|
|
The question then asks who should distribute these seeds. The answer is complicated because just as Hugh Grant and Martina McGloughlin argue, “the technology is in the seed,” which means that selling seeds isn’t selling only food but also “information.” So Monsanto charges farmers annually to pay for a license fee because Monsanto owns the gene, which helps farmers’ production levels. Jeremy Rifkin discussed how “the ten largest antitrust law firms in the U.S. have gone into the federal courts charging Monsanto with creating a global conspiracy in violation of antitrust laws, to control the global market in seeds.” Biotechnology is no more about world power as it is about solving poverty. This technology is not a product that is easily sold because ownership is blurred between all the different foods that can be produced using this technology. Companies aren’t selling the process; they are selling the ongoing outcome.
The final issue within this subject that is concealed by a mass of broad information is labeling within the U.S. Just as the first point presented the problem of the term “genetically modified,” labeling is a problem as well. The question is to what extent are consumers desiring their foods to be labeled? The FDA tries to answer this question by examining what their law requires to be labeled. Under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, food additives are required to be approved by the FDA before being used in foods; exemptions for this approval are those additives that are Generally Recognized As Safe; the FDA has said that new substances can be put into foods as long as they are similar to those substances which have been consumed safely. FDA is also required to provide nutritional information and requires that all labels, optional or required, be truthful. Within specific laws that the FDA has to abide by, labeling of such extensive range is not required. If the consumers demand such labeling enough, they first have to decide by genetically modified means, or to what extent they desire labeling. Then, they have to be willing to pay that much more for their products.
To conclude, it is in hope that this information resets the biased conclusion that opposition has drawn about biotechnology. It is not a new technology flying through U.S. regulation agencies with no guarantee of safety. Not only have scientists been studying genetic modification for decades, but regulation agencies have been applying laws to regulate them within the market. There is nothing new about genetically modified foods within grocery stores. The only change is how these foods are modified, so to what extent does the consumer desire these foods to be labeled? As for now, simple education on the technology is necessary for the public to understand what they are eating. Providing “contains GMO” on a can of soup will not explain what part of the soup contains the GMO or what GMO really means. This lack of education is why the public misunderstands plant-based vaccines, the purpose of biotechnology, and its true intent.
|
Tags
You must be logged in to add tags.
|
Writer Profile
Corinne
This user has not written anything in his panorama profile yet.
|
Comments
You must be a TakingITGlobal member to post a comment. Sign up for free or login.
|
|
