GMOs Scary or not?
Options
Replies
-
Ok, so I figured out what it is that really bugs me about the "just label it, we have a right to know, let the people decide" rhetoric being used on this topic. It's the exact same damn emotional belief over fact based evidence rhetoric used by the "teach the controversy crowd" to try and force their beliefs in to print in order to sway a public body that doesn't actually HAVE the science education necessary to make a truly informed decision. And just as with the teach the controversy issue, the burden of proof lies on those trying to force their feelings and beliefs in to print, NOT the other way around.
So my demand to have a label that tells me something about my own food that I will put into my own body is suddenly forcing something on someone else?
No.
I'm an intellectual, all day, every day. And I don't have too high an opinion of human intelligence in general. Nevertheless, I abhor the mindset of those who wish to treat the majority of the population like they're children, unable to have the information and make their own decisions.
It's the EXACT same rhetoric. You have no proof, no sources no nothing to suggest why you get to force through legislation that makes company's print a label that is going to do nothing more than scare uninformed consumers away from perfectly harmless products, because you BELIEVE despite all evidence to the contrary that big scary Monsanto or whoever your boogie man is, is going to poison you with a technology that you don't fully understand. The burden of proof is on YOU, what good comes from forcing the printing of labels on every single product besides making you *feel* better. What is the benefit besides letting you feel better because now you can avoid the scary GMOs?
What about a "Made in USA label"? Don't you have a right to know where your goods come from?
What about the fiber content on a shirt? It's a shirt.
What about the use of ethoxylated alcohols in cleaners? They are safe to use, but I'd rather not buy them because they present, in my opinion, an unnecessary risk - not to the user, but to those making the product. It's an ethical choice.
I buy, willingly, many GMO products. I still like to know I'm buying them. It simply should be a "right to know". It could be an ethical decision as well - I don't like Monsanto because of their lawsuits on small farmers due to natural propagation of GMO seeds which they have patented. So the issue is ideological, not scaremongering. There are few stronger votes than voting with your wallet.
The analogy here is flawed. A GMO label isn't like a company willingly putting a "Made in the USA" label on their product, it would be like forcing any company whose products weren't made in the USA to put a "NOT Made in the USA" label on their products. How legal do you think that would be? How well do you think that would go over?
There is nothing stopping someone from putting a label on their product that says "Contains no GMO" just like there is nothing stopping companies from putting "Made in the USA" on their products.
Off topic question -
Do you not have labels saying where your food, clothing, electrical appliances etc are made?
Like, not just Made in USA to encourage patriotic buying but made in China, Korea, Japan etc.
I am surprised - everything in Australia has such labels.
Well I best not say absolutely everything - somebody will pipe up that they bought a tablecloth or something that didn't say - but certainly all food does, and as far as I know, all packaged items, food or otherwise.0 -
Ok, so I figured out what it is that really bugs me about the "just label it, we have a right to know, let the people decide" rhetoric being used on this topic. It's the exact same damn emotional belief over fact based evidence rhetoric used by the "teach the controversy crowd" to try and force their beliefs in to print in order to sway a public body that doesn't actually HAVE the science education necessary to make a truly informed decision. And just as with the teach the controversy issue, the burden of proof lies on those trying to force their feelings and beliefs in to print, NOT the other way around.
So my demand to have a label that tells me something about my own food that I will put into my own body is suddenly forcing something on someone else?
No.
I'm an intellectual, all day, every day. And I don't have too high an opinion of human intelligence in general. Nevertheless, I abhor the mindset of those who wish to treat the majority of the population like they're children, unable to have the information and make their own decisions.
It's the EXACT same rhetoric. You have no proof, no sources no nothing to suggest why you get to force through legislation that makes company's print a label that is going to do nothing more than scare uninformed consumers away from perfectly harmless products, because you BELIEVE despite all evidence to the contrary that big scary Monsanto or whoever your boogie man is, is going to poison you with a technology that you don't fully understand. The burden of proof is on YOU, what good comes from forcing the printing of labels on every single product besides making you *feel* better. What is the benefit besides letting you feel better because now you can avoid the scary GMOs?
