Billy writes:
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 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.
....
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.
....
----
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.
....
Ah, misunderstanding. If you mean GMOs don't produce larger crops
now, I have no reason to disagree.
I think GMOs have very good potential as a means to improve yield
and a lot of other desirable characteristics of plants.
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.
I'm not in favor of putting warning labels on things that don't
need warning labels. The only difference between GMOs and other
"improved" crops is a matter of degree.
As far as the real villain above Thalidomide, recalls by the FDA was
never an issue. In the case of Thalidomide, the FDA never approved the
drug. The FDA actually did an excellent job.
Some Americans were exposed in the clinical trials but the people
affected were mostly outside the US.
Interestingly, Thalidomide is considered a valuable drug, it's just
dangerous for pregnant women.