I agree with the recent comment that we must weigh risks vs rewards in coming to any conclusions re the merits of GM foods. Ultimately, consumers will decide. But I have a different perspective otherwise. I believe that human intelligence, industry, innovation and “intervention” are responsible for our vastly improved standard of living. I question the supposed superiority of “natural processes”. If we relied solely on these vs human intervention, we would not be able to feed the world’s current population. I also disagree that nothing in science is conclusive. Knowledge is contextual and humans are not omniscient. Conclusions must be reached based on what we know. On the specific topic of GM labeling,why do non-GM users not simply insist on “GM Free” on these products?
When it comes to science nothing is conclusive. “Results” of studies are interpretations of information. What one scientist interprets as red another interprets as white. Every 6 months the public hears about a study that concludes the opposite of a previous study.
Most studies are done and paid for,by those with a vested interest in a certain outcome. Most studies done in terms of the impact on the human body are very “short” term, whereas the impact on the body can take decades.
So, in my mind it is not a fear of change, as you suggest Bill, it is a fear of manipulation by those who would profit from the interpretations of results. Who do we trust???
Nature and its natural processes have served us well. I will choose those processes over processes where humans have the opportunity to manipulate or misinterpret the results.
The public has a right to transparency and labelling of products which are scientifically modified is a must. There can be no compromising on that, we have a right to know. Let the “informed” scientists buy the modified stuff, I will stick to nature provided.
Barry thanks for this. The study that Saunders cites was done by a clearly impartial group. That said, I agree that no science should be viewed as definitive. But how should that translate to labelling? There are lots of things not included in our product labelling today–what species of oats was used for your Cheerios, whether or not the cows who contributed to your ice cream received antibiotics. People who want to feel sure about those questions buy organic and are willing to pay the extra cost of them.
Bill, I concede the case may already be lost regarding human intervention in our food supply. I also concede that in many cases genetic modification may be of less risk to humans than current methods of intervention. For instance, GM of seed to resist drought may be less risky that the application of chemicals to the soil to retain moisture.
I tend to evaluate these things in terms of why are we intervening??? If the genetic modification of the seeds is being undertaken to prevent starvation in Kenya then substituting one significant risk for another may be acceptable. There is a risk , and there is a reward for that society.
In the case of the example in your article, I ask what is the significant risk that we are eliminating to our society and what is the reward to our society. When the reward is “cost reduction”/ “economic” and the proposal is being pushed by industry I become very skeptical of the proposal. Unfortunately it is very difficult to get reassurance from the scientific community.
I do try to buy organic, and I am enabled to do that by labelling. If there is no labelling on GM products how do I make my decisions? But you are correct, I know very little about the fertilizers, pesticides, hormones, and drugs that were applied to most of the products I eat. All I can say is two wrongs do not make a right.
Once a GM product has been shown to be safe for human consumption, it should be released into the marketplace; presumably it can be priced to compete with the its non-GMO counterpart and then the purchasing public will decide on its future..
I agree with the recent comment that we must weigh risks vs rewards in coming to any conclusions re the merits of GM foods. Ultimately, consumers will decide. But I have a different perspective otherwise. I believe that human intelligence, industry, innovation and “intervention” are responsible for our vastly improved standard of living. I question the supposed superiority of “natural processes”. If we relied solely on these vs human intervention, we would not be able to feed the world’s current population. I also disagree that nothing in science is conclusive. Knowledge is contextual and humans are not omniscient. Conclusions must be reached based on what we know. On the specific topic of GM labeling,why do non-GM users not simply insist on “GM Free” on these products?
Steve Chipman | May 31, 2016 |
When it comes to science nothing is conclusive. “Results” of studies are interpretations of information. What one scientist interprets as red another interprets as white. Every 6 months the public hears about a study that concludes the opposite of a previous study.
Most studies are done and paid for,by those with a vested interest in a certain outcome. Most studies done in terms of the impact on the human body are very “short” term, whereas the impact on the body can take decades.
So, in my mind it is not a fear of change, as you suggest Bill, it is a fear of manipulation by those who would profit from the interpretations of results. Who do we trust???
Nature and its natural processes have served us well. I will choose those processes over processes where humans have the opportunity to manipulate or misinterpret the results.
The public has a right to transparency and labelling of products which are scientifically modified is a must. There can be no compromising on that, we have a right to know. Let the “informed” scientists buy the modified stuff, I will stick to nature provided.
barry h | May 28, 2016 |
Barry thanks for this. The study that Saunders cites was done by a clearly impartial group. That said, I agree that no science should be viewed as definitive. But how should that translate to labelling? There are lots of things not included in our product labelling today–what species of oats was used for your Cheerios, whether or not the cows who contributed to your ice cream received antibiotics. People who want to feel sure about those questions buy organic and are willing to pay the extra cost of them.
Bill | May 28, 2016 |
Bill, I concede the case may already be lost regarding human intervention in our food supply. I also concede that in many cases genetic modification may be of less risk to humans than current methods of intervention. For instance, GM of seed to resist drought may be less risky that the application of chemicals to the soil to retain moisture.
I tend to evaluate these things in terms of why are we intervening??? If the genetic modification of the seeds is being undertaken to prevent starvation in Kenya then substituting one significant risk for another may be acceptable. There is a risk , and there is a reward for that society.
In the case of the example in your article, I ask what is the significant risk that we are eliminating to our society and what is the reward to our society. When the reward is “cost reduction”/ “economic” and the proposal is being pushed by industry I become very skeptical of the proposal. Unfortunately it is very difficult to get reassurance from the scientific community.
I do try to buy organic, and I am enabled to do that by labelling. If there is no labelling on GM products how do I make my decisions? But you are correct, I know very little about the fertilizers, pesticides, hormones, and drugs that were applied to most of the products I eat. All I can say is two wrongs do not make a right.
barry h | May 29, 2016 |
All species today have continued to ‘modify’ as evolution has progressed. Change has been going on … in spite of the “knee-jerk”s.
Gordon a.... | May 27, 2016 |
Once a GM product has been shown to be safe for human consumption, it should be released into the marketplace; presumably it can be priced to compete with the its non-GMO counterpart and then the purchasing public will decide on its future..
Bob MacKenzie | May 27, 2016 |