Then, why do we not label all hybrid plants & animals? Ooop, my bad- all food plants & animals are “unatural” hybrids. These folk whi are aginst GM foods are like those idiots who are against nuclear power- their brain cannot understand the science- “so it must be bad”. :rolleyes:
Um, Daniel old buddy, remember Chernobyl and Three Mile Island?.. There are indeed reasons to be concerned about potential side effects of nuclear power, even if in the long run it turns out that the risks can be sufficiently minimized to make nuclear power a wise energy choice. You don’t have to “understand the science” to have a right to worry about technology that might have serious negative consequences.
I agree that it’s preferable to be concerned and informed, and I was enjoying the rare experience of encountering a well-reasoned and factually responsible discussion of GM foods here in this thread. Until you pissed in the well by sneering at everybody who supports labeling of GM foods as “idiots who just don’t understand the science.” Thanks for your contribution. :rolleyes:
I hate to repeat myself, but the allergen issue is one that McHughen addresses quite well in the book I mentioned earlier (Pandora’s Picnic Basket). It really is not nearly as big an issue as some have made it out to be, though there is some level of concern that is justified.
Coincidentally, McHughen himself just e-mailed me today. He found my review of his book on Themestream (I guess it must be in a search engine) and thanked me. He noted that his intention was to make the book as “user-friendly” as possible and was glad that I thought it had indeed hit that mark.
So, in case this is not clear, I really really really recommend that book for anybody who wants to be informed on this subject.
Goodness, Danielinthewolvesden, you certainly don’t have to read the freakin label.
Also, you should take the time to learn the difference between GM and hybrid plants.
GM may (probably) turn out to be a good thing, just as hybridization mostly is. But until it’s the norm we should be advised that we’re not getting what we are paying for.
And Kimstu is right. You could easily have picked a better analogy. 
Appearantly, Dan, you aren’t a regular viewer of The Simpsons.
Peace,
mangeorge
Let’s pretend that mangeorge can spell “apparently”.
Peace,
anom.
Ever watch PBS tracer? Ever see the Archer Daniels Midland (our favorite lysine price fixers) blurb where they say that producing enough food to feed the world is no problem. The only thing stopping us from feeding the world is the politics which interferes with the distribution of food.
Adults are the ones responsible for politics. That innocent children have to starve as a penalty for the intercine warfare brought about by the adults is criminal. In addition, malnutrition has the greatest impact on growing bodies. It is for those reasons that I mentioned children in my post.
You just been watching too much of “The Simpsons” lately.
[Mrs. Lovejoy]
Think of the children. Won’t someone please think of the children!
[/Mrs. Lovejoy]
Here’s an article some may be interested in. It was published in BioTechniques (www.BioTechniques.com).
Unforunately, the full text isn’t available yet online or I’d post the link. So here’s the abstract.
Keep in mind that something called BioTechniques is pro-science, but it is a peer-reveiwed international journal (although a freebie). This journal is probably available at a university library if the article is something you want to read:
Article Title
Transgenic Plants and Biosafety: Science, Misconceptions and Public Perceptions
Article Abstract
Transgenic Plants and Biosafety: Science, Misconceptions and Public Perceptions. One usually thinks of plant biology as a non-controversial topic, but the concerns raised over the biosafety of genetically modified (GM) plants have reached disproportionate levels relative to the actual risks. While the technology of changing the genome of plants has been gradually refined and increasingly implemented, the commercialization of GM crops has exploded. Today?s commercialized transgenic plants have been produced using Agrobacterium tumefaciens-mediated transformation or gene gun-mediated transformation. Recently, incremental improvements of biotechnologies, such as the use of green fluorescent protein (GFP) as a selectable marker, have been developed. Non-transformation genetic modification technologies such as chimeraplasty will be increasingly used to more precisely modify germplasm. In spite of the increasing knowledge about genetic modification of plants, concerns over ecological and food biosafety have escalated beyond scientific rationality. While several risks associated with GM crops and foods have been identified, the popular press, spurred by colorful protest groups, has left the general public with a sense of imminent danger. Reviewed here are the risks that are currently under research. Ecological biosafety research has identified potential risks associated with certain crop/transgene combinations, such as intra- and interspecific transgene flow, persistence and the consequences of transgenes in unintended hosts. Resistance management strategies for insect resistance transgenes and non-target effects of these genes have also been studied. Food biosafety research has focused on transgenic product toxicity and allergenicity. However, an estimated 3.5 X 10^12 transgenic plants have been grown in the U.S. in the past 12 years, with over two trillion being grown in 1999 and 2000 alone. These large numbers and the absence of any negative reports of compromised biosafety indicate that genetic modification by biotechnology poses no immediate or significant risks and that resulting food products from GM crops are as safe as foods from conventional varieties. We are increasingly convinced that scientists have a duty to conduct objective research and to effectively communicate the results?especially those pertaining to the relative risks and potential benefits?to scientists first and then to the public. All stakeholders in the technology need more effective dialogues to better understand risks and benefits of adopting or not adopting agricultural biotechnologies.
Article Authors
Stewart, C.N. Jr. Richards, H.A. IV Halfhill, M.D.
Citation
BioFeature, BioTechniques 29:832-843
OK, better example for **DITWD’s ** point:
MRI. It didn’t used to be called MRI, it used to be called NMR Imaging (Nuclear Magnetic Resonance, pretty much the same idea as the NMR chemists use). People wouldn’t get one because it had the word “Nuclear” in it, so it must be bad (never mind that “nuclear” in this case just refers to the nucleas). So the name was changed, and people now happily trot off to get one done.
Bet you if we took the word “genetic” out of GM, at least half the anti-GM crowd would drop off.
People are stupid. 
There are some legitimate concerns with GM, though they seem to be more bugs to be worked out than systematic problems. Mostly, however, the opposition to it comes from people who don’t understand it, and therefore fear it.