If the food is determined to be safe, using actual science and peer-reviewed studies, I do not care if the seed has been extruded from satan’s asshole itself. Plenty of chemical processes follow the pattern “poison + poison = perfectly safe thing.” You can cry hysteria about how the GM food is being made, but if it’s safe, why does it matter?
Believe me, I don’t want to shove anything down your throat. What I want is for people to stop being hysterical about GMO and only GMO. All kinds of foods are bathed in hormones/pesticides and for some reason GMO is the bogeyman?
In a perfect world, yes, it would be nice to have detailed labeling about all foods and the methods used to prepare them. Unfortunately, we live in this world, where doing such things attaches a non-trivial cost to production, not to mention that the current state of scientific literacy means such labels will drive people away from high-yield GMO crops when those are the best way to feed a burgeoning population.
Sure there is - Venter can get the job done much more quickly and precisely.
You, as the consumer, have the right to purchase whatever you can afford. If you’d like to buy only food that has been modified using only old-fashioned techniques, and not with more modern ones, then you can buy your food from producers who will sell this to you.
Just like if someone else wants to buy his produce only from growers who use union labor, he can do that. Just don’t ask the rest of us to pay for your irrational (to us) hangups about what you eat.
Now this is an issue that tears me apart, on one hand I don’t think we should be messing with the genetics of plants or even killing plants for our own consumption because every organism deserves the right to life. But on the other hand I think how GM crops could help starving people in poor nations but I can’t decide which is the lesser evil.
He did tell you. Deserve has nothing to do with anything. No organism deserves to live…nature doesn’t work that way. Sheesh. Your arguments are childish and at their base hypocritical.
No, because there are few natural foods available in supermarkets. None of the meat or produce is natural, none of the bread or cereals, none of the dairy. It is all the product of genetic modification; the techniques have changed, but they are all genetically modified.
Except for the modern version being more controlled, there isn’t; selective breeding works on virus introduced genes as well as on any other kind. And there are plenty of virus introduced genes; IIRC something like 2% of our own human genome is from viral transfer from other species.
“Clear and concise” labeling would be a lie, since the clear dichotomy you are looking for doesn’t exist. What you want is a label using a politically crafted category designed by luddites to scare people.
Seconded. JellyBeanz, you’re already discussing your ethical views on eating meat and plants in another thread. If you are going to post in this thread, confine your comments to GM foods and not vegetarianism or cruelty to life forms.
:dubious: Do you think they were grown in a lab after having alien genes injected into them?
I’m going to say that GMO food should be far more restricted than it is now, with each new strain subject to environmental impact review and the possibility of a ban. Also, it should be impossible to claim any gene as intellectual property, thus diminishing the profit motive in this field. The health of the biosphere must not be compromised for “shareholder value.”
If these restrictions are too hard for governments to manage, then just ban them outright, worldwide. Better safe than stupid.
No. “Grown in a lab after having ‘alien genes’ induced in them by mutagenic chemicals or radiation” on the other hand is quite likely. I don’t see any reason to think that there’s some kind of superiority of random genetic alterations caused by a lump of radioisotope over controlled genetic alterations done with more modern techniques.
Much of the fear of GM is not about the safety of the resultant food itself, but associated ecological dangers. But even the safety of the food is not necessarily as certain as some Dopers imply.
Dopers in this thread keep making claims like this, or implying that GM is certainly safe, but where’s the evidence? Dopers make analogies with pre-GM cultivation, but such cultivation already has known dangers, and the potential danger of GM is much worse. (See my analogy above: “Even if a glass of wine is good for you, does it follow that a keg of whiskey is good too?”)
Dopers claim those worried about GM are “anti-science” but any scientist who tells you he is certain GM has no dangers is blowing smoke. Here are three articles based on scientific work:
(I don’t know that any of that science is “good” but none of you can guarantee it’s all “bad.” Pro-GM people are operating on faith, not science.)
Anyone who is literate is aware that there have recently been many major ecological disruptions caused by new animal diseases, transporting pests, etc. It is only common-sense to fear that GM risks magnifying such disruptions.
But that has nothing to do one way or the other with “GM food” food labels. Actual danger of any kind has nothing to do with it.
Or less, because at least they aren’t releasing random changes. And again; that has nothing to do with labeling some as a “GM food”.
No; we’re operating on the principle of “show us an actual danger, not a theoretical one”". If we forbid things based on theoretical dangers, then everything is forbidden because nothing is perfectly safe.
And again; unless the alterations put something dangerous in the food, then a “GM food” label is simply besides the point. A “GM Food” label is simply Luddite scaremongering. A proper warning label is something along the lines of “contains X substance”.
Considering that one of the chief uses of gene-splicing is to make grasses–wind-pollinated plants–produce a toxin poisonous to insect larvae, the idea that it presents no new danger is absurd. The ecological damage potential is enormous. Seriously, I’m no fan of the massive pesticide use Bt corn is trying to replace, but this is a big deal, and acting like all such tech must be considered normal and harmless is purblind.