted
contactandcertifierinformationbecauseitprovidescredibilityandwouldbeameansof
findingmoreinformationiftheydesired.