My Option (Task #2)

Do genetically engineered foods need to be labled and if so what should be listed on that label? If so, what should they be labeled with?
 The scientist in the group believes that the genetically modified foods have plenty of risks and people need to be aware of these risks.  By labeling genetically engineered foods, consumers can become aware of the risks that these genetically engineered foods contain.  The environmentalist in the group said that the genetically engineered foods need to be labeled because the foods are a potential threat to the environment.  He also stated that crops could be destroyed or nature could become unbalanced so we need to protect our environment by labeling harmful genetically modified foods. The legislature was much divided on whether or not to pass the bill that would require the labeling of genetically modified foods.  He did finally decided to pass it only because he knew that the health of many lives was at stake and he knew that in the end, passing the bill would all be worth it.  Also, he wanted to make sure consumers knew that they were consuming genetically engineered foods so by passing the bill, he was ensuring the health of others. As my rolle as the consumer advocate i feel very strongly on the labeling of these genetically engineered foods.  I think that the consumer has the right to know and choose what types of food they eat. I think that the labels should also provide information and ingredients to the consumer.The consumer has the right to know and choose what types of food they eat. The labels also provide information and ingredients to the consumer. Most scientists have concerns about the introduction of new genes into the environment and human bodies. For this reason genetically modified food should be labeled, as the safety of these products is not fully known, hence the consumer should be able to have an individual choice on whether they eat genetically modified foods. Some people may have specific intolerances or allergies to foods, which may be harmful, therefore just like ingredients of product are evident on the packet, whether the product is genetically modified should also be visible. Vegetarian genetically engineered food may contain a gene from meat; hence vegetarians have a right to know whether their “genetically modified vegetables” contain meat  There are debates about long term safety of genetically modified foods. Some people may have specific intolerances or allergies to foods, which may be harmful, therefore just like ingredients of product are evident on the packet, whether the product is genetically modified should also be visible. Vegetarian genetically engineered food may contain a gene from meat; hence vegetarians have a right to know whether their “genetically modified vegetables” contain meat. Genetically engineered foods need to be labeled due to the religious and ethical issues of tampering with the genes, as some people believe that it is like “playing God” and desire to not eat genetically modified foods.
The environmentalist, scientist, consumer advocate, and legislature each came to the agreement that people use food labeling to express a wide variety of religious, ethical, and environmental preferences. If foods weren’t labeled, the health of a person could be put a very high danger.  In conclusion, all genetically engineered foods should be labeled so that consumers are aware of the products in their foods. 


Should there be government regulations to protect the environment from genetically engineered crops?
These genetic changes are radically different from those resulting from traditional methods of breeding. Yet, the sale of these foods is being permitted without proper assessment of the risks and without adequately informing the public, even though many scientists say that genetically modified foods could cause serious damage to health and the environment. The scientist in the group found that genetically engineering crops to be more resistant to pesticides allows farmers to use more pesticides with less fear of crop damage, which in turn will lead to greater pollution of our soil and groundwater.  Also, animals genetically engineered to be larger, to carry specific diseases for research, or to serve as pharmacological factories are frequently sickly, crippled, or otherwise abnormal.  Thus, eating genetically engineered animals or animal products could lead to unforeseen risks for human health.   The environmentalist felt the government should be doing everything in its power to protect the environment.  The environmentalist’s job is to protect the environment so he said that with genetically engineered foods you can create offspring with no biodiversity making the plants susceptible to extinction.  Also, another risk that he stated was that you may alter a plant which could result in creating a super weed. As the consumer advocate, I stated that genetically engineered foods need to be reviewed for possible risk before being released. Before any genetically engineered crop is turned into food, the FDA should have to formally approve that the crop is safe for human and animal consumption.  I believe that the government should take control over items that can be harmful, maybe even deadly to people.  I think that people have the right to know what they are consuming. The legislature was worried about losing money because if people find out these foods aren’t good for the environment, they may not eat the foods as much.  The GE companies hold 2.5 million American jobs in each 50 states so if people don’t eat the genetically engineered foods as much then the employees of these GE companies may not make as much money anymore.  The legislature did finally come to his senses and he realized that some of these genetically engineered foods are destroying crops so he agreed with the group that actions need to be taken by the government to protect the environment. My option: yes. I dont think the government should allow unsafe food sales.

  

"In the United States, the regulatory process is confused because there are three different government agencies that have jurisdiction over GM foods. To put it very simply, the EPA evaluates GM plants for environmental safety, the USDA evaluates whether the plant is safe to grow, and the FDA evaluates whether the plant is safe to eat. The EPA is responsible for regulating substances such as pesticides or toxins that may cause harm to the environment. GM crops such as B.t. pesticide-laced corn or herbicide-tolerant crops but not foods modified for their nutritional value fall under the purview of the EPA. The USDA is responsible for GM crops that do not fall under the umbrella of the EPA such as drought-tolerant or disease-tolerant crops, crops grown for animal feeds, or whole fruits, vegetables and grains for human consumption. The FDA historically has been concerned with pharmaceuticals, cosmetics and food products and additives, not whole foods. Under current guidelines, a genetically-modified ear of corn sold at a produce stand is not regulated by the FDA because it is a whole food, but a box of cornflakes is regulated because it is a food product. The FDA's stance is that GM foods are substantially equivalent to unmodified, "natural" foods, and therefore not subject to FDA regulation."                            - http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/overview.php
 GM materials need to be reviewed for possible risk before being released. Before any GE crop is turned into food, the FDA should have to formally approve that crop as safe for human and animal consumption. Congress needs to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to require a mandatory pre-market approval process that is open to public participation and review. Senator Richard Durbin (D- Il.) introduced legislation that would give FDA such authority in 2002 (S. 3095) and he is expected to reintroduce a similar bill.
I think the government should take control over items that can be harmful, maybe even deadly to people.
PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW WHAT THEY ARE CONSUMING! Guns, like GM foods, are harmful to people and the government made laws about that (even thought comparing guns and food may be a little different).  The point is the role of the government is to protect its people and by making laws against GM foods its doing its job.
      The environmentalist, scientist, consumer advocate, and legislature all came to the conclusion that the government needs to have regulations to protect our environment because if steps are not taken, we may no longer have an environment to protect.   What do you think?