In article , wrote:

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 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.
...
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.

So you are on board with 1 thru 4, good.
----

5) By larger crops, I meant higher yield (weight) per unit of surface
area.
Higher yield used to be touted as a reason for GMOs, but GMOs don't bear
more that non-GMOs.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/04/20/8405/
Exposed: The Great GM Crops Myth
By Geoffrey Lean

Genetic modification actually cuts the productivity of crops, an
authoritative new study shows, undermining repeated claims that a
switch to the controversial technology is needed to solve the growing
world food crisis.0420 04 1

The study - carried out over the past three years at the University of
Kansas in the US grain belt - has found that GM soya produces about 10
per cent less food than its conventional equivalent, contradicting
assertions by advocates of the technology that it increases yields.
( cont.)
----

6) As ignorant of GMOs as a consumer may be, is that sufficient to deny
them the right to know what they are buying? At the store today they
have organic almonds, almonds, roasted almonds, tamari almonds, and
Honey Roasted Orange Almonds. Why should GMOs be more difficult to
identify? Isn't it my right to buy what I want to eat? Why don't I get a
choice?

Potatoes and tomatoes faced suspicion when they were first introduced to
Europe, but with time they earned acceptance.

On the other hand, modern science gave us diethylstilboestrol,
thalidomide, Vioxx, Bextra, Cylert, Baycol, and Palladone. Thalidomide
was particularly difficult to remove from the market, even when the
egregious consequences of its use were known. The FDA is loath to recall
unless the product is acutely poisonous, and strikes you down like a
bolt of lightening. If it is a chronic poisoning, it could take the FDA
years to recall the product.

To the best of my knowledge, there have been no feeding trials done with
GMOs. We are the guinea pigs.

I guess buying organic is the only way to avoid GMOs, at least until all
the "normal" fruits and vegetables have been contaminated by GMOs.
--
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.
- Dwight D. Eisenhower, 16 April 1953
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw