Should the government decide what we’re allowed to eat?

TechBriefs — Tue, 21 Nov 2006 21:13:03 +0000

Last week, we asked INSIDERs if you thought NASA’s decision to add a shuttle mission in 2008 to service the Hubble Space Telescope was worth the risk. An overwhelming 94 percent of you said it was worth it to keep Hubble operational, with only 6 percent saying no. Here’s some of what you had to say:

“I fully support the decision by NASA to add a Hubble repair mission. Exploring space will always be dangerous — it is not mankind’s natural environment. While unnecessary risk should be avoided, the continued ascent of mankind will always require that people be willing to step forth and face the dangers of the unknown.” C.K. Andersen

“Not only should NASA service the Hubble, their roadmap needs to include the means of performing on-orbit service missions, for Hubble or other high-value platforms. I would be extremely disappointed if we lost all ability to perform such missions after the retirement of the shuttle.” B. Haselrick

“Hubble is worth repairing and updating. I wish when I was younger we had this type of technology. My daughters both love astronomy and are fascinated with Hubble’s images and discoveries. In another 20 years, if they continue this love, who knows what we will discover, or what they will discover.” B. Hager

This week’s question concerns a proposed ban in all New York City restaurants on the use of trans fat in an attempt to keep the population heart-healthy. Many restaurant owners are concerned that their food will not taste the same with replacement ingredients.

Should we be allowed to eat unhealthy food if we choose, or should the government make that choice for us through food bans? Should the government decide what we’re allowed to eat? Submit your answer at:
http://link.abpi.net/l.php?20061113A12

Has science gone too far in enabling us to “design” our children?

TechBriefs — Tue, 21 Nov 2006 18:44:07 +0000

Last week’s question asked if the government should impose a ban on
foods that are deemed unhealthy. Eighty-four percent of you said no,
with 16 percent agreeing that we need the government’s help in making
healthy food choices. Here’s more of what you had to say:

“This is the United States of America. It is not up to the government
to tell the people what to do; it is up to the people to tell the
government what to do. That is government of the people, by the people,
and for the people.” G.P. Rogers

“Why don’t you ask the question, ‘Should corporate agribusiness
conglomerates control what we eat?’ Just try to find readily available
foods without partially hydrogenated oils or corn syrup (two substances
humans didn’t eat 100 years ago).” S. Owen

“Should the government decide what we’re allowed to eat? Of course not.
But the idea of eliminating trans-fats in restaurant foods is a good
one. We all stand to win with lower healthcare costs that could be the
result of lower occurrences of obesity, diabetes, and heart problems.”
D. Gilfoy

This week’s question concerns genetic barcoding, technology that may
enable doctors to tailor disease treatments based on a person’s
genetic makeup. What’s becoming a concern is that some forms of genetic
barcoding could be used to let parents “pre-fab” their babies, enabling
them to choose the sex, hair and eye color, specific traits, and even
the level of intelligence their child may possess.

Has science gone too far in enabling us to “design” our children?
Submit your answer here.

Tech Briefs Insider » 2006 » November

Should the government decide what we’re allowed to eat?

Has science gone too far in enabling us to “design” our children?