The Pros and Cons of Genetically Engineered Food

you cannot separate technology and economic and politics,
money has hands every where,
monsanto for talking about only one has its employee in the FDA.
a known fact

Good or bad does not really exist,
but information had to be there, it is what I am saying: consumer have to have the power of choice. it is always better anyway for the society as a whole in the long run.

ye sbut it is still based on people born before the war and just after, we can not know yet the consequence of the green revolution. We have to wait some twenty years for the firts generation but then what is mor eimportant is the next generations, so we have to wait arround 2050 to see the consequences.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

sure you can, you just need to focus your attack on the cooperations, you need to say things like "these cooperation need to be regulated, their use of GM could be immoral" and not say things equivalent to "GM is immoral"

Exactly, put on a label that specifies every pesticide, herbicide, fertilizer used, then we can put on a label that say ever breed and specific gene insert used. A generic label like GM tell nothing other then to appeal to fear and tradition and I'm not for promoting ignorance among consumers.

Why not test GM on rats, mice and animals with rapid life space, we have the science these days to detect things more subtitle the out right killing you.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Let me give you a hint:

vitamin A: cell differentiation, fat soluble, toxic

another hint: ferrets and vitamins

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If in high enough quantities, if not enough, blindness, the GM plants are not designed to produce more then a daily dosage even on a 100% rice diet. Fixed, next assumed problem?

There is no way we can perfectly emulate a human model, but we have to make do with what we got, for example all drugs are tested on animal models first. The effects on pollutants on health?, animal models. The suggestion that there may be something horrible the animal models may miss that would only be detectable after decades of use on humans (thus pass short term human trials) is not very likely, it would be more detrimental to not run the risk and just inhibit progress in increased food production for an every growing human race and thus starve people simply because of a fear of a the unknown.

 

In both cases, assuming that the effects of adding vitamin A to rice or testing GM foods on inadequate models - laboratory animals - do not have massive unintended consequences on the rest of the ecological milieu.

 

We have already test Vitamin A in diets right now, this is how we know it deficiency is the major cause of blindness in children around the world and we have already tested it overdosing. Again risked verses benefits the benefits out way the risks, if you want to appeal to the unknown then go back the stone age as all technology will have some kind of unintended consequences.

 

But you're not testing risks vs benefits. You have no idea what either is. You're throwing stones, hoping to hit something

 

When we try to do all that obviously necessary and overdue stuff, we run foul of a corporate dominated government, a deliberately misled public, and a bunch of genetic engineers who think inserting lab-refined herbicide resistance genetics from bacteria into transmissible plastids in the bulk of the nation's food plants is "the same thing" as traditional plant breeding.

So until that happy day of sound oversight and intelligently informed regulation, how is it that labeling such foodstuffs contributes to the ignorance of the public ? The best informed people on the planet - the ones actually doing the engineering - tell us all these manipulations are the same. If they see no difference between adding desirable soybean genes to other soybeans and adding rare bacterial poison processing genetics to the bulk of everyone's food, why should we make such fine distinctions on the labeling of their products ?

 

What do you mean because we know what he benefits are (cure vitamin A deficiency) and we know the risks (vitamin A overdose).

First of all the public is not misled, rather the public is ignorant, studies and information on this stuff can be found in public domain, the problem is few read it. If you want to slap a label such as "this products was made with herbicide x resistant plant y" for the perpose of informing the public, go right ahead, if you want to slap on a label that says "this contains GMOs" then no that does not tell the consumer anything important except if you want to promote illogical thinking in the public and consumers.

You said you were worried about somekind of harmful side-effects, so I recommended specific labeling, and informed consumer reads the literature on the benefits and risks of specific herbicides,insecticides and genetic enhancements, but people have different interpretation of that literature, some people might be fine with insecticides x,y,z but not with insecticide w because of questionable safety research results, I might want to have a label specifying if w is used. And uninformed consumer (the bulk of consumers) rather make generalizations, to them all pesticides are bad, all herbicides are bad all, GM is bad to them no matter if its to make a plant more resistant to herbicides or to cure a vitamin deficiency, generalized labels only appeal to such generalizations and do not inform the public but in fact keeps them ignorant.