What about a "Made in USA label"? Don't you have a right to know where your goods come from?
What about the fiber content on a shirt? It's a shirt.
What about the use of ethoxylated alcohols in cleaners? They are safe to use, but I'd rather not buy them because they present, in my opinion, an unnecessary risk - not to the user, but to those making the product. It's an ethical choice.
I buy, willingly, many GMO products. I still like to know I'm buying them. It simply should be a "right to know". It could be an ethical decision as well - I don't like Monsanto because of their lawsuits on small farmers due to natural propagation of GMO seeds which they have patented. So the issue is ideological, not scaremongering. There are few stronger votes than voting with your wallet.
The analogy here is flawed. A GMO label isn't like a company willingly putting a "Made in the USA" label on their product, it would be like forcing any company whose products weren't made in the USA to put a "NOT Made in the USA" label on their products. How legal do you think that would be? How well do you think that would go over?
There is nothing stopping someone from putting a label on their product that says "Contains no GMO" just like there is nothing stopping companies from putting "Made in the USA" on their products.
Off topic question -
Do you not have labels saying where your food, clothing, electrical appliances etc are made?
Like, not just Made in USA to encourage patriotic buying but made in China, Korea, Japan etc.
I am surprised - everything in Australia has such labels.
Well I best not say absolutely everything - somebody will pipe up that they bought a tablecloth or something that didn't say - but certainly all food does, and as far as I know, all packaged items, food or otherwise.
This is true....and I don't see why that's necessarily needed information....I mean, where something is made shouldn't affect the product or whether it serves it's intended purpose, should it?0 -
Ok, so I figured out what it is that really bugs me about the "just label it, we have a right to know, let the people decide" rhetoric being used on this topic. It's the exact same damn emotional belief over fact based evidence rhetoric used by the "teach the controversy crowd" to try and force their beliefs in to print in order to sway a public body that doesn't actually HAVE the science education necessary to make a truly informed decision. And just as with the teach the controversy issue, the burden of proof lies on those trying to force their feelings and beliefs in to print, NOT the other way around.
So my demand to have a label that tells me something about my own food that I will put into my own body is suddenly forcing something on someone else?
No.
.
Yes.
You are forcing other consumers to cover the costs associated with labeling the product.0 -
Ok, so I figured out what it is that really bugs me about the "just label it, we have a right to know, let the people decide" rhetoric being used on this topic. It's the exact same damn emotional belief over fact based evidence rhetoric used by the "teach the controversy crowd" to try and force their beliefs in to print in order to sway a public body that doesn't actually HAVE the science education necessary to make a truly informed decision. And just as with the teach the controversy issue, the burden of proof lies on those trying to force their feelings and beliefs in to print, NOT the other way around.
So my demand to have a label that tells me something about my own food that I will put into my own body is suddenly forcing something on someone else?
No.
I'm an intellectual, all day, every day. And I don't have too high an opinion of human intelligence in general. Nevertheless, I abhor the mindset of those who wish to treat the majority of the population like they're children, unable to have the information and make their own decisions.
It's the EXACT same rhetoric. You have no proof, no sources no nothing to suggest why you get to force through legislation that makes company's print a label that is going to do nothing more than scare uninformed consumers away from perfectly harmless products, because you BELIEVE despite all evidence to the contrary that big scary Monsanto or whoever your boogie man is, is going to poison you with a technology that you don't fully understand. The burden of proof is on YOU, what good comes from forcing the printing of labels on every single product besides making you *feel* better. What is the benefit besides letting you feel better because now you can avoid the scary GMOs?
What about a "Made in USA label"? Don't you have a right to know where your goods come from?
What about the fiber content on a shirt? It's a shirt.
What about the use of ethoxylated alcohols in cleaners? They are safe to use, but I'd rather not buy them because they present, in my opinion, an unnecessary risk - not to the user, but to those making the product. It's an ethical choice.
