Government regulation of genetically modified organisms and toy safety

Technology and Society

Government and Harmful Technology

When looking for sources about Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) it is truly impossible to find a totally objective source. Of course, companies that produce these foods will insist upon GMO's safety. Likewise, both European and American companies that make the exclusion of such foodstuffs a major selling point in their marketing campaigns will insist upon the dangers of GMOs. The European Union is currently standing by its decision to ban such products, and to do so is in the interests of smaller European farmers competing with major American industrial farmers, as American industry is allowed to use or create such products. Even the American government has an interest in defending the use of these products, because the government has validated GMO's safety, which serves the interest of American agriculture and corporations.

Discussion 3

We are already eating GMOs in the United States, whether we like it or not. The government should closely monitor the developing research on the potential help or harm of GMOs. But until they are shown to do us great ill, the benefits of GMOs seem to outweigh the risks. On some level it is amazing that people will not bother to look at the calorie or nutritional values of the food they eat on a daily basis, ingest chemicals in processed food, yet worry about GMO vegetables and whole grains!

Corporations and Harmful Technology.

Discussion 1

Corporations that produce products for children are in a position of great trust. Parents cannot inspect the factories owned by every toy manufacturer, to ensure that the facilities are free from lead or other banned products. Creating a toy for a small child that can be toxic if it is chewed is like leaving a swimming pool open without a fence -- an attractive nuisance something that is inviting children to take a dangerous risk and is therefore illegal.

Discussion 2 different issue arises with toys with small parts that could be hazardous if handled by a very young child but not by an older child. Companies label their toys to indicate if the toy is suitable for young children, and if children under a certain age should not use the toy. Some toys can be dangerous for young children if they are used inappropriately. It is not reasonable to expect that corporations create toys that can be used by all children, regardless of age, thus parents must exercise some supervision when watching their children play with toys to ensure that their younger children do not use older children's toys in an unsafe manner.

Discussion 3

Corporations clearly have an ethical responsibility to prevent children from becoming physically damaged by swallowing small parts and dying by choking, or being exposed to dangerous levels of toxic chemicals. But what about fast food advertising? These products are harmful, as they are high in calories and free of nutrition. Just like lead can permanently harm a child's intellectual development, the obesity caused by junk food can harm a child's physical development. Should fast food advertising -- or fast food in schools -- be banned as well given they are victimizing consumers with few cognitive defenses? Or is diet solely the parent's responsibility, given that parents have a reasonable expectation that the food is unhealthy, just as they have a reasonable expectation that a Barbie doll will not contain toxic chemicals, even if chewed by a younger sibling?