ALERT: FDA WANTS TO CLASSIFY GENETICALLY ENGINEERED THINGS AS "DRUGS" INCLUDING ANIMALS. THIS IS UTTER BULLSHIT.
gizmodo.com
In the future, the FDA would like to regulate any animal whose genome has been intentionally altered as an “animal drug.”
fda.gov
What if we injected pig genes into every form of food, thus making all food haram?
FDA can only regulate interstate commerce due to the 10th amendment and generally the FDA regulates the marketing rules and package inserts for products. They accept the data from the pharma company that says these are the side effects and this is our data showing that it works. FDA regulates not the products themselves but the marketing of the products. They've done this before, labeling organisms as medical devices, for example they consider hookworms and leeches to be medical devices.
FDA is on the verge of classifying genetics as drugs. This is a crazy overreach and will stifle science.
the altered genomic DNA in an animal is a drug within the meaning of section 201(g) of the FD&C Act because such altered DNA is an ar
ticle intended to affect the structure or function of the body of the animal, and, in some cases, intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treat ment, or prevention of disease in the animal
>Mfw the Trumpenreich will create genetically engineered wolf and cat grils for purchase at your local CVS™
>ALERT: FDA WANTS TO CLASSIFY GENETICALLY ENGINEERED THINGS AS "DRUGS" INCLUDING ANIMALS. THIS IS UTTER BULLSHIT.
praise him, thank you Donald and thank you KEK
This was done two days before Trump Inauguration by Obama.
This is not a Trump action
regulations.gov
It is needless regulations.
I think this is great. People shouldn't be playing God or pushing crap on the public without significant oversight.
>classifying genetics as drugs.
no it's likely just whatever certain types of genetic engineered products
It's pointless regulation
Hopefully Trump's FDA will nix it. Breeders should have the right to fix genetic diseases for the animal's health without having to spend a billion dollars on drug approval regulations
>This was done two days before Trump Inauguration by Obama.
Regulation of Intentionally Altered Genomic DNA
what about plants? I think anything classified as food should be in the same bill
I've got a degree in biology and I do believe in some government regulation of food and drugs.
I do think GMOs should be regulated and monitored by the government.
I think people should be alerted to whether or not a food contains GMO products.
I am not wholly against them, but I do think we need to treat cautiously.
Ethics of GMOs are a complex animal, pun intended. And things are gonna only get weirder and more complex.
It's an overreach. There is no reason to do it now. Any bad actor would just do it in secret.
>It's pointless regulation
if you say so, why the hell would Obama pass it last minute?
this also includes such technology as artificially grown human organs so yes it definitely merits some type of oversight
but I think it's wasteful to not just include everything using the technology in one bill, they really need to do their job with the food, they're supposed to test new technology in packaged foods for years but they never do it at all it's disgraceful and you can see the result in the physique and healthcare cost of your average American
>I do believe in some government regulation of food and drugs.
how else do you make sure that fire hot cheetos are only sold in the black neighborhoods
Have any of you faggots actually thought about how much safety testing has gone into GMO products?
We have so many types of mixed gene food stuffs and that 99% of the food we eat is contaminated with it. However the safety tests done from the start has been a few tests on rats.
It is literally the most important part of our survival is a pure and clean food source. If you introduce a new drug how long does trails last and human safety?
I think at least this should apply to all new altered foods. Making your food supply resistant to x pesticide(roundup) by adding genes from a known toxic plant to sell your pesticide in the long term isn't a good thing.
Companies focus on selling pesticide rather than faster growing , self nitrogen fertilizing and higher yielding crops. We will all pay for it in the end. When companies own the genetic rights to the beef, grain and vegetables on your plate because they sprayed it with organophospates that can cause tissue damage on non gmo crops we will see a truly dystopian future.
Tucker was an ass though
>Have any of you faggots actually thought about how much safety testing has gone into GMO products?
I just look at the patents, they're trying to sterilize morons and blacks with this stuff, I don't really care so long as I have a choice, I doubt the you can only buy food from me scheme will ever work, but they do make bugs more resistant to pesticides
>Here comes CRISPR
>Altered DNA is drugs
FAKE HUMANS WILL BE DRUGS!
I don't know what to think about this.
>It's an overreach.
Yes and no. Most of the food/produce you eat has been genetically modified. You're not gonna find grocery store-tier fruit like that in the wild. Modifying the genes involved in fruit development can and has widely increased the amount and hardiness of available food.
However, yes, there is the potential for a lot of evil with GMO's, including biological alterations like nutrient deficiencies and economic problems like patenting specific genes that were found and regulating the hell out of whatever people can grow and sell.
Oversight and education is good.
You show pigs that are designed to glow and you question why it should be regulated?
Good
Fuck off Frankenstein
Its not about ill-intent, its about negligence. Without the FDA, in 20 years we'd be eating bleached Soylent Green because some company cant be arsed to make actual crackers.
this is strictly about corporate profit, come on
the only reason for this reclassification is that currently Monsanto et al can't copyright 'naturally occurring' products, like gmo grains and animals, they can only copyright the process to make it. this would change that; they could then copyright the farmer's pigs and his field of wheat.