I buy, willingly, many GMO products. I still like to know I'm buying them. It simply should be a "right to know". It could be an ethical decision as well - I don't like Monsanto because of their lawsuits on small farmers due to natural propagation of GMO seeds which they have patented. So the issue is ideological, not scaremongering. There are few stronger votes than voting with your wallet.
The analogy here is flawed. A GMO label isn't like a company willingly putting a "Made in the USA" label on their product, it would be like forcing any company whose products weren't made in the USA to put a "NOT Made in the USA" label on their products. How legal do you think that would be? How well do you think that would go over?
There is nothing stopping someone from putting a label on their product that says "Contains no GMO" just like there is nothing stopping companies from putting "Made in the USA" on their products.
Off topic question -
Do you not have labels saying where your food, clothing, electrical appliances etc are made?
Like, not just Made in USA to encourage patriotic buying but made in China, Korea, Japan etc.
I am surprised - everything in Australia has such labels.
Well I best not say absolutely everything - somebody will pipe up that they bought a tablecloth or something that didn't say - but certainly all food does, and as far as I know, all packaged items, food or otherwise.
In the US there is an ad campaign to by American made products to help the economy and as a result of this some products have "Made in America" as a bold logo on the front of the product not just tucked away in a small font somewhere. I was assuming that was the "Made in America" being referred to and was saying that I believe a company would object if they were required to put a big "Not Made in America" logo front and center on their products.0 -
Ok, so I figured out what it is that really bugs me about the "just label it, we have a right to know, let the people decide" rhetoric being used on this topic. It's the exact same damn emotional belief over fact based evidence rhetoric used by the "teach the controversy crowd" to try and force their beliefs in to print in order to sway a public body that doesn't actually HAVE the science education necessary to make a truly informed decision. And just as with the teach the controversy issue, the burden of proof lies on those trying to force their feelings and beliefs in to print, NOT the other way around.
So my demand to have a label that tells me something about my own food that I will put into my own body is suddenly forcing something on someone else?
No.
I'm an intellectual, all day, every day. And I don't have too high an opinion of human intelligence in general. Nevertheless, I abhor the mindset of those who wish to treat the majority of the population like they're children, unable to have the information and make their own decisions.
It's the EXACT same rhetoric. You have no proof, no sources no nothing to suggest why you get to force through legislation that makes company's print a label that is going to do nothing more than scare uninformed consumers away from perfectly harmless products, because you BELIEVE despite all evidence to the contrary that big scary Monsanto or whoever your boogie man is, is going to poison you with a technology that you don't fully understand. The burden of proof is on YOU, what good comes from forcing the printing of labels on every single product besides making you *feel* better. What is the benefit besides letting you feel better because now you can avoid the scary GMOs?
What about a "Made in USA label"? Don't you have a right to know where your goods come from?
What about the fiber content on a shirt? It's a shirt.
What about the use of ethoxylated alcohols in cleaners? They are safe to use, but I'd rather not buy them because they present, in my opinion, an unnecessary risk - not to the user, but to those making the product. It's an ethical choice.
I buy, willingly, many GMO products. I still like to know I'm buying them. It simply should be a "right to know". It could be an ethical decision as well - I don't like Monsanto because of their lawsuits on small farmers due to natural propagation of GMO seeds which they have patented. So the issue is ideological, not scaremongering. There are few stronger votes than voting with your wallet.
The analogy here is flawed. A GMO label isn't like a company willingly putting a "Made in the USA" label on their product, it would be like forcing any company whose products weren't made in the USA to put a "NOT Made in the USA" label on their products. How legal do you think that would be? How well do you think that would go over?
There is nothing stopping someone from putting a label on their product that says "Contains no GMO" just like there is nothing stopping companies from putting "Made in the USA" on their products.
Off topic question -
Do you not have labels saying where your food, clothing, electrical appliances etc are made?
Like, not just Made in USA to encourage patriotic buying but made in China, Korea, Japan etc.
I am surprised - everything in Australia has such labels.
Well I best not say absolutely everything - somebody will pipe up that they bought a tablecloth or something that didn't say - but certainly all food does, and as far as I know, all packaged items, food or otherwise.
