Naturally, people want to know what's in the food they eat. If they have food allergies, it's important to know there could be traces of that allergen in their food. So, initially, it seems logical to pass a bill forcing producers of genetically engineered food to inform its consumers that their products are such. Key word: initially. There are many underlying issues when it comes to genetically engineered foods, some of the big ones: morality, fear and feeding the poor.

Morality, "ethics, the doctrine of man's moral duties" is, by far, the hardest issue to argue since morality differs from person to person. Who's to say what is moral and what isn't? Unfortunately, if people feel that something is immoral, they also may feel there's no room for discussion and this fuels a majority of the tension behind this issue. The morality issue is that some think it is immoral to "play God" by tinkering with "God's creations." Others think it would be immoral to deny food to those who need it so badly.

Fear drives some of the campaign behind labeling bioengineered foods. Many concerns for these foods stem from lack of knowledge about the subject. John Henkel of the FDA Consumer so rightly put it that "FDA scientists and others in the field blame some negative consumer reaction on the recombinant DNA technique's complexity. The technology is difficult to understand, so there is a fear of the unknown. Genetic engineering 'simply sounds scary,' says Dr. Jim Maryanski, FDA's food biotechnology coordinator. 'People call FDA and say, We don't want anyone tinkering with our food. Then we remind them that there's hardly a food in the grocery store that hasn't been extensively tinkered with.

"Take corn. Those nice juicy ears of corn we have -- they didn't exist. Some kinds of corn had a hard outer shell on the kernel that you couldn't eat until it was made into flour. And the kiwi was developed from a hard little berry. We only have our present-day kiwi and our corn and wheat and hundreds of other foods because of extensive plant breeding."

Stores like Fresh fields and Whole Foods Incorporated benefit financially from the passing of this bill, and therefore are supporting it for that reason, not because they care about their consumers. The Organic Times suggested that "educational efforts," including the spread of the myth that conventionally grown and modified foods are less safe than organic foods, has resulted in higher sales of organic foods companies.

On the contrary, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), the American Cancer Society and numerous other scientific bodies and regulatory agencies have clearly stated that such food safety claims about non-organic foods are false. There is no evidence that conventional food or foods produced with biotechnology are any less safe. NAS has even indicated that, in some cases, they may be safer than organic foods.

The first modified product to go on the market was the "flavr savr" tomato. An "antisense" gene replaces the one that encodes the enzyme responsible for tomato spoilage. This suppresses this enzyme, allowing the tomato to stay ripe, but not rot, up to 10 days. This allows more time for transport to places like Africa. Another product, "golden rice," contains Vitamin A to help alleviate this deficiency in poor countries where rice is a main staple of their diet.

Do foods, designed to help alleviate hunger and improve nutritional status, sound like horrible, immoral things? Unfortunately, some that think so comprise of extremist groups that spread fear and fight for their cause in violent ways. Consumer Reports magazine recently stated that no one has ever gotten ill from bioengineered foods, but anti-modified food activists and bioengineering scientists agree there should be thorough testing to determine their safety.

The problem is, how are researchers supposed to test the safety of their products if Greenpeace and other activist groups continue to commandeer farmers' tractors, crash through fences and chase their families when they try to stop them, smash windows and set research labs on fire? Thousands of acres of crops have been uprooted costing researchers and graduate students millions of dollars, setting them as far back as 15 years of research time.

What's their reason? They fear the chance that something may go wrong when using genetic engineering techniques. Should we let fear make our decisions? There's risk in everything we do. There's a chance that something might go wrong when you cross the street; after all, a bus could hit you. But, keeping that in mind, does that prevent you from crossing the street at all?

Much like genetic engineering, if you take the necessary precautions you can avoid or dramatically decrease the chance that things will go wrong. Next time, plead with your Congressman or woman to think about the underlying issues before making a decision that could affect millions upon millions of people.

I know I would think twice about letting this bill (H.R.3377, S.2080) pass if the lives of millions of hungry people were being held over my head. After all, genetically engineered food is still food; it is just bred under different, more controlled conditions.

Now that you are aware of the situation and realize that you don't have to be fearful, just look both ways and cross the street.