User:ThePaper/PPS

Preferred Policy Statement

Mikaila Roberts Kevin Graham Dave Oravec Andrew Ennen

Since the 1980s, scientists have been perfecting the technology of Genetically Modified Foods (GMF). They are foods into which specific genes from another organism have been placed. Normally this is done through a variety of laboratory methods in order to "custom make" certain crops. Organisms such as corn, soybeans, and inedible crops such as cotton can be genetically modified to express a wide range of different traits including growing a different size than what is natural or less susceptible to insects or diseases. The use of GMF greatly reduces the cost of production for farmers across the country as it increases output, decreases waste, and nearly negates the need for pesticides and herbicides in crops. There are, however, concerns among several groups of people. Many are concerned with the safety of GMF as there is a risk of GMF producing allergic effects of which we are currently unaware. And although all GMF currently in use on America’s farms have been approved through the U.S. FDA, there is presently no requirement among producers to label their products as genetically modified; This is a fact that is upsetting a large majority of the general public when they are informed of it. The growing popularity of and resistance to GMF necessitates government action and there are a variety of policy options.

There are a few ways with which this problem can be dealt. The government could take action to completely ban the use of GMF. This would eliminate the fears of various groups about the health hazards and moral implications of GMF use but would cause a rise in the cost of farming and the use of herbicides and pesticides. A total ban would also lower efficiency and productivity in many crops. The government could also choose not to become involved and allow total self-regulation of GMF use. This would save many farmers a large amount of money and time, but the concerns some people have about GMF would still be an issue.

However, the policy that is considered to be the best option available at this time is one that falls in between the two previously mentioned. To determine a few key regulations on GMF use and implement them with strict enforcement would serve as the best option in this situation. Considering the large-scale effect of this issue on the American public, this policy deserves a commission whose sole purpose is to determine and enforce regulation. This commission should be composed of certain qualified government officials and research scientists who specialize in GMF experimentation. It should be made certain throughout the entire process of policy establishment that the concerns of the American people and farmers are taken into account. Some aspects of the GMF issue that should be paid special attention include the implementation of a labeling requirement, a specification of the duration of experimentation done on a particular GMF before it is introduced into use, and a restriction on the raw crops and final products into which GMF can be incorporated.

Labeling is a major concern of those opposed to GMF use. Many Americans, every day, are unknowingly consuming foods that have, in some way, been genetically modified. Keeping the public educated about their consumption is crucial in earning and maintaining their trust. Because of the growing concern with GMF use, it would be wise to be completely honest and require labeling of any foods that have been in any way genetically modified. This would require more careful observation of GMF for the purpose of taking special care to keep GM and non-GM foods completely separated. Many people are also very concerned about just how much we know about GMF. Although there is extensive research occurring in this field, there are still questions about their safety and how such foods will behave in and affect our environment. GMF research and use is still so new in our society that we have yet to be able to test the effects of GMF on a person when consumed over an entire lifespan. There should certainly be a case-by-case evaluation of how long a GMF and the gene associated with it should be studied, and in what ways it should be studying, before being released to consumers. There are also questions about exactly what foods will employ GMF technology. People certainly expect fresh corn on the cob to be more natural than the corn syrup used in candies and cereals. There are two methods that would ease some debate over the GMF issue. One would be to control which raw crops are allowed to use GMF technology. The other would be to control which final products such crops are allowed be used in.

Obviously, there are consequences to this policy. Considering the novelty of the technology and the controversy that follows the issue, it will be a hard topic to navigate and complicated to judge objectively. The commission that will establish the specifics of this policy will have to be carefully chosen and even more carefully monitored to ensure that the best interests of the American people are the driving force behind legislation. Of course, there are many people who will not be satisfied will partial-regulation of GMF, as they consider the technology to be morally wrong and physically hazardous. The industries that choose to use GMF will have to be prepared for an initial drop in sales because of the intimidation factor that follows something as new and different as genetic modification. Money that would have been otherwise allocated will have to be poured into GMF research in order to fulfill an experimentation duration requirement as well as make it reasonably possible to perform such experimentation. However, this is not only a proposal for partial allowance but one for partial ban as well. In some areas and industries, GMF use will fall instead of rise, and these areas and industries must be prepared to use alternative methods to grow crops as efficiently and cost-effectively as possible. The increased use of herbicides and pesticides is likely inevitable, causing a great deal many more problems that will have to be discussed at another time. This program also leaves potential for a corruption of the industry of agriculture. GMF make farming much more efficient, more productive, and less costly for the average farmer. Regulations will have to be strictly enforced in order to make sure farmers are not “sneaking” GMF into their crops.

In conclusion, GMF are foods that have genetic characteristics that will help farmers produce better crops and potentially healthier foods in the future. There are different ways to handle the use of genetically modified foods such as totally banning their use to even having the consumer use total self-regulation. It seems to us that the best possible method would be to have certain regulations for the use of GMF and have a committee see that these regulations are followed by farmers and food-producing companies.

There are definitely consequences to doing this to so many people. Some groups feel that GMF have not been around long enough for scientists to know all the effects and feel they should be banned. Others realize the benefits and would like to see what can be made of GMF. So we feel that we should meet both needs by letting the people decide what they want to do with GMF by regulating them.

Sources http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/gmfood.shtml

http://gmhsscience.com/GMO/

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/318/7183/581

http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Genetically_modified_foods?OpenDocument

http://www.morainepark.edu/services/library/guides/foods.shtml