This is true....and I don't see why that's necessarily needed information....I mean, where something is made shouldn't affect the product or whether it serves it's intended purpose, should it?
Honestly I'm not sure, I'm guessing it has to do with tariff law and import law but I don't know.0 -
Interesting read.
Very interesting.
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/24876-monsantos-herbicide-linked-to-fatal-kidney-disease-epidemic-will-ckdu-topple-monsanto0 -
I've watched him do this before, and he's had it explained to him before previously why rats of that type are used, but he just likes to go back and say the same misleading stuff when it serves him.
You are referring to the discussion I had on the Aspartame thread with Richard Heath. I had brought up skepticism of the results of the Soufetti et al 2006 publication whereby they showed tumor formation in rats upon administration of aspartame. My point was they also showed tumor formation in their control group that received no aspartame because they used Sprague-Dawley rats which seemed questionable to me. Richard's point, which I conceeded in part, was that if you were going to look for very small effects of a test product on an animal with regards to cancer you would want a test subject that was basically on the tipping point for getting cancer anywyas...because SD rats get cancer about 45% of the time they make good test subjects for that reason it just means you have to have a huge sample size to discern if the differences you see are real.
My follow up to that was to point out that they tested a wide range of aspartame dosages and the one dosage they claimed a significant change in tumor formation relative to the control was the highest dosage group (which was the equivalent of drinking 20,000 sodas a day for a lifetime). The thing was though that other dosages they tested had LESS tumor formation the same distance below the control group so if the authors were claiming significance for tumor formation in the highest dose they would have to also support the idea that at some dosages of aspartame tumor formation is somehow inhibited. This seems extremely unlikely so the more likely was that the sample size was insufficient to lower the background on the signal enough to determine significance. This was also demonstrated by the fact that the dosages they tested did not yield a dose dependent response (in other words increasing or decreasing dosage did not lead to increasing or decreasing tumor formation in a predictable manner). There was nothing wrong with the study though, I just disagreed with its authors conclusions based on the data they provided. I do NOT think that study should be retracted though I think it was performed appropriately.
This paper though, the one for GMOs that was retracted, didn't even include a control of SD rats alone and the percent tumor formation they saw was not significant relative to the normal background seen in SD. What we got from this study is SD rats being held up for the camera doing what SD rats do which is have tumors all over their bodies and then those images get put up in blogs stating that GMO products give you tumors.
If you really believe Richard Heath would object to what I have said here then feel free to ask him, my guess is that he'd probably agree with me but if he doesn't then I have no issue with his response I respect his opinion on it.I really don't know how people on here get the time for so many responses either, 850+/month?!
I travel a fair amount and have my smart phone with me. Rather than play angry birds I follow the forums here. This is the main reason I end up having to edit my posts after posting, stupid phone autocorrects to typing errors all the time and I have to go back and fix them. Is that okay with you free-time police?0 -
Out of curiosity those who are pro-labeling do you think insulin or vaccines should be required to have a label on it that proclaims it to be a GM product?
If not why not? After all these are products that forgo your normal protections that come from ingestion and get injected directly into your blood stream. They are GM produced. Doesn't that make them MORE of a threat if GM is what the issue is?0 -
Interesting read.
Very interesting.
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/24876-monsantos-herbicide-linked-to-fatal-kidney-disease-epidemic-will-ckdu-topple-monsanto
Interesting indeed. It raises a lot of questions, and I'm not certain a lot of what he claims is verifiable (have heard tons about WikiLeaks but don't know how accurate information obtained from it is). But the link between the herbicide(s) and kidney disease hypothesis is very compelling IMO. It will be interesting to see what happens now that El Salvador and Sri Lanka have banned glyphosates.0 -
Out of curiosity those who are pro-labeling do you think insulin or vaccines should be required to have a label on it that proclaims it to be a GM product?
If not why not? After all these are products that forgo your normal protections that come from ingestion and get injected directly into your blood stream. They are GM produced. Doesn't that make them MORE of a threat if GM is what the issue is?
