Genetically Modified Foods
If you could save 6,000 lives a day, would you? While some may be thinking this is a flabbergasting question and the answer is clearly yes, the government is saying no. They are placing strict regulations on the GM food industry and essentially assisting in the murder of 6,000 people a day. In the article “Regulation must be revolutionized” Ingo Potrykus presents an argument citing several examples of how deregulation could help decrease malnutrition and starvation in the world. The authors of “Genetically Modified Foods” agree with Potrykus yet cite the ability of deregulation to remove toxins from crops as their main support.
In the article “Regulation Must Be Revolutionized” not only does Potrykus explain that these strict regulations waste resources, but he elaborates upon how the regulations are stopping potentially beneficial engineered crops from making entry into our grocery stores and on to our plates. Throughout the article Potrykus mentions golden rice, which is a genetically engineered crop that was ready for the market in 1999, and includes vitamin A. “Potrykis explains that if golden rice was put on the market it could provide sufficient vitamin A to reduce substantially the 6,000 deaths a day due to vitamin A deficiency, and could save the sight of several hundred thousand people a year”. With this the author makes it evident that in fact “golden rice” does more good for people then “normal” rice which lacks vitamin A. However the crop has been stalled from many years due to absurd regulations. “One existing regulation demands many years' worth of molecular and biochemical safety tests. Yet many international agencies have found genetic-engineering crop technology to be benign”. In other words no one has reportedly been harmed by consuming GM crops or foods. Authors believe if the current regulations were reduced the country would gain enormously. More free time would be allowed for more research and testing which would then allow deployment of crops to help starving people, which would improve the nation as a whole.
The authors of “Genetically Modified Foods” begin their argument for the production and distribution of GM foods by naming all the man made and natural resources that people use every day, that cause pollution and are harmful to one’s health. “We use gas for our cars, and oil for our brakes. We also manipulate atoms to light up buildings and build weapons.” If people are not worried about the air they breathe why are they so worried about Genetically modified foods, that so far have not be proven harmful in testing? After this striking introduction the authors agree that there may be risks involved with GM foods, however they believe the benefits supersede the risks. “Is is stated that Although proof of serious harm to humans, animals and plants has yet to be definitively proven, opponents fear that humans and the environment could be damaged through accidental cross-pollination of GM products with natural plants”. Nevertheless starvation is much more dangerous than any small risk that opponents fear could come with producing GM crops. Another plus that comes along with GM crops is that they are made to resist weeds and bugs, which permits farmers to use less pesticides and herbicides (chemicals that are bad for animals, and humans). therefore GM crops would be help feed the hungry as well as help reduce the contamination of the eart. Contrary to “Regulation Must Be Revolutionized” Authors of “Genetically Modified Foods” tell the reader not only how GM crops will help starving people, but also how they help reduce the amount of chemicals used on crops.
Personally I agree that GM foods should be produced and distributed. I also believe that the regulations should ease up a little. Everyone mentioned in these articles who were against genetically engineered crops, claimed it was because they are bad for human health. However if these people have read these two articles they have seen that no problems have been found with the GM foods so far during testing. Now, if people decide to believe what is written maybe they will then understand that no one has died so far from consuming GM foods, but people are dying daily due to starvation. I believe GM foods should be put on the market. If you do not want to eat them it is your own prerogative, do not buy them, however these same foods you refuse to eat could save a persons life . Looking into the future these foods which can be created with extra vitamins that regular crops do not contain, could eventually become a more healthy source for eating. This would be very beneficial to people who are athletic, very health conscious, or just like to stay fit and healthy like me .
· Potrykus, Ingo. "Regulation must be revolutionized." Nature 466.7306 (2009): n. pag. Web. 14 Sep 2010. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7306/full/466561a
· "Genetically Modified Foods." AFRICAN AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTALIST ASSOCIATION. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Sep 2010. http://www.aaenvironment.com/GM.htm
Physical Exercises Reduce Anxiety in Adults with ID
Everyone knows exercise is good for your health, but many do not know that it can help improve mental problems and quality of life. Recently researchers have composed a study to investigate whether and to what extent physical activity helps in the reduction of anxiety, and the improvement in quality of life, of those who suffer from mild intellectual disabilities and anxiety. If the results of this study show a positive relationship between anxiety and physical activity, then maybe exercise will be used as an alternative to expensive medications, and more people will begin to exercise.
