Quorn Argumentative Essay

As a human population, food or food additives are generally recognized as truly safe (agreement from the majority of society) when the long-term exposure to an ingredient has not been shown to cause adverse side effects. This is the case because human clinical trials are nearly impossible and these long-term observational studies are the best representation of correlation that can be established. However, this methodology tends to provoke skepticism when a novel food such as a meat replacement is invented, resulting in an ethical challenge for food companies and food regulatory agencies. If a completely novel meat replace like Quorn was invented today there are a few attributes of this product that I would, personally, want to know such as,

However, when placing the physiological viewpoint on the “back-burner” it is apparent that someone must be qualified, otherwise, productivity in the food industry/system would be significant stalled. Therefore, it seems logical to place the responsibility of determining the approvable of a new food on a body of individuals who strive for unbiased, productivity and safety within the food industry. An example that I feel is fitting to determine the approval of a food in America is the FDA. It has become evident through the discussions in lecture that the FDA’s system is far from flawless; however, it is difficult to hypothesize a system that would work as efficiently as the one currently being implemented. It is possible to argue that the FDA should only be responsible for issuing generalized statements and if skeptical consumers would like to take additional precaution it is fair that they take them on their own, for perhaps a less concerned consumer values the cost of a food over the 100% confident safety of a