Do you take vaccines in the same quantity as food? How about insulin?
I think when it comes to informing and respecting the consumer, sure. Same reason I'm told that the fu vax is potentially harmful is you are allergic to chicken/feathers/eggs. Could there be aspects that we'll find in the future are harmful? Yes. Could it be the next OMGThimerosalAutism! Sure.
I'd personally like to see them labeled, and that labelling could easily be spun as a marketing benefit. It's all a matter of competition, let the consumers decide what they want to buy, and let the market determine the victor, labeled or unlabeled. Once science catches up after some long term studies, we'll then see what happens physiologically after long term exposure.
However, that article shows we may not need to wait very long to find out that CCD and CKDu are both current and very real reasons to not jump on the GMO bandwagon.0 -
The people who are 'informed' are generally at least as crazy and dumb as the craziest, dumbest regular old citizen you can find, and on top of that in order to reach their position of power these people are often far more ruthless, nasty, deceitful, and in general sociopathic.
^^THIS
Two things:
1) Stop voting for them. Voter turnout, in the US, is dismal at best during the midterms and not much better during presidential election years, so exercise your right to vote; it'll make more of a difference during midterms, where only 1 out of 3 Americans typically even bother to show up.
2) Even if pure democracy was a good idea, which it isn't, the cost of that would be extremely prohibitive. We can't get the US government to spend money on things that people actually need; there's not a chance that the people or the states would go for this on that reason alone and that's what you would need for it to be a thing - a new Constitutional amendment.0 -
Out of curiosity those who are pro-labeling do you think insulin or vaccines should be required to have a label on it that proclaims it to be a GM product?
If not why not? After all these are products that forgo your normal protections that come from ingestion and get injected directly into your blood stream. They are GM produced. Doesn't that make them MORE of a threat if GM is what the issue is?
Do you take vaccines in the same quantity as food? How about insulin?
I think when it comes to informing and respecting the consumer, sure. Same reason I'm told that the fu vax is potentially harmful is you are allergic to chicken/feathers/eggs. Could there be aspects that we'll find in the future are harmful? Yes. Could it be the next OMGThimerosalAutism! Sure.
I'd personally like to see them labeled, and that labelling could easily be spun as a marketing benefit. It's all a matter of competition, let the consumers decide what they want to buy, and let the market determine the victor, labeled or unlabeled. Once science catches up after some long term studies, we'll then see what happens physiologically after long term exposure.
However, that article shows we may not need to wait very long to find out that CCD and CKDu are both current and very real reasons to not jump on the GMO bandwagon.
To be fair vaccines that contain egg as part of their formulation are labeled as such because we know there are people in the population with egg allergies. There is no such thing as a GM allergy any more than there is such a thing as an assembly line allergy, again all GM is is a manufacturing process. You might be allergic to something in a GM good but you aren't allergic to GM itself so the label wouldn't be "contains GM" it would be "contains this antigen". A label referring to a specific antigen IS informative and is useful. Contains nut oil for example would be pretty important to know for anyone with a nut allergy. Contains GM products though doesn't really tell you anything, even a label that said "contains a GM product derived from nuts" doesn't really tell you anything either because there is a major difference between a product derived as an extract from whole nuts and a single gene from a nut being expressed in a different organism. The antigens in peanuts for example that cause the allergy are Ara h 1, Ara h 2, and Ara h 3. If you get a product that has a extract from peanuts it is impossible to avoid these proteins. However if you made a GM product that just contained a different gene from a peanut then it would be impossible for it to contain any of the antigen and therefore would be safe. Why anyone would design a product that intentionally has the peanut antigen responsible for the allergy inside of it would be beyond me. GM would actually be an excellent way to get something beneficial in peanuts to consumers with peanut allergies in a way that no other manufacturing process could ever accomplish safely.
I'm going to assume you didn't know that insulin was a GM product. Does knowing it is a GM product honestly make you doubt its safety after it has been used for so long in so many people?0 -
The story of insulin is actually super cool so I'd like to share it and encourage people to look it up.