Authors of “Physical Exercises Can Reduce Anxiety and Improve Quality of Life among Adults with Intellectual Disability”, begin the article by giving the reader a bit of background information. We are first informed that depression and anxiety are disorders that encourage changes that are capable of affecting a person’s quality of life, by limiting their social life and slowly reducing their independence. Some researchers even label anxiety as a disabling condition. They also claim adults with physical and intellectual disabilities, are more prone to experiencing an occurrence of mental illness such as anxiety during their lifetime. “Authors explain one reason for this anxiety occurrence could be that many people with intellectual disabilities (ID) have a fear of being insignificant within society. Also brain trauma and insult have been known to cause anxiety associated with ID.”
The purpose of the study presented in the article was to find out how effective physical activity is in reducing anxiety and improving the quality of life of people with ID. Researchers hypothesize that physical activity will improve anxiety and quality of life because; exercise not only helps maintain good health, but it gets people out of their houses, it can be entertaining, a distraction from difficult things in life, and can even build relationships. Thus a study was created using Twenty-four participants between the ages of 45 and 55 diagnosed with ID as well as anxiety. The 24 participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups, including an aerobic group, a leisure activities group, and a control group. The aerobic group, rode bikes or used a treadmill three times a week for six months. The Leisure activities group participated in an assortment of activities such as games and exercises that focused on flexibility and balance three times a week for six months. The control group participated in activities that required no physical activity at all. After the six month long study, researchers used the Hamilton Anxiety Scale to measure the severity of each participant’s anxiety levels. Authors Carmeli et al. explain that the results from the Hamilton anxiety scale were then used to determine the participant’s quality of life. “The scale consists of 14 items, each defined by a series of symptoms. Each item is rated on a five point scale, ranging from not present to severe. Some of the 15 items were excluded in order to adjust the scale to participant’s unique intellectual abilities.” Although a few participants ended up dropping out of the study due to medical problems, researchers were still able to produce valid results.
From the study, researchers found that the patients anxiety levels in the two groups that involved physical activity were significantly reduced after the six month time period. Thus researchers were able to conclude that physical activity does in fact help reduce anxiety. A reduction of anxiety levels can therefore help improve the quality of life of people with Intellectual disabilities. Given that physical activity has now been proven to help with anxiety problems, people now have an alternative option besides medications. As you can see physical activity is a very important part of life. Whether it is kicking a soccer ball around with a friend, participation in team sports, or taking a walk on a treadmill, physical activity is good for your health. Enjoying athletics as much as I do, I have chosen sports for my physical activity, so I can stay in shape while having fun with friends. With so much discussion of the importance of exercise and physical activity, I believe readers of this blog will be interested in how the exercise they enjoy, in being an athlete, can not only improve their physique but also their medical problems and quality of life.
· Carmeli, Eli, Sharon Barak, Einat Kodesh, and Morad Mohammed. "Physical Exercises Can Reduce Anxiety and Improve Quality of Life among Adults with Intellectual Disability." International SportMed Journal 10.2 (2009): 77-85. Web. 27 Sep 2010. .
Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing
Technology continues advancing with DNA analysis in a way that one can now learn about their susceptibility to genes and diseases without ever leaving their home. The Nature article “Putting DNA to the Test” describes direct-to-consumer genetic testing as a simple process where the consumer receives a test tube by mail from any genetic testing company. The consumer then fills the test tube with saliva and returns it to the company for DNA analysis. In a few short weeks the company gives the consumer the requested information concerning their genes. These novel tests’ capability of helping doctors with prescriptions and diagnosis’s also give people information regarding certain diseases’ susceptibility. It remains clear that direct to consumer testing proves harmless and also valuable to society. Therefore the placements of regulations on direct to consumer genetic tests remain unnecessary; they will prevent the easy access of informative genetic information, and will hinder the genetic research industry’s innovative growth.
