Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I can already hear the naysayers and stock holders of GMO life destroying corporations say--KAISER PERMANENTE ARE SOCUALISTS, DEMOCRATS, ANTI-AMERICAN BIG BUSNIESS and possibly even SATAN INCARNATE--SO WE MUST IGNORE THEIR SIDE OF THE CONVERSATION.
I’ll say one thing for the most recent New York Times‘ rant about genetically engineered food: They got the headline — “Frankenfish Phobia” — right. Phobia is, after all, “a persistent, irrational fear of a specific object, activity or situation that leads to a compelling desire to avoid it.” Irrational being the operative word. Columnist Timothy Egan is certainly irrational about a fast-growing genetically engineered salmon, which will likely be approved for marketing later this year.
Egan condemned what he considers a hubristic attempt to “trick nature, or do it one better” by crafting a North Atlantic salmon that grows faster than its wild cohorts. If there’s any hubris here, it’s a columnist for a major newspaper writing about something he misapprehends so completely. Like many of his Times colleagues, Egan knows everything — except what he’s writing about.
A majority? A majority of people couldn't care less. As you well know, the issue was up for a vote in California and lost. Ya ya ya we know, corporations spent millions trying to defeat it... but at the end of the day a majority of voters voted against it.
Because it's ALL about the money..greed...if there's labeling no one would buy it..Gov's don't give a s##t whether the majority wants it or not!
No, it's not about the $$$$$, it's about the extreme phobia some people have against anything that's technological in nature.....
California is the 21st state that has tried and failed to pass GMO labeling legislation in the past year.
Prop 37 Loses, Scientists Cheer
Quote:
This language reflects the belief of its backers that GMOs are intrinsically bad and deserve to be labeled – and avoided – en masse, no matter what modification they contain or towards what end they were produced. This is not a quest for knowledge – it is a an attempt to reify ignorance.
The simple fact is that there is no evidence that GMOs, as a blanket group, are dangerous. There’s a simple reason for this: not all GMOs are the same. Every plant created with genetic technology contains a different modification. More to the point, if the goal is to know more about what’s in your food, a generic GMO label won’t tell you. Adding Bt toxin to corn is different than adding Vitamin A to rice or vaccines to potatoes or heart-protective peptides to tomatoes.
If Prop 37 was really about informed decisions, it would have sought accurate labeling of different types of GMOs so consumers can choose to avoid those that they disapprove of or are worried about.
Instead, anti-GMO activists put forward a sloppily written mandate in a attempt to discredit all genetic engineering as a single entity. The legislation was considered so poorly worded that most Californian newspapers rallied against it, with the LA Times calling Prop 37 “problematic on a number of levels”.
And for you people who will rant that the author of that article must be a paid shill of Monsanto (from the same article):
Quote:
By all means, boycott Monsanto, or any food containing their products. Despite rumors to the contrary, I do not support Monsanto in any way (nor do they, in any way, support me). Like many big companies, I think they have had shady business practices at times and are more concerned with their own bottom line than the good of the people or the environment. I’ve already come out strong against RoundUp Ready crops.
But my lack of love for Monsanto doesn’t tarnish the fact that GMOs have the potential to dramatically benefit people across the world by providing balanced nutrition and enhancing production in struggling areas. GMOs aren’t inherently evil, and they have the potential to address many of the very real concerns about our current and future food supply.
Exactly what I've been saying since the creation of this issue which some people disregard as pure ignorance on my part......
GMOs aren’t inherently evil, and they have the potential to address many of the very real concerns about our current and future food supply.
But then again there are those here who say hogwash, GMO's are doing anything to help the starving people of Earth, there are no starving people....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
