Silver Spring, MD – The American Nurses Association (ANA) has joined a coalition urging the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to label foods that have been genetically engineered. ANA, along with nearly 400 other groups representing health professionals, consumer and environmental advocates, parents, farmers and businesses, believes people have a right to know what’s in their food. The Just Label It campaign (www.justlabelit.org) is demanding that the FDA require labels on foods produced using genetic engineering.
ANA has been a vocal advocate in the issue of food policy. The association co-authored Principles of a Healthy Food System, which supports socially, economically and ecologically sustainable food systems that promote health, the current and future health of individuals, communities and the natural environment.
Everyone has a right to know what’s in the foods they eat. Tell the FDA to label genetically engineered foods; please send your comments to the FDA.
The ANA is the only full-service professional organization representing the interests of the nation's 3.1 million registered nurses through its constituent and state nurses associations and its organizational affiliates. The ANA advances the nursing profession by fostering high standards of nursing practice, promoting the rights of nurses in the workplace, projecting a positive and realistic view of nursing, and by lobbying the Congress and regulatory agencies on health care issues affecting nurses and the public.
To be succinct, "genetically modified" refers to gene splicing and recombinant technology rather than selective breeding.
If, during the formation of gametes and zygotes, a novel gene is formed which creates an infectious protein (i.e. a prion) or which gene itself is an oncogene then it could prove harmful. Once such were detected, however, it could be too late to eradicate it.
Just playing devil's advocate here.
This is no more likely to happen using genetic technology than it is in regular breeding.
This is no more likely to happen using genetic technology than it is in regular breeding.
Hmm, I'm not sure we have sufficient knowledge to make such a declaration. My initial thought is that you're wrong about that because the genetic changes can be made to numerous organisms simultaneously and therefore have a much greater potential of taking hold in the population as opposed to a "natural" mutation which occurs in a single organism.
Personally, I think the risks are minimal and that the benefits far outweigh them.
Regardless, I don't think it's an appropriate area for the ANA to be investing its resources.
Cross breeding and genetic modification are two entirely different things. Cross breeding is merely cross pollination that allows the two plants to cross by utilizing a natural method. Genetic modification is often crossing from one kingdom into the other. For instance, Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) corn, which was created using gene splicing in order to put the Bt into the corn plant. Such is the case with Round-up ready soybeans and corn, only those involve toxic Roundup instead of the bacteria Bt. In turn, that Bt is not only in those crops, but it also goes into the soil, in turn ending up in our water supply. I don't know about you but, I would prefer that my soil remain free of pesticides and bacteria that normally wouldn't be there. If nature/God (or whatever your belief) intended for it to be there, it would have came that way.
Whether or not GM food is dangerous or objectionable, what is so terrible and horrible about people wanting to have the option of making the choice? If there's really no meaningful difference, why are food producers so dead set against, and fighting so hard against, labelling? What's so awful about people being able to know whether the food they are buying is genetically modified?
Whether or not GM food is dangerous or objectionable, what is so terrible and horrible about people wanting to have the option of making the choice? If there's really no meaningful difference, why are food producers so dead set against, and fighting so hard against, labelling? What's so awful about people being able to know whether the food they are buying is genetically modified?
Where do you draw the line about genetically modified ?
What about stupid people (theres lots) getting tricked into thinking GMO free food is somehow better than non
Where do you draw the line about genetically modified ?
What about stupid people (theres lots) getting tricked into thinking GMO free food is somehow better than non
There are plenty of smart people who think GMO free food "is somehow better than non." It's not about being "tricked." Most (all?) of Europe has banned it. Are you just assuming that anyone who disagrees with your opinion must be stupid? Personally, I don't feel I have enough information to have a strong opinion either way -- but I'd rather be safe than sorry, and I'd like to have the information (labelling) so I can choose.
Specializes in burn ICU, SICU, ER, Trauma Rapid Response.
Most (all?) of Europe has banned it.
True but that tells us nothing. Europe is ALWAYS looking for the slightest excuse to reduce or eliminate agriculture imports from the USA. It s a huge sore point for them.
If you think Europe's ban has anything to do with concerns for safely, or anything else but protecting their heavily subsidized, but politically powerful agriculture sector, then yes, you have been tricked.
True but that tells us nothing. Europe is ALWAYS looking for the slightest excuse to reduce or eliminate agriculture imports from the USA. It s a huge sore point for them.
If you think Europe's ban has anything to do with concerns for safely, or anything else but protecting their heavily subsidized, but politically powerful agriculture sector, then yes, you have been tricked.
I am aware of Europe' general concerns about US agricultural imports. But that doesn't change the fact that people all over the world are concerned about safety issues with GMO foods.
Specializes in burn ICU, SICU, ER, Trauma Rapid Response.
I am aware of Europe' general concerns about US agricultural imports. But that doesn't change the fact that people all over the world are concerned about safety issues with GMO foods.
No, doesn't change that particular fact. I am only making the point that Europe's decision to ban their import only tells us one thing and should not used as any sort of indicator of safety or lack of.
I lie in a huge farming area and still operate a small farm of my own. Drive for hours in any direction from my front door and it's all farms and woods.
Many of my friends, coworkers, patients and all of my neighbors are farmers. Real farmers.
There used to be one big elevator in this area. Now we have three smaller ones. One for "regular" grain, one for certified organic, and one for GMO. Nobody is very picky bout the grain that goes into the certified organic elevator. Many times on my way into town I have followed a line of grain trucks from the same field. Some go to the organic elevator an some to the regular elevator (this would be non organic grain). However they are VERY picky about the GMO grain (usually BT corn, beans and barley, but also smaller amounts of wheat and oats) not going into the regular elevator. They even set up a truck and grain cart washing station. Trucks used to haul GMO crops can not be used to haul regular and organic crops until they are washed out and inspected.
I realize that many people have concerns about GMO crops. But are these concerns based on science? Are they legitimate? Or is this more like the concerns about vaccines? All hype and no data?
I realize that many people have concerns about GMO crops. But are these concerns based on science? Are they legitimate? Or is this more like the concerns about vaccines? All hype and no data?
Is the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the concerns the primary issue? Again, what is so awful about people having the information and choice?
MN-Nurse, ASN, RN
1,398 Posts
This is no more likely to happen using genetic technology than it is in regular breeding.