Opposite opposing thoughts concerning direct-to-consumer genetic testing, these tests do not harm anyone and restrictions should not be made based upon this idea. The federal government and FDA want to put restrictions on testing because some results could cause a person to feel the need to take drastic and unnecessary actions which could harm them. Really the genetic testing companies do not provide any medical service, so the FDA should not get involved, and the way a person perceives their test results and what they decide to do with them should not concern the federal government. Clearly, DNA testing companies should not be held responsible for the person’s reactions concerning the test results. The testing companies make people aware, early in the process that results from these tests simply provide the information they requested, NOT a diagnosis. Anyone concerned with their results can take them to a physician who can decipher the results and counsel them on what needs to be done. Doctors do not have regulations that make them avoid giving diagnosis’s just because they are worried a patient may make unnecessary or drastic decisions. So DNA testing companies should not have regulations that make them withhold results based on the chance that the consumer could make a drastic unnecessary decision.
If genetic testing does become more regulated, consumers will have a difficult time obtaining information regarding their genes. If people can not easily access this information then they could lose out on valuable personal information. These restrictions could make tests more expensive, limiting the tests to only those who could afford them, and cutting down on customers. Worst of all the restrictions could potentially eliminate direct to consumer testing all together. Right now minus any extreme regulations anyone interested and willing to pay can easily attain knowledge concerning their genes, using direct-to-consumer testing. People’s genetic test results can reveal information regarding; long lost relatives, eye color, medicines that could cause negative effects , and even diseases that they may be more susceptible to. The results can be used in many different ways. After attaining results and confirming them with a doctor, a person who has found they are more susceptible to a hereditary disease can decide whether they should have children or not. Also a person who finds out they are more susceptible to a disease such as breast cancer can work with their doctor to decide if preventative actions are necessary. The results could also help a doctor decide what medications he should or should not prescribe to the patient, thus improving individual health care. Many times doctors cannot be sure how a certain medication will affect you unless you have tried it once. Therefore providing your doctor with your genetic test results could save you from taking a medicine that negatively affects you. If people can not access information about their genes they may never know their susceptibility to certain diseases, and the different affects that certain medications could have on their bodies. People should have the freedom in obtaining information concerning themselves. Clearly regulations will cause more problems than solutions, and could make someone miss out on beneficial information that could possibly save their life
Not only will new regulations hurt consumers, they will also slow down the genetic research industries development and innovation. Two articles; “Are Commercial DNA Tests DOA” and News Weeks , “Would Regulation Kill Genetic Testing?” explain that these new regulations will require, that the FDA clear all tests before being distributed to consumers, and will require that companies send in “policy documents and protocols regarding collection, storage, and processing of individual DNA samples.” These regulations will require much more time, energy, and money which, instead could be put towards bettering genetic tests and the research industry. If the industry’s costs increase, then consumer’s costs will also increase, resulting in fewer customers. Also if more time is put towards obtaining policy documents, less time will be spent obtaining and delivering genetic test results, which will also hamper the industry. News Weeks article admits that “clearing by the FDA would raise the barriers to entry, possibly discouraging start ups or driving industries overseas.” There have not been any customer complaints so far ,concerning FDA approval and the privacy of their results, so why is the government worrying about this now? The point is that these unnecessary regulations will keep the genetic research industry from growing and gaining the new information needed to keep the industry going.
Provided with this great amount of information it is evident that direct-to-consumer genetic testing is a very valuable way of attaining important information regarding ones genes. This type of genetic testing can possibly shed light on information we otherwise may never have known about ourselves. If regulations are put on direct-to-consumer genetic testing, consumers will have limited access to information concerning themselves, and the genetic testing industry could slowly start dissipating. I believe it is your right as a human being to be able to learn about yourself, and nothing should restrict you from doing so. I also believe that , in sparing the genetic testing industry the new regulations the industry will be able to do more research and maybe one day use the saliva filled tube for more than just information on medicines, eye color, and diseases.
· "Putting DNA to the Test." Nature (2009): 697-698. Web. 13 Oct 2010. http://www.nature.com.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/nature/journal/v461/n7265/full/461697b.html.
· Tennant, Michael. "Are Commercial DNA Tests DOA?." New American 07 June 2010: n. pag. Web. 13 Oct 2010. http://www.nature.com.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/nature/journal/v461/n7265/full/461697b.html.
· "Consumer Genetics:Reading genes." Economist 12 August 2010: n. pag. Web. 13 Oct 2010. http://www.economist.com/node/16791748?story_id=16791748.
· Carmichael, Mary. "Would Regulation Kill Genetic Testing?." News Week 04 June 2010: n. pag. Web. 13 Oct 2010. http://www.newsweek.com/2010/06/04/would-regulation-kill-genetic-testing.html.
