Does this food contain genetically modified organisms? That’s what many consumers, including overseas trading partners, want to know about the food they’re buying.
A prime example of that is the recent initiative in California, dubbed the “Right to Know” campaign, which calls for food manufacturers in the Golden State to identify genetically engineered ingredients on the labels of food products sold in that state.
With almost as many as 1 million signatures gathered on the petition in time for the April 22 deadline, organizers predict that the measure will appear on the Nov. 6 ballot. (The state requires just over a half million valid signatures for an initiative to qualify to be on the ballot.)
On a global level, 40 countries, including all of Europe, Japan and China, require labeling of foods, or of certain foods, containing GMOs. The U.S. has resisted labeling, and in 1992 the Food and Drug Administration established a policy declaring there is no substantial or material difference between genetically engineered foods and foods that haven’t been genetically engineered.
The question arises: How in the world do scientists determine if foods contain GMOs?
No, the question that naturally arises is why should anyone care at all about the breeding mechanics of grain or vegetable? Does it matter that the corn was tasseled and hand pollinated? Does the consumer care that bees were trafficked across state lines and rented out to pollinate the apple blossom that eventually resulted in the fruit at the market? None of this information is relevant to the consumer.
Normally, I could CARE LESS, but some should be able to find out whether the food was GMO or not, because increased insulin-resistance, and non-usual-food bacteria MAY be due to GMO additives. Also those allergic should also be able to track certain foods. Generally, tracking “SHUTS-DOWN” small growers/farmers, so this TYPE of measure should NOT be abused to stop small food production, because the small, food producers ONLY have YOU & I to defend them, from criminally LARGE FINES/NAZI-LIKE imprisonment. A Huge agri-business has teams of lawyers to defend them, so a “big-firm-fine” should NEVER be applied to a small producer. So the SAFEGUARDS FOR the small-farmer should be MORE important than the legislation in the first place, because compliance to OVER-ZEALOUS laws could drive most small, organic farmers Out of Business, when there’s “room” for all. Once the big, Agri-business combines have all the business, THEN they can double/triple/more food prices, causing many to starve (–a result the Globalists DESIRE,–see “Georgia Tombstone”).
It is interesting to note that all of the complaints about food production seem to center around innovations that lower the cost of food, increase crop output, and make more efficient use of land and food animals. These steps forward help feed more people for less money, and lowering the incidents of hunger and starvation throughout the world. In case after case, restrictions on insecticides lead to an increase in insect born illness, like Malaria, West Nile Virus, Eastern Equine Encephalitis, Lyme Disease. Restrictions on pesticides lead to lower crop yields and increase starvation. Ridiculous regulations that treat chickens, cows, and pigs like sentient beings use up huge amounts of land and raise food costs that hurt the poor the most. Then of course there is ethanol. An unneeded product, trying to fulfill an impossible demand, raising the cost of fuel more than its value, and using a greater amount of resources to achieve a negative result while raising the cost of everything in its path, destroying engines and machinery, shortening the lifespan of auxillary engine parts, and causing food shortages and price increases along the entire chain of production. Ethanol is the perfect example of a bad idea fostered by myopic ideologues, glorified by clueless politicians and liberal glitteratti and paid for by oppressed taxpayers and car owners. Orwell, Huxley, and Rand are astounded that their fantasies are exceeded by todays reality.