Genetically modified foods should be banned from the US

1. Complete outlawing? There are already regulations in place to prevent the rapid, unaccountable introduction of genetically modified organisms to the environment. But outlawing GM Food means a complete loss of all the benefits they bring to the economy, health, and innovation. We cannot deny the chance of prosperity to over 2 billion people with malnutrition because we have vague fears about the unknown. (3) What we have now is a case-by-case look at the viability of individual crops, examining the potential dangers of each one, as opposed to throwing out many perfectly harmless crops along with the bathwater. 2. Potential Applications If the current uses of Genetically modified organisms aren't enough to justify their existence, then their possible future uses most certainly are. "Genetically modified plants may someday be used to produce recombinant vaccines. In fact, the concept of an oral vaccine expressed in plants (fruits and vegetables) for direct consumption by individuals is being examined as a possible solution to the spread of disease in underdeveloped countries, one that would greatly reduce the costs associated with conducting large-scale vaccination campaigns." (2) "When these genes are transferred to bacteria, they can create antibiotic resistant viruses, commonly called "superbugs"." Antibiotics can do the same thing, but we don't outlaw them. Why? Because there is a need to be filled and they fulfill it. We can see demonstrably that GM Foods and antibiotics help us, but only have bad premonitions about their effect on the environment, the same fears that pop up every time technology advances forward. Besides, we have had our fair share of mutations, and have been able to find new ways to deal with them as we go along. Because that's how progress works- there new setbacks everyday, but it's generally a sign you're succeeding. "Supreme Court rulings like Diamond vs. Chakrabarty and J.E.M. Ag Supply vs. Pioneer allowed GM plants to be patented as well as allowing the producers of the GM seeds to sue farmers who purposely or by accident save the plant's seed." I agree that this is wrong, the problem being the currently existing patent laws in the United States. If Monsanto didn't have the force of government to back it up, they would be unable to litigate against normal farmers. However, a "recent meta-analysis of 15 studies reveals that, on average, two-thirds of the benefits of first-generation genetically modified crops are shared downstream, whereas only one-third accrues upstream (Demont et al., 2007). These benefit shares are exhibited in both industrial and developing countries. Therefore, the argument that private companies will not share ownership of GMOs is not supported by evidence from first-generation genetically modified crops." (2) "While some companies have experimented with modified rice and wheat, no such GM foods have been created that are "safe for human consumption"." I'm not sure what your definition of "safe for human consumption" is, but Golden Rice has been consumed for a while now and works. According to the World Health Organization, anywhere from 250,000 to 500,000 children go blind in developing countries every year because their diet doesn't include enough vitamin A. Genetically modified rice, called "golden rice" was modified to include vitamin A so that kids in developing countries wouldn't go blind. Children who ate golden rice in their diet instead of normal rice had a 23% better chance of avoiding blindness. (1) Sources: 1. Newton, David E. "Genetic Engineering: Outlook." Issues: Understanding Controversy and Society. ABC-CLIO, 2012. Web. 27 Nov. 2012. 2. http://www.nature.com... 3. http://www.futuredirections.org.au...