As I think everyone knows type I diabetes is characterized by the inability to produce insulin. If not treated it will lead to an early and likely painful death. The treatment, not surprisingly, is to receive insulin by injection as well as carefully monitor blood glucose levels.
Prior to GM technology insulin for diabetics was obtained from pigs. It was discovered that pig insulin was sufficiently like human insulin to not cause an immune response (in most people) and to basically have the same effect (in most people). It wasn't perfect but it was an adequate substitute although many people would eventually get an immune response to the foreign protein. Of course how you would get this pig insulin was to slaughter a pig and drain it of its blood, collect the blood in huge vats and through a complicated manufacturing process extract and purify the pig insulin. It took 2 TONS of pig to produce 8 oz of insulin.
With the advent of GM the bacteria e.coli was modified in such a way that it produced human insulin. A vat of this e.coli was grown in some cheap simple media and the insulin (completely human insulin) could just be harvested from the bacteria directly. Another method used yeast cells that actually excrete the insulin so that it just flowed out of them and could be collected.
The process of purification from whole pig to an excretion of bacteria was incredibly easy and gave significantly higher yields. The final product is indistinguishable from human insulin and therefore does not have the same immune issues as pig insulin did and functions identically to natural human insulin. Since 2006 ALL insulin has been produced with this GM method and rightfully so, it is much MUCH cheaper and also safer and also a better product.
This method turned insulin from a precious commodity only obtainable by large-scale slaughter of farm animals into something easily produced in huge yield and distributed.
http://www.diabetesforecast.org/2013/jul/making-insulin.html
How many people do you think are aware of this? I'd bet 1 in 100,000 maybe. That is the problem with a technology that works so well, people don't even notice it.0 -
In a similar manner to above GM tech has allowed for much cheaper and much safer production of antigen for vaccine formulations. My own institute is currently running human clinical trials for the first vaccine developed for leishmoniasis, a disease that mostly impacts the developing world. Given the economic status of the developing world any sort of therapy must take into consideration point of care delivery, on-site production and overall cost. GM has opened doors that were previously closed with regards to preventative care by making production both safer and more affordable allowing for non-profits like my own institute to develop recombinant vaccines on their own without having to have the billions of a large pharma and without needing high-cost sales to recoup cost. This allows us to go after diseases that afflict parts of the world that honestly don't have the economy to support payment. We can use this tech to do charitable good, save lives in a way that was economically untenable before its development. I will even go as far as to say this sort of development is NECESSARY to provide these developing nations the foundation of health that is required before they can start to develop their infrastructure and improve their lives.
http://endtheneglect.org/2012/03/a-short-history-of-leishmania-vaccines/
Don't just ignore this fact or brush it aside as somehow irrelevant or unimportant. This tech can do immense good. I get that you don't like Monsanto, I understand that...I even agree with it especially with regards to the environmental concerns or patent law concerns....but don't just place the blame on GM itself...please. We are doing good here, don't ruin it because you don't like one company. Just please...consider this.0 -
I don't really like Monsanto either. What I really wish though is one day people manage to concieve of Monsanto and GM as being two wholly seperatable entitties and just because they don't like one doesn't really mean they should distrust the other.
I say this over and over I know but its true, GM is just a tool...like a hammer. If someone uses a hammer in a way you find irresponsbile do you get angry and go after the person misusing the hammer or do you get mad at hammers and demand all hammers be labeled.
I just don't get the focus on GMOs solely on the basis of Monsanto's actions. If your problem is with Monsanto....then go after Monsanto...that makes sense right?
I do conceive of them as two different things, and I'm not against GMOs.
But I wish educated people in the sciences would conceive of the entwined corporate and political decision makers as different from rational, educated professionals when it comes to how decisions are made about food safety in America. I'd be far less concerned about the issue if policy were being set by independent researchers with no financial stake in the matter. But these are not the people deciding what testing we should do, what should and shouldn't be labeled, and what liability should be imposed for screw ups.0 -
I don't really like Monsanto either. What I really wish though is one day people manage to concieve of Monsanto and GM as being two wholly seperatable entitties and just because they don't like one doesn't really mean they should distrust the other.
