The issue of genetically modified (GM) salmon labeling is a rather complicated one as it is associated with customers’ perceptions. Traditionally, GM food is considered as something artificial and dangerous to health. In their study, Amin, Azad, Gausmian, and Zulkifli (2014) state that the very notion of modern biotechnology, religious beliefs, and eating preferences may divert people from consumption of such foods.
More to the point, as noted by Haspel (2015), GMO technology was foisted for a long time. In this connection, some organizations may reject labeling their GM products. However, in case GM salmon meets the officially established standards of safety and containment policy, where the latter relates to the separate breeding and escape prevention, why not to label it?
It seems that GM salmon labeling should be implemented to clearly indicate that this food was modified. The information should be obvious and visible, so that every customer may easily understand what he or she attempts to purchase (Haspel, 2015). In this connection, transparency is to be proposed as the top priority for GM food manufacturers as customers have the right to know what they eat. In particular, it seems appropriate to use the approach that implies the presence of some additions.
GM salmon is to be labeled as a GM product. At the same time, to introduce this product to customers, it is necessary to identify that it is nutritionally identical to regular salmon. In this case, it seems that both customers and food manufacturers would benefit from GM salmon production. To sum it up, the research with which I also agree shows that the mandatory GM food labeling guidelines are to be implemented in the US.
References
Amin, L., Azad, M. A. K., Gausmian, M. H., & Zulkifli, F. (2014). Determinants of public attitudes to genetically modified salmon. PloS One, 9(1), 1-14.
Haspel, T. (2015, November 19). If the GMO salmon is as good as its maker says, why not label it? The Washington Post.