I mostly agree. What I don't agree with is that I don't think it's "mostly bunk", I think it's totally, 100% complete bunk
Excuse my mini-rant, but this is a pet peeve of mine (along with the gluten free crap and the paleodiet crap)
We have been making genetically modified foods for the past 10,000 years. Ever since we settled down and started agriculture we have picked foods that grow larger, taste better, grow faster, etc. We have modified foods so much that when Linnaeus started categorizing biological organisms in the 18th century, the foods that we grew were so different than those found in the wild that he almost considered them different species.
Because of work with DNA and food, huge food shortfalls have been eluded. People have predicted huge, world wide famine, but because of people like Norman Borlaug it has been avoided and literally hundreds of millions of people now live that would have otherwise died. Read this for more info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug
The people who want GMO warnings don't understand the science behind it or don't care. Not to set up a straw man here, but those hipsters who are all about getting GMO labeled are not out there eating wild type foods. The stuff they call "heirloom" is not wild type food. In fact it's hard to find anything like that. Essentially they either don't know or they're hypocrites. Worst off all, they cast off the fact that GMO has saved hundreds of millions of lives. Because we have selected food that is better over the centuries we have food now that can feed the world. Poor people have much more access to food than say 500 years ago, our world population has boomed, and people have survived terrible illnesses that would kill otherwise malnourished people. But those that want this GMO label don't know or don't care.
Why should they? They all have enough money to buy their precious "heirloom" food. Who cares about the poor around the world?
Alright, End Rant
Awesome. I always look forward to debating with someone who makes me do additional research and gives me talking points to discuss; especially someone with a medical background and strong opposing stance. Iron sharpens Iron and all that. To that end, let me just discuss with you some things that I both need to clarify, and take issue with.
Yes, we have been genetically modifying foods for quite some time through breeding and cross-pollination. Nobody disputes that or thinks it's wrong. Even Mother Nature is responsible for genetic modifications through evolution. What we *haven't* been doing for very long (by comparison) is giving seeds pesticidal gene traits that are directly responsible for the mutation of weeds and insects that make them even more resilient to pesticides and herbicides - thus requiring even MORE of those chemicals to kill them. Not to mention the environmental impact of that kind of run-off. It should be noted, and should NOT be overlooked, that companies like Monsanto not only lead the charge on this type of genetic research (in addition to funding the testing), but also produce the seeds, pesticides and herbicides that farmers use. Keep that in mind as I continue.
As per your broad brush-stroke statement that people who want GMO
warnings (false - we want transparency through non-judgmental labeling) don't understand the science behind it or don't care? That's entirely
not true. There is a massive grass roots movement happening of people who are trying to gain as much information and understanding as they can. The problem with that, is that
the science behind this new trend of genetically modified foods is:
A. Inconclusive. As I said earlier, there have been zero epidemiological studies in human populations have been carried out to establish whether there are any health effects associated with GM food consumption, *because* there has been no labeling. How to do you study its effects if you don't know who your focus group really is, or which foods even contain them? And when I say "them", I mean this new science. Not the good science implemented by Borlaug who created a disease resistant strain of dwarf wheat and implemented plans for government support for modern agricultural methods through the use of large quantities of fertilizer, price supports, irrigation, and improved infrastructure. That's all good stuff and ecologically responsible. The toxicity levels of fertilizer are VASTLY lower than that of pesticides like Roundup. But I digress.
B. Controlled. While research on genetically modified seeds is still published, only studies that the seed companies have approved ever see the light of a peer-reviewed journal. In a number of cases, experiments that had the go-ahead from the seed company were later blocked from publication because the results were not flattering. Scientists rely on the cooperation of the companies for their research (they have to gain access to the seeds for studies), but most have chosen to remain anonymous for fear of reprisals. One group of scientists led by a Cornell University entomologist submitted a statement to the EPA protesting that “as a result of restricted access, no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the technology.”
Now, to address your army of straw men.
those hipsters who are all about getting GMO labeled are not out there eating wild type foods
Wild-type foods like Organics? Yes, some of *us* are. And people who want to do so shouldn't be blocked from doing so by politicians who are in the pockets of industry lobbyists. Specifically by sponsoring bills like H.R. 4432 that would modify the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act to establish a voluntary federal labeling standard for genetically engineered foods. It would also specifically prohibit Congress or individual states from requiring mandatory labeling of GMO foods or ingredients.
Worst off all, they cast off the fact that GMO has saved hundreds of millions of lives
That's an extremely insulting thing to say, my friend. Even Norman Borlaug, who stood the most to lose in the face of opposition, didn't say that. His words were that some of the environmental lobbyists of the western nations are the salt of the earth, but many of them are elitists. Of that, we can agree. I will not deny that there are many people who are jumping on this train because it's *a cause*, and not because it's a cause in which they're fully (or even remotely) invested. Try not to cast such a large net, and we can continue to have a meaningful dialogue on this. You know, as a favor to me.
Because we have selected food that is better over the centuries we have food now that can feed the world. Poor people have much more access to food than say 500 years ago, our world population has boomed, and people have survived terrible illnesses that would kill otherwise malnourished people. But those that want this GMO label don't know or don't care. Why should they? They all have enough money to buy their precious "heirloom" food. Who cares about the poor around the world?
Wow. I'm truly taken aback by that. So now I'm a proponent of death by starvation? Let me direct you back to the core issues real quick before you accuse me of wanting to club baby seals to death. The issue isn't with higher-yields and the propaganda that GMO's are designed to 'feed the world.' The issue is with the secrecy/agenda associated with experimentation on people and a refusal of their inalienable right to CHOOSE what goes into their bodies. Unless you think that people should just walk in lockstep with Corporations and the Government and just eat whatever the fuck we're told. If I truly want to eat just Organic foods, I want to be able to know that my foods have no GMO's in them. It's really as simple as that. I want to know that pesticide residue in my body is significantly lower than those who choose to eat GM foods and processed foods (of which somewhere near 90% of which is genetically modified). Am I to be denied that right through legislation sponsored (and funded) by Corporations and passed by our elected officials?
So to summarize, I'm not against genetic modification, because that would mean I'm against nature. I'm for ecologically responsible genetic modification, organic farming and consumption, transparency through labeling, scientific testing that isn't funded and controlled by the companies who serve to benefit from same, and a proponent of an ecoargicultural society that is (and is proven to be) sustainable. The problem with organic farming is that Corporatocracy is making it impossible to achieve on a massive scale due to a monoculture system facilitated by patent law, corrupt political officials, and obscene amounts of money. Money that absolutely pales in comparison to those of us who have enough of it to purchase our precious 'heirloom' food (and we don't, because it's becoming increasingly more expensive to purchase it). And finally, my daughter moved to Belize and is an organic farmer. Would it be fair of me to play the, "are you in favor of my daughter failing as steward of our ecosystem because she's anti-corporation" card? Or can we just drill down to what we're actually saying and hear each other out?
Thanks, broke. Look forward to hearing back from you.
