A documentary that makes an oxymoron out of “informed consent.”
This movie doesn’t advocate informing consumers so much as it advocates scaring them with disinformation.
A documentary that makes an oxymoron out of “informed consent.”
This movie doesn’t advocate informing consumers so much as it advocates scaring them with disinformation.
Okay, enough is enough! I swear I must be surrounded by mental midgets. Humans are just as much part of nature as any other organism. Just because man had something to do with it does NOT mean that it is not natural.
We need to quit this senseless nonsense!
Example: The definition of Organic used to be: Of or containing a complex hydrocarbon compound, now that the greenies have hijacked the word it means that no insecticides, GMOs, herbicides, etc… were used! Well, a lot of insecticides are petroleum based and therefore are quite organic indeed!
What I am getting at is this: They change the language, they are not accountable to be scientifically correct or even questioned as to the validity of their rhetoric. I am tired of it. Quit costing me money! Stay out of my pockets! If you prove any of your allegations scientifically then do so and we will listen, until then SHUT UP!
Kduever…where is the evidence that GM crops have anything to do with colony collpase disorder. I have only seen evidence to the contrary. Besides (from memory anyway) CCD is happening in countries that don’t grow GM and not in countries that do have GM crops – eg Australia. Also although a fish genes was attempted to be placed in a tomato it failed and never left the laboroatory.
Finally as for the natural bit. How do you define natural? Would you consider the modern non-GM plant breeding technologies such as mutagenesis and embryo rescue natural. Mutagenesis exposes seeds to irradiation or chemical mutagenens that cause weird and unpredictable genetic mutations that are likely to never occur in nature. Some of these mutations are useful and such individuals are then taken and cloned. Embryo rescue takes two different plant species that would never cross in nature and forces them to do so in a laboratory. This is in an attempt to introduce genes from your cross into your nice agricultural cultivar. it is likely to also introduce lots of other unknown genes – eg genes for toxins, allergens, anti nutirents, etc. The mutagenesis process can have the same consequences. Nearly all of what we eat today has somewhere in the breeding process been exposed to either of these breeding tecniques. Yes GM (or transgenics) will often produce a cultivar that may not occur naturally, and the technology has its own set of risks that need to be managed. These risks wil differ from crop to crop, field to field, country to country. But does this make them any less safe than conventionally-bred crops? That would depend on how you want to define safe? Jason, Manager, TechNyou, University of Melbourne, Australia
Ummm … you seriously think there’s no proof of harm? Ever hear of Colony Collapse Disorder in honeybee colonies?
Also, we are talking about genetic engineering which is much different than creating hybrids or cross breeding for certain features (by the way, this takes place in nature all the time).
GE, on the other hand takes place in a labratory – e.g. blasting bt toxins into corn dna or a fish gene into a tomato (and yes, that’s a real example).
The purpose of the GMO label is to then boycott and scare consumers with misinformation with the end goal being to put GMO food out of business. No regard to cost to the consumer or even the decrease in supplies if this were to happen just an ideologically driven intent to eliminate GMO foods. No proof of harm required superstition and pseudo-science is enough for them.
Wow, do I disagree with your conclusion. Have you studied the issue? Please explain your findings. There is a reason to reject GMOs.
All domesticated plants and animals have been genetically modified by mankind. Only wild animals and wild plants have not been genetically modified. There are no members of Homo sapiens that I know of who consume strictly wild plants and animals.
If one takes the “I have a right to know what’s in my food” meme to its logical conclusion, everybody should be informed that ALL foods (except purified water and table salt) contain carbon, of which 1 part-per-billion is *radioactive* carbon-14.
We all consume about 4,000 times as much Carbon-14 every day (400 nanograms, based on a kilogram per day of food that is 40% carbon) as we consume of the dreaded dioxin compound TCDD and its relatives (about 100 picograms per day), and Carbon-14 is at least as potent a carcinogen as dioxin.
Somewhere there is a line that should be labelled “T.M.I. – Too Much Information / Proceed At Your Own Risk” because including information beyond that point serves only to increase consumer stress without bringing measurable benefits.