I say this over and over I know but its true, GM is just a tool...like a hammer. If someone uses a hammer in a way you find irresponsbile do you get angry and go after the person misusing the hammer or do you get mad at hammers and demand all hammers be labeled.
I just don't get the focus on GMOs solely on the basis of Monsanto's actions. If your problem is with Monsanto....then go after Monsanto...that makes sense right?
I do conceive of them as two different things, and I'm not against GMOs.
But I wish educated people in the sciences would conceive of the entwined corporate and political decision makers as different from rational, educated professionals when it comes to how decisions are made about food safety in America. I'd be far less concerned about the issue if policy were being set by independent researchers with no financial stake in the matter. But these are not the people deciding what testing we should do, what should and shouldn't be labeled, and what liability should be imposed for screw ups.
I feel I am concerned by that and it would be a lot easier for me to be on the side of those who are against Monsanto's business practices if they weren't waving a big "Anti-GMO" flag around with them while they did it.
I think the notion of engineering in a terminator gene into food crops that requires farmers to continually repurchase the seeds from the same company in a contractual manner to be a highly questionable use of the technology. I think it opens up abuses where a company has control of the food supply which I think is the LAST thing any of us want, that would be horrible. I just view that as an issue with current patent law and its application...not an issue with GMOs.0 -
I feel I am concerned by that and it would be a lot easier for me to be on the side of those who are against Monsanto's business practices if they weren't waving a big "Anti-GMO" flag around with them while they did it.
I think the notion of engineering in a terminator gene into food crops that requires farmers to continually repurchase the seeds from the same company in a contractual manner to be a highly questionable use of the technology. I think it opens up abuses where a company has control of the food supply which I think is the LAST thing any of us want, that would be horrible. I just view that as an issue with current patent law and its application...not an issue with GMOs.
In their defense though, GMO plants growing wild and screwing up the ecosystem in some unforeseen manner is one of the criticisms of GMO plants in the first place.0 -
This is such an interesting topic. I have a very good friend who is a chemist at Yale. She explained to me that GMO does not necessarily mean "harmful". For example, she explained to me that there are some countries in the third world who have received GMO rice that is enriched with vitamins and proteins that they were not able to get naturally before. It saved many lives. That being said, I like to be informed and educated about the content of my food on principle. Even if it's safe, I still feel more comfortable with full disclosure on my ingredients list.0
-
I don't really like Monsanto either. What I really wish though is one day people manage to concieve of Monsanto and GM as being two wholly seperatable entitties and just because they don't like one doesn't really mean they should distrust the other.
I say this over and over I know but its true, GM is just a tool...like a hammer. If someone uses a hammer in a way you find irresponsbile do you get angry and go after the person misusing the hammer or do you get mad at hammers and demand all hammers be labeled.
I just don't get the focus on GMOs solely on the basis of Monsanto's actions. If your problem is with Monsanto....then go after Monsanto...that makes sense right?
I do conceive of them as two different things, and I'm not against GMOs.
But I wish educated people in the sciences would conceive of the entwined corporate and political decision makers as different from rational, educated professionals when it comes to how decisions are made about food safety in America. I'd be far less concerned about the issue if policy were being set by independent researchers with no financial stake in the matter. But these are not the people deciding what testing we should do, what should and shouldn't be labeled, and what liability should be imposed for screw ups.
I feel I am concerned by that and it would be a lot easier for me to be on the side of those who are against Monsanto's business practices if they weren't waving a big "Anti-GMO" flag around with them while they did it.
I think the notion of engineering in a terminator gene into food crops that requires farmers to continually repurchase the seeds from the same company in a contractual manner to be a highly questionable use of the technology. I think it opens up abuses where a company has control of the food supply which I think is the LAST thing any of us want, that would be horrible. I just view that as an issue with current patent law and its application...not an issue with GMOs.
The technologically-phobic are a detriment to those of us who want sane, safe policies.
You already know I'm going to agree wholeheartedly about one company with a monopoly on vital resources.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 938 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions