Re: Mandatory GMO food labeling by states would be banned under proposed bill
This is actually artificial selection (plus antibiotic feed--antibiotics are used in food animals to speed up growth), not GMO*. Don't get me wrong, its still not good for the animal, but its not GMO.
*Genetically Modified Organisms is a specific thing where human-created or natural genes (from another organism) are transplanted into the genome of another organism...while some artificial selection that we have developed is extreme, natural selection can also develop some extremes (a narwhal's tusk, the feathers on a bird of paradise, etc).
GMOs aren't necessairly bad, in terms of health--some certainly can be...creating a pland that produces its own pesticides and then eating it is different that putting pesticides on a plant that you can wash off. Where it gets dicey, is in terms of the environemental effects---what happens when a gene that makes a plant resistent to a pesticide (so when you spray your field its not at all affected) gets into the natural analog of that plant? What happens with the *rest of the plant* in the plants that make their own pesticides? Those plants decompose somewhere... The environmental costs of these sorts changes are the problem.
But making rice or wheat more nutritious or tolerant to hotter, drier weather, or rot resistant...those things are likely harmless...and could probably be done with selective breeding given enough time. GMOs here are just a short cut.
Despite the bumper sticker on my car, I'm not anti-GMO. I'm not pro-GMO either. I'm pro-science. And (as the inner conservation biologist I went to school to be and the public health scientist I actually am) I believe very strongly in the Precautionary Principle. People should have the right to make informed choices...they can't do that if labeling is optional.
Originally posted by anunitu
View Post
This is actually artificial selection (plus antibiotic feed--antibiotics are used in food animals to speed up growth), not GMO*. Don't get me wrong, its still not good for the animal, but its not GMO.
*Genetically Modified Organisms is a specific thing where human-created or natural genes (from another organism) are transplanted into the genome of another organism...while some artificial selection that we have developed is extreme, natural selection can also develop some extremes (a narwhal's tusk, the feathers on a bird of paradise, etc).
GMOs aren't necessairly bad, in terms of health--some certainly can be...creating a pland that produces its own pesticides and then eating it is different that putting pesticides on a plant that you can wash off. Where it gets dicey, is in terms of the environemental effects---what happens when a gene that makes a plant resistent to a pesticide (so when you spray your field its not at all affected) gets into the natural analog of that plant? What happens with the *rest of the plant* in the plants that make their own pesticides? Those plants decompose somewhere... The environmental costs of these sorts changes are the problem.
But making rice or wheat more nutritious or tolerant to hotter, drier weather, or rot resistant...those things are likely harmless...and could probably be done with selective breeding given enough time. GMOs here are just a short cut.
Despite the bumper sticker on my car, I'm not anti-GMO. I'm not pro-GMO either. I'm pro-science. And (as the inner conservation biologist I went to school to be and the public health scientist I actually am) I believe very strongly in the Precautionary Principle. People should have the right to make informed choices...they can't do that if labeling is optional.
Comment