10-08-2013, 05:31 AM
I was pretty much anti-GMO until I started taking the time to read about the actual science and get information from unbiased sources. This article is a good starting point. http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...fied-crops
My take now is that the issue of a few companies controlling so much of our food supply is a much bigger issue than that of GMOs and is not addressed by anti-GMO legislation. I think there are far more concerning food production issues in the world in terms of the impacts on health, the environment, and long term sustainability. I'm frustrated by the anti-science views of many of those against GMOs and their seeming inability to actually learn about the issues. GM is a technology, and like any new technology has the potential for good and bad outcomes. Because of that, banning the technology and criminalizing farmers seems like an uninformed and extreme measure. I'm also struck by the hypocrisy of those in the anti-GMO movement. 70% of GMO crops are soy and corn used for animal feed. Elimination of animal products from your diet essentially eliminates your contribution to the big GMO seed companies and eliminates potential (and so far unproven) threats to your health. Anyone who is anti-GMO and not vegan is essentially demanding something they choose to actively support to be banned, and very few are taking the personal responsibility to eliminate their personal contribution to these companies through their diet. As I have pointed out to an anti-GMO friend of mine, I could eat nothing but GMO corn and soy while he could maintain his current diet which includes GMO fed animal products while never consuming GMO food directly, and he would still be consuming and supporting GMO crops far more than I would be. He still eats his GMO fed meat, eggs, and dairy and claims to be anti-GMO.
I also find it pretty ridiculous all those claiming ill health effects from GMOs despite the overwhelming scientific consensus that there aren't any. Let's say new evidence revealed that GMO foods were all strong carcinogens. Well we know that about alcohol already and virtually everyone I know who is anti-GMO happily consumes this known carcinogen. Certainly from the health angle, the anti-GMO arguments really fall apart when you investigate them. There seems to be a huge amount of fear about GMOs and health while there is almost no concern about all the well understood damaging effects of many other foods and patterns of eating. I don't know why these folks don't personally address any of these things, as they have far more impact on health than eating GM foods. Another example is the issue of charred foods being carcinogenic. This is a much clearer issue than the unproven health risks of GMO foods. http://chemistry.about.com/b/2013/05/05/...nogens.htm If the concern is really about health, why aren't these people protesting in front of Burger King and demanding a ban on roasting marshmallows?
My take now is that the issue of a few companies controlling so much of our food supply is a much bigger issue than that of GMOs and is not addressed by anti-GMO legislation. I think there are far more concerning food production issues in the world in terms of the impacts on health, the environment, and long term sustainability. I'm frustrated by the anti-science views of many of those against GMOs and their seeming inability to actually learn about the issues. GM is a technology, and like any new technology has the potential for good and bad outcomes. Because of that, banning the technology and criminalizing farmers seems like an uninformed and extreme measure. I'm also struck by the hypocrisy of those in the anti-GMO movement. 70% of GMO crops are soy and corn used for animal feed. Elimination of animal products from your diet essentially eliminates your contribution to the big GMO seed companies and eliminates potential (and so far unproven) threats to your health. Anyone who is anti-GMO and not vegan is essentially demanding something they choose to actively support to be banned, and very few are taking the personal responsibility to eliminate their personal contribution to these companies through their diet. As I have pointed out to an anti-GMO friend of mine, I could eat nothing but GMO corn and soy while he could maintain his current diet which includes GMO fed animal products while never consuming GMO food directly, and he would still be consuming and supporting GMO crops far more than I would be. He still eats his GMO fed meat, eggs, and dairy and claims to be anti-GMO.
I also find it pretty ridiculous all those claiming ill health effects from GMOs despite the overwhelming scientific consensus that there aren't any. Let's say new evidence revealed that GMO foods were all strong carcinogens. Well we know that about alcohol already and virtually everyone I know who is anti-GMO happily consumes this known carcinogen. Certainly from the health angle, the anti-GMO arguments really fall apart when you investigate them. There seems to be a huge amount of fear about GMOs and health while there is almost no concern about all the well understood damaging effects of many other foods and patterns of eating. I don't know why these folks don't personally address any of these things, as they have far more impact on health than eating GM foods. Another example is the issue of charred foods being carcinogenic. This is a much clearer issue than the unproven health risks of GMO foods. http://chemistry.about.com/b/2013/05/05/...nogens.htm If the concern is really about health, why aren't these people protesting in front of Burger King and demanding a ban on roasting marshmallows?