|
Yes. Your argument is sustainable and probable. I agree. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I believe this is true. There have even been scientific studies backing up these suspicions. In
fact, there was a scientist funded by the British government at Aberdeen University who was doing
research into the safety of GM food and was very troubled by what he discovered. He found that the
sickness levels in the rats fed GM food were far higher than those fed conventional food. Prior to
this, he had been in favour of GM food, but afterwards, of course, he became sceptical. He also lost
his funding, needless to say.
GM foods are now pervasive in America, although they are still quite rare in Europe. The US
government is exerting diplomatic pressure to get them accepted everywhere, though. I think this is
a dangerous experiment whose results will only be apparent over the long term. It will also be hard
to distinguish the causative factor in amidst all the many other potential causative factors. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
Let me write this carefully...
Personally, I will choose NOT to eat GM foods whenever given the chance, but in a world always
scrimping for food and dealing with lots of spoilage I think GM foods can have a place.
Yes I do think GM food CAN be dangerous (although that would be very rare), I think it MUST be
properly labelled (although it almost never is), and I think at most it should be a SUPPLEMENTAL
food source option and not a replacement for more natural foods (yet it's already in almost
everything).
So I'm not completely "against" your angst on GM food, I just don't think it should be banned or
that it's highly dangerous. And I really do think it has gone too far with insufficient labelling,
and that the US has pushed the cause of GM food too far and too aggressively. You shouldn't have to
eat it if you don't want to. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
19 Jul 2008 21:44
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
