[NAFEX] Transgenic technology (was: Grapple)
marillen at earthlink.net
Tue Apr 7 19:48:45 EDT 2009
It would be nice if all that was necessary to make an informed decision on this was to put "GMO" or some such indication on the food label.
However, the larger issue is that many people aren't sufficiently informed about the facts and fiction of transgenic technology. It would be an interesting social experiment (which will never happen) to label some food with, "Contains Genes!" and see what people's reaction would be. Of course, all fresh food contains genes whether it be a product of so-called transgenic technology or not.
That said, I think the effort should be made to educate people about transgenics and label the food as you suggest. As I've said in the past, I would seek out and preferentially choose the GMO food over most presently available alternatives. From my experience, I know that the GMO food is more much heavily scrutinized than the products of mainstream agriculture.
The key to assessing GMO or transgenic technology is to ask, "What gene was inserted and what is it's mode of action?" Just asking whether it is transgenic is not really very informative.
>From: Betty Mayfield <bmayfield at opusnet.com>
>Sent: Apr 7, 2009 5:59 PM
>To: North American Fruit Explorers <nafex at lists.ibiblio.org>
>Subject: Re: [NAFEX] Transgenic technology (was: Grapple)
>To the list,
>This is part of a long involved message, but I believe I am replying
>to Matt's forwarding of Alex's comment on a message from Kevin. The
>comment is quoted here:
>" I understand that many people are concerned about introducing genes from
>one organism into another...personally, I am not. It is a judgenment
>call, and on that point, I am content to disagree."
>I agree that it is a judgement call, but that is possible only if we
>are provided with all the information with which to make that
>call. A couple of years ago there was an initiative put on the
>Oregon ballot that would require foods containing genetically
>modified ingredients to carry that information on the label. A poll
>taken when it was first introduced was highly in favor of the initiative.
>But then "Big Agriculture" and "Big Groceries" got in to the act and
>campaigned against it, spending what was a record amount of money for
>a state campaign. They said requiring such a line on a label would
>cause a lot of grocery stores to go broke and would be unfair to the
>food products industry. As a result of this deluge of advertising,
>the initiative was defeated.
>Now I can go into a grocery and pick up a can of pop and read on the
>label if is has sugar and/or caffeine or not. And I can pick up a can
>of soup and read how much salt it has. But if they were required to
>add a line to labels stating whether genetically-modified or not, it
>would allegedly cause a financial disaster.
More information about the nafex