Good question, I know I ignored it earlier, no answer at this point.
I’ll do some investigation to see if there is data or logic that supports categorizing them differently. Previously I responded to posters with quick remarks on this topic but hadn’t really tried to find anything concrete other than a comment on variability.
Ok, no time to respond, will come back to it.
Also, a request:
Can you help some of the other posters understand that “antifreeze” isn’t an inflammatory term in this case, it’s just shorthand that the scientists themselves use? I think they might trust you.
And of course the facts are not as scary as the implication with no explanation.
Unless it is explained at the beginning, **Jackmannii **is correct, the lack of explanation that the word is not referring to the same item is what makes the ones spreading FUD to use the term. With no proper explanation that it is not the same, it is indeed used to make it sound scary.
With respect, I agree with Jackmannii’s point: anti-freeze =/= Anti-Freeze Protein =/= Anti-Freeze Protein Gene
The short hand (“anti-freeze”), in this case, is actively used by people hoping to conjure up fears of toxic effects by GMOs without having to resort to actually explaining what they mean by “anti-freeze” or the underlying colloquial reference of “Anti-Freeze Protein”. I understood what you meant so I didn’t bother to harp on it. Others weren’t so forgiving. It happens.
Except that in none of the cases you cited did scientists headline their research with references to “antifreeze” being in GM foods.
The use of inaccurate scare terminology and references to cancer and birth defects (as though there was any demonstrated risk of such outcomes from GM food consumption) makes it clear you are opposed to use of such technology in food production - which is your right. But it doesn’t give the impression that utilizing sound science is your goal.
While you’ve been unwilling to indicate how much more research would make GM food introductions tolerable for you, here’s a simple question: based on the many years of research into golden rice (including human trials), do you support its introduction in countries with a serious vitamin A deficiency problem? Yes or no?
Well, the turtle in the Achilles tale was land based, no flippers. Learn your classics from ancient Greece. And yes, one can say that the TMNT are now classics too, but I mention that just to make us feel old.
That post illustrates an additional problem with logic on your part, and still doesn’t answer the question.
The question remains:
How is it possible that you don’t understand that “labeling” implies not banned?
This is partly true but the problem is that humans have very efficient proteases. So efficient that these proteases at optimal pH and temperature can turn a steak into a fluff of amino acids and oligopeptides in less than a few hours. There are, of course, exceptions, prions which causes scrapie in sheep, mad cow in cows, and kuru in people are due to ingested proteins that escape proteolytic cleavage in the duodenum. It’s theoretically possible but very unlikely that GMO foods cause disease.
Despite this, I do agree with you one thing: GMO foods should be labeled. If there are labels for Halal or Kosher foods where a priest says an prayer to an imaginary God over the meat, I see no reason why there can’t be a label that indicates that an edible organism’s genes have been spliced with fish, reptile, or foul. One is grounded in fantasy and the other is fact-based yet we make labels for the former and laugh at people who want labels for the latter.
