Debate Technology and the Africa Rice Center
ISSUE: Should genetic modification be used to further economic development?
In Africa, the rice industry is represented by the Africa Rice Center, formerly known as West Africa Rice Development Association (WARDA). The mission of the center
is to contribute to poverty alleviation and food security in Africa, through research, development, and partnership activities aimed at increasing the productivity and
profitability of the rice sector in ways that ensure the sustainability of the farming environment. The association started in 1970 and today boasts twenty-two African
nations as members and partners with many international organizations, including the United Nations, European Commission, and the World Health Organizations. In
carrying out its mission, the center recognizes three key barriers, including (1) low productivity and sustainability of rice, (2) poor quality of the marketed
product, and (3) unfavorable market and policy environment. To overcome these issues, the center established a strategic plan, including the use of research and
development protocols to bridge genetic diversity and produce new variations of rice and disease-resistant crops. The center’s current technologies allowed for the
introduction of NERICA (New Rice for Africa) rice varieties.
NERICA was created by crossing O. glaberrima and O. sativa, two species of rice that demonstrate different strengths and weaknesses when grown in Africa. Rice farmers
had long hoped to combine the best traits of the two species, but efforts had been fruitless. In the early 1990s, WARDA breeders turned to biotechnology in an attempt
to overcome the infertility problem. Because the different species do not naturally interbreed, a technique called embryo-rescue was used to assure that crosses
between the two varieties survive and grow to maturity. By 2000, over 20,000 farmers were growing NERICA varieties in Africa. To many, NERICA is central to solving
Africa’s severe poverty and nutrition problems. To others, NERICA is the latest attempt by government and business to promote a solution that is not fully tested.
Critics claim that NERICA requires more fertilizer and care and fails to adapt well to the soil and techniques that small farmers have used for generations. While
proponents tout the modern revolution in rice, others are waiting for the empirical evidence that NERICA is good for development.
There are two sides to every issue:
1. Defend the belief that NERICA is an appropriate use of biotechnology and genetic modification. What are the benefits of these techniques?
2. Defend the belief that scientists should not be using genetic modification to create new species of any food, including NERICA. What are the risks associated with
these techniques?
Debate Mandatory Calorie Labeling on Menus
ISSUE: Should restaurants be required to provide calorie counts on their menus?
As part of last year’s Healthcare Reform Act, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued two proposed regulations affecting calorie labeling on menus
and menu boards in chain restaurants, retail food establishments, and vending machines. The proposal, titled the “Menu Labeling Rule,” will apply to chains with 20 or
more locations operating under the same name while offering the same menu items. Other businesses that will be impacted are bakeries, coffee shops, and certain
grocery and convenience stores. However, exempt from this regulation will be businesses whose primary purpose is not to sell food (e.g., movie theaters and
airplanes).
The primary reason for the proposed regulation is to address major obesity and health problems in the United States. A study by the journal of Health Affairs revealed
medical costs of obesity have nearly doubled to $147 billion within a 10-year period. Additionally, obesity accounts for 9.1 percent of national healthcare spending,
which is up from 6.5 percent a decade ago. The average citizen is now 23 pounds overweight, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and obesity
rose by 37 percent between 1998 and 2006.
According to Michael Jacobson, director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, “in an age of obesity, calorie information is probably the single most wanted
piece of nutrition information and these new regulations will get that information out there.” Consumers can find calorie and other nutrition information on most
packaged foods, but it is not generally available in restaurants. This is important because Americans now consume about one-third of their total calories on foods
prepared outside the home, according to the FDA Commissioner.
Proponents of the proposed rule believe that consumers have the right to know what they are eating. They point to the difficulty of trying to determine the calorie
contents of the foods they consume when dining out. Cities that have passed similar regulations, such as New York City, claim that consumers armed with the appropriate
information are now able to make wiser food choices. Choosing healthier options when dining out could significantly combat the obesity epidemic; the Los Angeles
Department of Public Health has stated that if 10 percent of restaurant diners ate 100 fewer calories each meal, it would lower obesity rates by 39 percent. These
regulations could also be a major help to people suffering from health problems, who can unhealthy foods.
On the other hand, opponents of the regulation, including many restaurants, have argued that it would impose significant costs on businesses with little to show for in
return. Having to revamp menus is costly, and restaurants claim that it is difficult for them to keep calorie counts consistent and eliminates their ability to be
spontaneous with their food preparation. Opponents also argue that information on menu items is already available online and in other places. Therefore, health-
conscious consumers have many outlets in which to turn if they really want to know what they are eating. They also point to the fact that many restaurants already post
information about their foods on posters or trays, and yet the obesity epidemic continues unabated. Indeed, several consumers have indicated that calorie content is
not as important to them as the taste of the food when eating out. Finally, critics
believe that government intervention goes too far in “engineering” citizens’ personal choices. They argue it is each person’s responsibility to gather sufficient
knowledge about what he or she is consuming.
The FDA’s proposal was submitted April 1, 2011, and the agency will issue final rules before the end of the year.
There are two sides to every issue:
1. Requiring food establishments to post calorie information on menus will help combat the obesity epidemic.
2. Mandatory calorie labeling on menus will impose a mandatory burden on food establishments without slowing the obesity epidemic.
