Cheers

If you were buying viable seeds, then sure. Ditto if you are doing the GMing. But if you are buying canola oil, the genetics of the plant’s pest resistance are irrelevant to the end product.

I think it’s misleading to say that GMOs are “natural” because their genes are 99.99% identical to conventional varieties. I could insert a few genes that cause a vegetable to produce cyanide and it would remain 99.99% identical to the parent strain. What matters is function, not percentage genetic homology. GMO technology allows us to change an organism’s function rapidly and dramatically while leaving almost the entire genome untouched. That doesn’t automatically make it harmful to health or the environment, but the technology does give us that potential, and therefore we have to be cautious with it. Different people have different thresholds for caution, and it makes sense to give them the information they need to apply their own threshold.

Hi Sandgroper,

“Completely certain” was a poor choice of words on my part, of course that is setting the bar too high. However, we have a disturbing tendency to assume safety on the basis of very little evidence. I think a prime example of that is pesticides. For most pesticides, we have very little data on the long-term effects of low-level pesticide exposure on human health. The data we do have are mostly from academic epidemiological studies, not so much from systematic investigation of these compounds before government approval (particularly for the older ones that have been grandfathered in). My personal guess is that pesticides aren’t a major player in health problems on a population level in the US, but I can’t prove it, and neither can anyone prove the contrary.

What makes this argument laughable to me, is, people eating crap in a box and crap in a bag, which is where you’ll find the majority of GMOs, have a lot more to worry about, health wise, than whether the crap they’re eating has GMOs in it.

Real food doesn’t need a label – so just eat real food.

Cheers

P.S. Stephan is right.

One of the reasons we don’t have sufficient evidence: criminals destroy research and get let off by judges, despite clearly understanding that they have knowingly committed crimes, and showing no remorse for having done so: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-19/activists-get-suspended-sentences-for-wrecking-crop/4379438 When are criminals not criminals? When they’re ‘activists’ engaged in ‘the struggle’.

It’s unlikely to be a prime reason, but Prop. 37 serves another purpose – it conveniently labels for targeting by activists.

Good blog, by the way. I have already enjoyed reading some of your posts, and will read a lot more.

Perhaps that is ok with you people that claim GMOs are safe. Well go bathe in some roundup, have some babies and then tell me you are ok with it. These GMO crops are spreading poison near and far. Mosanto is setting the planet up for an epic mass scale extinction.

And a note for those interested. The politicians and Monsanto’s employees (the company cafeteria) do not eat or serve them and opt for organic only. Now what do they know that they aren’t telling us.

Personally it has very little to do with genetics but more about the chemical/poisoning, industrialising and destruction of agriculture, the environment and the small farmer. In fact it is a crime against humanity. And that IS NOT over reaching.

There. Done. Thank you.

The assumption that non-GM food must be less natural than traditionally bred food is false. GM allows specific genes to be targeted, so that a GM variety can be (genetially) 99.99% “natural”, while traditional breeding ends up altering a much larger percentage of the genome to get a certain trait expressed.

Fire was probably the first chemical treatment of our food. And we continued ferociously after that by pickling, freezing, drying, and so on. Fire is a strong force that does a lot to alter the chemistry of food items by say breaking down muscle fibre so that it is more easily ingested.

I am much more interested in seeing reform of biotechnology laws to recognize the unique concerns related to genetically engineered food, such as addressing the problem of genetically modified organisms (particularly those that are patented) “trespassing” genetically on other people’s heritage breeding lines.

The second, broader point is that GMOs are another step toward the extreme industrialization of the food system. Industrialization has benefited us in certain ways for sure, but it’s important to acknowledge that (broadly speaking) it has also hurt us quite a bit as our diets have drifted away from what is ‘natural’ for our species. One interesting example of this is that the concentration of specific minerals in plant foods has declined by as much as 70% in the last 50 years, apparently due to the development of high-yield cultivars (some conventionally selected, some GMO). GMO labeling is just one part of the struggle to allow people the right to choose food that has been less industrially manipulated. If you believe on principle that less industrially manipulated food is something that’s valuable, then it makes sense to want the information required to be able to apply that principle.

The numbers for LA are off I think…

county obama romney yes no
los-angeles 1998 471 1416606 1333987