October 1, 2010
Houston Chronicle
Massachusetts company has genetically engineered(IV, A, 1) salmon that matures to its market weight twice as fast. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration was faced to approve this product last week and announced that the fish was safe to eat(VI, B, 1), emitted no environmental threat, and had no "material difference" that would require the fish to carry a special label. But for some reason they called a two-day hearing to hear what the public had to say on relevant food labeling. At the meeting critics disagreed with the FDA's conclusion that the fish did not need a special label. FDA decided to offer public meetings and declared a 60-day period for further public comments. FDA has trouble deciphering whether the public's responses are just negative reactions to "genetic engineering" or actual opinions.
The article seems to be biassed towards the FDA. Its hard to tell but between the lines the author gives hints that people should be more open to genetically engineered food. He says in the beginning that people automatically have a negative response to the words "genetically engineered" and that it makes people nervous. Though he says we have been using genetically engineered vegetables and grains and milk for years now. The author also wishes the FDA good luck in getting the message across that the end product has no material difference and doesn't need a label. This is pro-environmental because the end product does not affect the environment or human health.
Caroline Martin
No comments:
Post a Comment