Billy writes:
In article , wrote:
Billy writes:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...g-m-o-foods-la
beled/?partner=rss&emc=rss
FEBRUARY 15, 2011, 9:00 PM
Why Arenšt 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.
....
Just my opinion.
A free/fair market can't exist without sellers and buyers having the
same information.
The problems with GMOs are multiple.
1) An antibiotic is attached to the genes that are to be inserted. This
allows for identification of GMO cells in a petrie dish. It also
allows bacteria to develop a resistance to that antibiotic, making
it worthless in the treatment of a bacterial disease.
2) The cauliflower mosaic virus is attached to the genes that are to be
inserted. The cauliflower mosaic virus is the activator that turns
on the inserted gene. More than 98% of the human genome does not
encode protein sequences. Some of these genes are for suppressed
evolutionary traits such as gills, some could be dormant diseases.
These genes are also susceptible to being activated by the
cauliflower mosaic virus.
3) The spliceosome (a complex of specialized RNA and protein subunits)
from the host cell may not recognize a protein from the injected
genes and attach it to other proteins, thereby creating an allergen.
This appears to be the case with GMO potatoes created by Arpad
Pusztai at the Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen, Scotland. He
was tying to modify the lecithin in the potatoes, which he did, but
the potatoes gave lab rats lesions in their digestive systems,
which lead to death.
4) GMO Bt corn (StarLink) kills monarch butterflies. Round Up Ready
crops allow more glyphosate to be used to suppress weeds, but it
also severely damages the soil biota, triggers over 40 plant
diseases, and endangers human and animal health.
5) GMOs don't produce larger crops.
6) Then there is the matter of a recent recent CBS/NYT poll that found 87
percent of consumers want GMOs them labeled.
I'm not sure opinions of the uninformed are all that important.
If you just label something as "GMO" all you are doing is waving a
warning flag without any information.
If a product has something in it that could be dangerous it shouldn't
be marketed. If it's got peanut genes in it, people should know
because some people are allergic to peanuts.
If we labeled all products that humans have fooled around with,
I'm pretty sure everything in the store would be labeled.
I don't know how you can assert that you can't use GMO to grow
a larger vegetable, fruit, or animal. I assume you can find all
kinds of traits that can be transferred cross species.
If you can transfer a gene from a pumpkin and grow grapes the
size of watermelons, I say go ahead. Of course a label wouldn't
be an issue in that case.