04-28-2014, 02:12 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Oneself
I still do not understand why people who make NO PROFIT (unless you DO ?) from GMO companies, defend these unethical companies ? Whats your motive man ?
I'm not defending unethical companies. I think Monsanto is evil too. I'm just clear that GMO does not equal Monsanto. There are thousands of different groups and organizations and companies doing genetic modification research around the world which have nothing at all to do with Monsanto. And many of those projects are addressing serious global issues like combating malaria and dengue fever, fighting starvation, curing cancer, improving crop yields, preventing death and blindness in children, and many other worthwhile goals.
It is the last case mentioned that gets me particularly upset with anti-science protesters, who have irrationally delayed the deployment of Vitamin A enhanced Golden Rice for many years. Developed by Swiss scientists as a non-profit humanitarian project, Golden Rice is designed to impact the half-million cases a year of blindness and death in children under the age of five in Asia, caused by insufficient levels of Vitamin A in their diets and the diets of their mothers. Previous attempts to provide artificially enriched foods, or vitamin A rich vegetables that are foreign to the region have failed. But Golden Rice, which is golden in color because it contains high levels of beta-carotene has proven to have high acceptance with poor people in remote areas, because the color implies richness to them.
But approval for widespread deployment has been held up for years... and remember, each additional year means another half million kids afflicted... due to irrational concerns which don't hold up under investigation.
Oneself: "People want to know what they are eating, let them ! What the fudge is the big deal ?"
One big deal is Freedom of Speech, which is one of the main reasons we do a lot of things in the US differently from the rest of the world. Neither people nor companies can be prevented by the government from saying what they wish to say, nor compelled to say what they don't want to say. That's Civics 101 stuff. Where the government can show a compelling public interest in creating an exception, such as FDA labeling, it's done for reasons based on solid scientific evidence. There are no such reasons in regard to GMOs.
As the court ruling that overturned the previous mandatory GM labeling law in Vermont explained (paraphrased) - People might also want to know what the cows had for breakfast, or what their names are, but there is no compelling public interest in forcing the producers to answer. That would be a violation of their First Amendment rights of free speech, and would be detrimental to their business interests, because the label has been so demonized by advocates that the public would avoid it.
Get it? There is no credible scientific proof of danger from GMOs, but the term is now thoroughly demonized, and irrationally tainted, so it's become highly prejudicial. The time to have possibly gotten such labeling approved, if any, was years ago, before the public had any clear opinions on the topic.