Yes

by Nikki Everett

Created on: November 13, 2009   Last Updated: November 14, 2009

Free to Choose

If there is one ideal we hold reverent in America above all others it is our freedoms, however real or imaginary they may be. No one can deny that freedom is the basis for all the wars that have been waged for American liberties.

As Americans, our government decided in its fledgling days that they should protect our food for the health and stability of its people. Because of that protection, one of the most basic of elements to American's existence is the right to safe choices of foods.

Not only do we as citizens have the right to safe food choices, but because of health concerns, we have the right to know what ingredients are in the food to avoid risks to current conditions. Therefore, it should also be a basic right to decide whether the food we ingest have genetically modified ingredients or not. The freedom of choice has been an American standard since the beginning of our country.

The Debate

The argument has somehow stood up in legislature that the American people are not educated enough to decide whether or not GMF (genetically modified foods) are safe based on their limited knowledge of biotechnology. In a day when the World Wide Web offers a virtual plethora of information, this argument is baseless and an insult to each and every citizen of the U.S. of A. who has access to research their decisions on food purchases.

Some may also argue that it is not the responsibility of the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) to regulate food companies to label foods GM because the uneducated consumer may decide to make a rash decision and not buy their products. This would cost undue amounts of money which might jeopardize the company's ability to employ citizens.

But if you are honest, given the choice of GMF or Non-GMF, what would you buy for your family? If you went to buy a ham at your grocery store and the label said the meat was "GMO and cloned" would you buy it? Most likely not. This is exactly why the giant corporate food companies don't want to disclose the truth to the consumer. Common sense would dictate that they might have something to hide.

Where Does the Buck Stop?

One of the largest socially responsible programs of the United States, the FDA has been regulating food, drugs and cosmetics since 1906 at its inception. In addition to the already long list of responsibilities, bioengineered products that are fed to our food animal and the foods which are sold to our public citizens are also under their jurisdiction.

That's a whole lot of control on a huge amount of products, since over 80 - 90% of all products found in grocery stores has bioengineered ingredients or has been tampered with by GMO at some point during its production. The spectrum is so monumental, that a website database was formed and can be found under the United States Regulatory Agencies Unified Biotechnology website.

The Scary Hypocrisy of It All

Sadly, it would appear to anyone who researches deep enough, that certain corporate interests have benefitted a hundred fold by using the GMO technology. Their lobbyists and proponents glorify genetic engineering as the end of world hunger because their crops yield record breaking amounts with less disease ridden produce.

But is there danger to those who eat GMO? In the Asilomar Declaration of 1975, Dr. Mae Wan Ho and Prof. Joe Cummins warned - substantiated by scientific evidence- that horizontal gene transfer ( transfer of genes by viruses and other infectious agents designed to cross species barriers will enhance the potential for creating new viral and bacterial pathogens) will result in the creation of superbugs and multi-drug resistant diseases.

As of January, 2001 the FDA issued a proposed rule that would require that developers submit a scientific and regulatory assessment of the bioengineered food 120 days before the bioengineered food is marketed.

In the history of the government's control over food safety, there has never been a shorter time span of testing allowed much less to be solely the company who produces the product's responsibility. In all other cases of questioning, the FDA has had their own scientific studies to equalize the playing field and ensure accurate data.

The Corporate Take-Over of a Public Health Service

For many years now, the FDA has been accused of practices of questionable corruption. Former employees of big agribusiness, corporate pharmaceutical drug companies, and large food processing companies have led the FDA's employment list and appointed positions which have helped fuel the corruption process.

Several of the government agency's own scientists filed a complaint in January of 2009 to the Obama Administration stating, "Managers have ordered, intimidated and coerced FDA experts to modify scientific evaluations, conclusions and recommendations in violation of the laws, rules and regulations, and to accept clinical and technical data that is not scientifically valid."

Lyndsey Layton of the Washington Post wrote on June 17, 2009, "During the Bush administration, consumer groups charged that the FDA was making decisions on the basis of political ideology and not science."

Making Changes One State at a Time

It would appear that some eco friendly states are making their own decisions which will likely force the FDA to rethink some of its practices. The American people are no longer satisfied with being the largest public experiment to ever be waged.

"Farmers and citizens around the world who are concerned about the use of genetically engineered crops have been watching the extraordinary grassroots movement in the state of Vermont" said Bill Wenzel, national director of the Farmer-to-Farmer Campaign on Genetic Engineering, a network of 35 farm groups across America saying no to GMOs.

In 2004, Vermont was the first state to require labeling of any GMO seeds. The Vermont Senate passed the law and became a pioneer in cracking down on the corruption of the biotechnologies that have forced farmers to farm GMO seeds or face economic failure.

We can only hope that other states will follow suit in listening to their citizen's demands for their basic rights to choice and consent before it is too late.

Learn more about this author, Nikki Everett.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.