I'm not anti-biotech at all, but I do have a HUGE problem with the messy intellectual property rights issues that GMO's introduce. The idea that you can patent a gene (you didn't invent the damn thing!) is ridiculous. Farmers are being sold on GMO's and then find themselves trapped using it because they're not allowed to save seed (and Monsanto has been VERY aggressive about pursuing those who they suspect of doing so), forcing them to buy seed year after year. And when the wind inevitably carried your neighbor's GMO pollen next door and introduced those patented genes to your crops? Not only have you now had your choice not to grow GMO taken away from you, but now Monsanto will sue YOU for copyright infringement, most likely either forcing you to switch to GMO and "legally" pay for it, or go out of business.
I don't need to worry about health concerns to be worried about GMO's.
We should label Harry Cline instead.
We should label Harry Cline instead
I am a mom, a conservative, a traditional and a college science graduate. The "Truth-in-labeling" campaign may well be supported by some of those who support the "anti-circumcision ban" but honestly trying to somehow smear those of us (thousands and growing by the thousands) who support the labeling campaign as being "ludicrous" or "absurd"?
What is absurd is a company like Monsanto claiming that the Bt toxin will not cross the human barrier (no tests done just a claim) and now the latest peer reviewed journal study showing just the opposite. The Bt toxin is found in the blood of 80% or more placenta, new mothers etc. What does this mean? What can this toxin do? I am sure Monsanto will claim, not enough toxin to do harm, the study was flawed or attack the poor scientist who ventured into such a study never mind the false claim.
What is absurd is the contamination of native corn species in Mexico and Monsanto counters with this being a positive change and "increasing the diversity of the gene pool".
What is absurd is the claim on Monsanto's website concerning GM labeling: " Individuals who make a personal decision not to consume food containing GM ingredients can easily avoid such products. In the U.S., they can purchase products that are certified as organic under the National Organic Program." With the OK on unregulated commercial alfalfa what organic choices will I soon have? Companies like Monsanto have set their sights on every crop so how will I be able to, "easily avoid such products" if they continue to monopolize our food supply? The goal is to destroy organic. Can I purchase 100% organic canola in Canada? Why do I even have to buy organic to avoid GM food to begin with? I would be quite happy to buy GM free conventional grown food.
What is absurd is the incredibly simplistic way these companies view DNA. It alarms me to no end. Mark my words 20 years from now the realization of all the complex systems that revolve around DNA will be discovered and understood to a better degree. It wasn't that long ago that the "cell" was viewed under a microscope, not that long ago the atom was discovered. Folks in terms of understanding and manipulating DNA we aren't even at the microscope stage of the first view of the cell.
What is absolutely ludicrous is the premise on which the flimsy foundation was laid for the nice little neat gold egg of a term, "substantially equivalent"!
What is absurd is the arrogance of the biotech companies. They ignore hard ethically issues, preform narrow focused studies, sue landowners whose crop has been unintentionally contaminated by GM cross-pollination or seed (in the court room the crops nor the legal council are "substantially equivalent"), and etc.
Simply put I do not want GMO's on my table (this includes protein/meat/dairy from animals that have been GM food) , I do not want GMO's fed to my children. We simply do not want them and the fact that it is costing me so much more to avoid them has made this mom angry. I am not ashamed for standing up for what I know is right.
Many countries, many, many do NOT want them and the political pressure from the U.S. is intense. I admire countries like Ireland that agree that human safety and long term studies are prudent. They understand that economically in the long haul they will be able to fill a demand that will be huge, gm free crops.
I can write a lot on this issue, but who reads these comments anyways? I will close with a statement made by a local CONVENTIONAL farmer (big land, mainly barley, wheat, cattle, alfalfa). He said he doesn't agree with GM crops, he states it is playing with fire. He recommends that people start saving seed as one day seed might be worth more than gold.
As many others have said, if GMOs are healthy and good for us then what is there to be afraid of in labeling? Cigarette packages are clearly labelled that they are health damaging but still millions continue to consume them.
People need to know what they are eating and have the right to make their own choices and not the large corporations making those choices for us.
All this blather over labeling. If it's all good, it'll cost less than 1/4th of a cent to add "Contains GM ingredients" on the label. If you think it's so good, think of it as bragging rights. As a consumer, I'll be happy to pay for the right to exercise my Freedom of Choice.
The Farm Press Daily Blog
Western Farm Press