 

Who said it is immoral?
but now did you think about the plant themselves?
We were talking any not about GM but GM food whihc imply that we will eat them and that they will be fabricated by companies.

I never said a GM label, I said that any gene modification should be indicated, GM is too generic too say anything.

Because rats are not humans.

rats in laboratory are not any more rats, they have been cross breeded, they do not represent usual rats and even less humans.

some medicine have been tested as healthy to some animals and have been provocaed death or disease on humans.

 

So we eat them, so what? Your implying that there is some kind of side-effect that science can't detector for years on end until "its to late"?

Great, then help me set up a petition against how Europe uses a generic GM label.

Yep, already explain this, animal testing is simply a stage, then there is human trials, the only thing that can't be tested for is long term side-effects, and just because we can't test that until after the fact does not mean we should limit the technology.

 

NO, I won't help you, to have this generic label is better to mix it with other. It is at least one information.
If I deleted it it is not for having a blank thing instead, it is too have what gene have been put in the plant, which method have been used ...

We should inform!
it is the only point, people have to decide, not companies, neither you nor me.

 

A generic label is not good, it only promotes ignorance not knowledge.

Inform them of what, what are they deciding that GM is good or bad?

 

It is better than nothing.
I am for a change but not a change to label to nothiong
I am for a change to label to detailed information

inform of what the food they are buying
It is people who have to decide whether they want GM food or not.

 

People have a right to ignorance, so people have a right to burn witches, to in place theocracies and to inhibit sciences? A GM label is such an allowance of ignorance the only thing a gm label informs people of is if something is genetically modified using modern techniques it says nothing specifically was engineered or even if the food is chemically different (in many cases its not) it only placating to some peoples fears.

 

Ok but currently we do not indicate the details. why attacking the one we put at least something. You should attack even more the one who do indicate nothing and even mix it with other food.

People are the one to decide

 

I see no reason to label it GM or not GM, that not a good label. It brings no good, it only brings harm.

Pure democracy has it drawbacks it requires people be educated and well informed, if uninformed ignorant people decide they make very bad decisions. Take for example Parents who do not vaccinate their kids out off fear vaccines are bad, we are already seeing outbreaks and surging cases of disease normally repressed by vaccinations, children dieing and being maimed by diseases that their ignorant parents could have prevented. People in general are very poor at risk assessment and should not be trusted to make such assessment, rather more focus should be put into increasing the standards of testing and preventing corruption in the boards of authorities that approve foods and drugs rather then focusing on ignorant fallacious consumers to make those choices. instead.

 

First what I say does not imply democracy, it implies information on products.
You could have a dictator implementing this resolution regarding information in order for people to decide what food they want.

But anyway, if you think that it is better than companies decide instead of people (who are the one who eat!) then I feel like you are a little uneducated and ignorant about economics and marketing

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You are the one that you describe as ignorant fallacious consumers, very poor at risk assessment.

I promote natural selection: people making bad choice would die while other would resist. More information will be provided more selection will work.

Companies (if they are the one who decide what information is on the products) on the other hand will want people to buy their product no matter how good they are. On the long run, it won't work.

 

I did not say companies decide, rather experts chosen by elected officials like the FDA decide. Now if you feel the FDA is corrupt perhaps you should help push for better regulation, not with instead disregarding the an FDA like system and going with customer regulated system instead as a customer system would result in what your saying and many would die from every snake-oil and liquid silver cure-all on sale. If you want natural selection in our society then declare your self a nazi and begin the final solution, if you want egalitarianism then maybe you should consider regulation and de-corporatizing critical functions.

 

It brings market forces to bear on the promiscuous and irresponsible use of GM techniques.

When the genetic engineers themselves learn to distinguish reasonable from unreasonable risking of other people's health, lives, environments, and economies, the labels can be adjusted accordingly.