Source+1

=== Schulman, Miriam. "Genetically Modified Organisms and Ethics." //Santa Clara// //University// //- Welcome//. Web. 08 Sept. 2010. []. ===

 o about food whose genetic properties have been altered through technology, often by splicing a desired gene from one species–the cold tolerance of a mackerel, for example–into the genetic code of another species, such as a tomato.  o Many opponents believe that the genetic code of every organism has evolved over millions of years and that tampering with it is an act of hubris.  o "We’ve been fooling Mother Nature for thousands of years by selective breeding of plants and animals…. Bioengineering is just a more refined process, which will probably result in more productive animals and plants at a lower cost than traditional breeding methods."  o "We are increasingly encouraged that the advantages of genetic engineering of plants and animals are greater than the risks. The risks should be carefully followed through openness, analysis, and controls, but without a sense of alarm."  o "Bioengineered foods might be like microwaves, a product that people originally thought might give you cancer but that is now widely accepted." Or, he continues, GMOs might be like DDT, a pesticide that was touted as the key to higher production but that eventually resulted in harm to birds and fish.  o So far, no medical harm to humans has been traced to ingesting GMOs  o introducing proteins from one plant into another–a peanut into a bean, for example–may also introduce that plant’s allergenicity. "Also," she says, "the technology may be introducing new allergens that have never been in the food supply  o Crops are not self-contained organisms; they spread their pollen on the wind or on the legs of insects to other plants. As a consequence, a gene that has been spliced into one plant may inadvertently enter another.   o "Crops that are engineered to be pesticidal may harm insects other than those they were intended to repel,"   o Opponents worry that big corporations may use biotechnology to push others out of the market and thus make all farmers dependent on the large agricultural biotechnology companies.  o In each case of genetic engineering, the risk has to be weighed against the potential benefits, according to Margaret McLean,  o genetic manipulation that has allowed scientists to make rice produce useable beta carotene, a source of Vitamin A. In Asia, for example, where rice is a staple, an estimated quarter million people go blind every year from Vitamin A deficiency.  o About 50 percent of soybeans grown in the United States last year were genetically modified, and those soybeans became part of countless processed foods from oils to cereals. And yet nothing in the label on these products has ever indicated the presence of genetic modifications. McLean believes that this secretiveness has made consumers skeptical of reassurances that genetic modifications are safe.  o Federal Food and Drug Administration has not required labeling that indicates a product has been genetically altered unless it contains one of the eight most common food allergens  o The European Union already requires labeling of any food with 1 percent or more genetically modified ingredients.  o Ironically, Harwood says, the Green Revolution was achieved through a far more dangerous process than genetic engineering. <span style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in; text-indent: -0.25in;"> o Those who reject absolutist rhetoric–either genetic modification equals playing God or genetic modification equals better living through science–can find themselves in the realm of what philosophers call "consequentialism." By this theory, a morally correct decision is made by a cost-benefit analysis of an action's consequences.