On 2/20/2011 12:46 PM, wrote:
writes:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...g-m-o-foods-la
beled/?partner=rss&emc=rss

FEBRUARY 15, 2011, 9:00 PM
Why Aren¹t G.M.O. Foods Labeled?
By MARK BITTMAN
...
It's unlikely that these products potential benefits could possibly
outweigh their potential for harm.

As gardeners, most of us have no problem with selective breeding.
We're happy to alter a plants genetic makeup through artificial
(human assisted) selection.

GMO is artificial selection on steroids. It's really directed
change vs. random change.

Opponents say that GMO is unnatural and that selection could
NEVER produce the results obtained with GMO.

Seems to me, that's short sighted. Selective breeding might be
1000s or even millions of times slower than GMO but a mutation is
a mutation. There is no theoretical limit to what can be accomplished
with selective breeding. It's just going to take a longer time.

Compare a wolf to a Great Dane to a Chihuahua. Pretty radical change
there. All done by humans in a relatively short amount of time.

That's not to say I'm 100% comfortable with crossing Poison Ivy and
Kudzu. We don't want super weeds released into the environment.

Also I'm not comfortable with patents on living organisms but that
occurs now with artificial selection, it's not unique to GMO.

As far as labeling GMO foods, I'm not concerned at all.
Selected crops aren't labeled as such. If the GMO results in
something in the food that wouldn't be there naturally, then the
food should be labeled. For example, the extra component could
cause an allergy. People should know if they are eating something
different. But if GMO just makes the crop bigger or more drought
resistant, I can see no need for special labeling.

Just my opinion.

I agree.
Let the wrath of Billy come down upon us