11
Comments:

Filter Questions

Reset Filter

No questions match....

  • There have been no discussions since the expert answer was published.

  • Michael Robin Robin's picture
    Michael Robin
    08.02.2013
    Well, I give up. I see that there is pretty much zero chance of me changing anyone's mind here, and I still don't see an answer to my original question. From what I've seen of this forum so far, the CBI is wasting their money. It's no different than dozens of other forums out there that are basically firing the same old tired volleys from their firmly entrenched positions. That's all, folks!
  • cudspan's picture
    cudspan
    08.02.2013
    Michael Robin Robin says: First, since GM-produced foods are no different than other foods, there is no need to label them. I'm getting very tired of this argument. It's an absurd reduction... There's no difference between hydrogen and helium either, because both are made up of sup-atomic particles. There are huge differences, even if there are no differences in immediate nutritional analysis. One difference is the in the economic paradigm. In short, promoting Roundup assumes there is one way to farm. GMOs build in a dependence on this paradigm. Another difference is in the environmental impact. You claim Roundup actually reduces the use of toxic herbicides. According to the NY Times, Roundup Ready cotton has resulted in Roundup resistant pig weed. The result? Monsanto is subsidizing more toxic herbicides to clean up this mess. The additional toxins is a bad enough problem. Worse is the inevitable result of plain old natural selection. If you introduce this stuff in the environment, you cannot predict the results of co-evolution. Sorry, but we're just not that smart. I could go on with other ways in which this stuff is "different" from conventional foods. The point is, it IS different. And I want to know when my dollars are paying for it. Plain and simple. This is no back door to ban GMOs. On the contrary, not labeling is a back door to sneak GMOs into my diet. Please, let's keep our terms straight here.
  • Michael Robin Robin's picture
    Michael Robin
    08.02.2013
    Regarding benefits: there are already many out there, and many more coming down the pipe. First, existing benefits. Less tillage required, therefore less fuel burned, ergo better soil conservation and fewer greenhouse gas emissions. Better crop protection with herbicide resistant crops. Instead of having to use several products to control different kinds of weeds, farmers can use one product. Again, fewer passes with the sprayer, and less fuel burned. Easier on the environment, i.e. conservation of non-target species. Rather than using rather toxic pesticides to control insects, GM plants (e.g. Bt corn and cotton) have the pesticide incorporated in the plant. This means only those pests that try to eat the plant are affected; all others are unaffected. Also, the toxin is very specific – it only affects certain insects, and is harmless to humans. Some examples of this sort of thing are chocolate (toxic to your dog) and onions (toxic to your cat). Potential benefits, or ones to be soon available are increased nutrition (e.g. enhanced vitamin A, iron) and reduced fertilizer use (nitrogen-fixing wheat). As for “feeding the world” I agree this may be a bit hyperbolic. I think we will need knowledge from all sectors to meet this challenge, but it would be folly to ban a valuable set of tools like GM for no valid reason. I could go on, but all this material is widely available. Which gets me back to my original question: in the face of overwhelming clear and convincing evidence to support its value, why do so many people oppose GM technology?
  • Michael Robin Robin's picture
    Michael Robin
    08.02.2013
    Regarding labeling: First, since GM-produced foods are no different than other foods, there is no need to label them. Second, people who are philosophically opposed to GM-produced foods can already avoid them by looking for the organic label. I’ve also seen “GMO free” labels out there, added by manufacturers who see a competitive advantage in doing so. Finally, I suspect the push to label GM-produced foods is simply a strategy for a de facto ban of the technology through the back door. GM-produced foods can be sold in Europe, but they must be clearly labeled. This has led to no GM-foods being available, as manufacturers don’t want to have to add a label to their product that will frighten people and harm sales.
    • Seeking.the.Truth's picture
      Seeking.the.Truth
      03.15.2014
      Since GMO foods are no different? The very FACT that they are DIFFERENT is the reason they are PATENTED.
  • rickspalding's picture
    rickspalding
    08.01.2013
    "Offers great benefits" please extrapolate. If you are talking about "feeding the world" that is a fallacy. The dubious yield GMO supposedly creates has been torn apart. WHen it comes to tilling for next year, we have a major problem. In the end, if the consumer wants to eat GMO that is their choice. How can that be their choice when they don't know what is in the food. Here we go now with more false premises and endless logical loops to everyone's answers.
  • achood4mu's picture
    achood4mu
    08.01.2013
    @Eleni Mary - I believe GMOs are safe too. One thing that helps convise me of this fact is that there are thousands of safety studies that have been performed on GM crops that confirm their safety. In contract, there are just a handful of studies that are cited over and over and that have scientific flaws that questions the safety. This weight of evidence is amazing to me,
  • gmosrock's picture
    gmosrock
    08.01.2013
    Perhaps those of you who are in favor of GMOs will be able to more effectively make your case if GMOs are labelled, allowing consumers to directly see how it affects their health. And perhaps the scientific evidence that it causes no harm and offers great benefits, both now and in the future, is not in fact overwhelming clear and convincing.
  • GMO Lies's picture
    GMO Lies
    08.01.2013
    Perhaps this documentary will shed some light on the topic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUd9rRSLY4A#at=415
  • Michael Robin Robin's picture
    Michael Robin
    08.01.2013
    Yes, it *is* safe. I believe the science, which overwhelmingly supports this position. I could ask you your own question: how do you not see *this?*
  • Eleni Mary's picture
    Eleni Mary
    08.01.2013
    Because it is NOT safe. Hellllo??? How do you not see this?