In the United State, the prossessing of food for consumption took on new dimensions in the latter part of the Twentieth Century.  Today from inception to consumption, genetic altering is filtered into this chain, promoting a cradle-to-grave impact on the foods we eat.

No longer can we be assured that the milk we drink has only been pasturized for safety. We must now be concerned with how many other filtering stages the milk has experienced. While the process may have enhanced the cow's milk production, did it also affect the meat of the cow? A multiple milk supply source now translates into greater cow girth. Could this then answer the question of why we have larger offsprings? In the early twentieth century a six foot tall male was a rarity in the United States. Today they are almost commonplace. "When we eat healty foods and take the DNA of other creatures into our bodies, we ritually and physically enact the story of that evolutionary and enviormental journey. Will the artificial restructing of the DNA in our food rupture that connection in a way that we  can't now even imagine?" 
We want to eat healthy foods . However, in doing so we also put into our bodies another's DNA and all that it brings. What it is bring speaks to the altered food process or genetic alteration of a food source.               

       Genetically altered food is occuring more rampantly in our food chain( fresh fruit, vegetables, groceries,to name a few.) Some have become favorites such as tangelos( cross of tangerine and grapefruit.)  These products are sometimes called "designer" foods and true to the designer mentality habors the desire to be unique(one-of-kind.) The only problem with this train of thought is that the-devil-is-in-that-uniqueness. In other words one source uniqueness could be another source's destruction. Here in lies the debate( the good news with the bad.) Groups such as PURE FOOD COMPANY,NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION,BIOTECHNOLOGY POLICY CENTER, and ENVIONRMENTAL DEFENCE FUND,are  organizations that address the pros/cons of this very highly controversial topic.    

"The worldwide alarm about the safety of genetically altered food, both for human health and the environment, has reached a monumental pitch for those who care to listen. In the European Union and particularly Great Britain, citizens have stated clearly and forcefully that they simply do not want these foods grown in their countries or on their dinner table. On June 24, EU ministers moved toenvironmental  implement the legal equivalent of a three-year moratorium on any new approvals of GE foods or crops. In response to huge consumer demand, many grocery chain stores in Britain have removed these foods from their shelves. In May, the prestigious 115,000-member British Medical Association (the equivalent of the AMA in the US) issued a report, which called for a moratorium on GE foods and crops. The BMA warned that the commercialization of untested and unlabeled gene-foods could lead to the development of new allergies and antibiotic resistance in humans. In third world countries such as India, farmers have been protesting against the loss of their independence and traditional farming practices entailed in this radical new form of agriculture. In the United States, the movement is only beginning, and I believe we in EarthSave have a vital and unique role to play in this."

       In conclusion genetic engineering/alteration is in actuality ,taking genes from one living thing and artficially putting it into a different living thing,that would never occur in nature. We see  in this alteration process ,especially for food, a possible and  extremely serious hazard to human  health and to the natural enviornment.

 Test Your Knowledge  With Word Search