9 responses to “Why we should ban GMO foods”

  1. jgardner

    “it is becoming common knowledge that research shows links between GMOs and digestive disorders, cancer, allergies, and infertility.”
    Except when an overview of the last 10 years of research into GMO food “has not detected any significant hazards directly connected with the use of GE crops.”
    “and our government never required or performed ANY safety testing”
    Is killing your customers a sustainable business model?
    If progressives support the ending of the Drug War on the grounds that we own our bodies and should be allowed to put into them what we want, how could they support the banning of GM foods? It’s hypocritical.

    1. cailin rua

      Do heroin addicts contaminate other people’s field’s when they shoot up?

      Do you believe it is too coercive to deny mammoth monopolies the freedom to obfuscate to the point where consumers lose their freedom to make conscious decisions?  Where’s the libertarianism in that?

      This post seems to be all about labeling, not banning.  Do you have a problem with honesty and free choice?  You don’t have a problem with the fact that you have to do research just to determine who is feeding their cows bovine growth hormone just so you can decide who you should buy your milk from?  Why should we have to do all that on our time just because greedy people are such liars?  

      1. jgardner

        The post’s title is (my emphasis) “Why we should Ban GMO foods,” so it would seem clear that is the preferred outcome for the author. And certainly the first step to achieve that ban is to get GMO products labeled as a way to separate them from the rest.
        The research has to be done, yes? If we don’t do the research on our time then we’ll simply pay someone else to do it. Why does that someone else have to be a gov’t agent and all the accompanying political baggage? We have Good Housekeeping and Consumer Reports for various product reviews, Edmunds and KBB for vehicles all so we don’t have to do the requisite research, and all of it without any government intervention. There’s no reason, if people want this labeling, the market wouldn’t or couldn’t come up with a solution.

        1. cailin rua

          You got me, Jgardner.  I forgot or didn’t pay close attention to the title of the post when it first went up.  I didn’t read the post until I scrolled up to it after I linked to your comment. I should have scrolled further and read the title.  The only mention in the text of the post to banning was this remarek:

          However, some would argue that the “movement” should go one step further, and ban GMO’s altogether. 

          I don’t think ten years is long enough to be called long term.  I don’t think people should be prevented from experimenting with genetically modified crops, if it can be done without affecting other people’s crops or overpowering a market.  It is commonly understood that Monsanto has developed its seed to be compatible with its pesticides.  The stuff ends up in watersheds which ends up affecting much more land  and way more people than just the farmer’s using Monsanto’s products and those who want to eat genetically modified foods.  I am sure there are countless studies.  Who funds the studies?  What kind of influence does that have on the “science”?  I doubt Monsanto operates any differently than Merck, which established its own purported to be peer reviewed journal, The Austasian Journal of Bone Medicine in the wake of all the law suits over Vioxx.  They were aided and abetted by Elsevier, who they essentially bribed to publish a fake journal.  There are plenty of ghost writers fudging facts and skewing research data.
          Monsanto has a long, ugly history.  I don’t think resistance to them is unwarranted. 

          1. jgardner

            No, ten years isn’t long term, and the author notes there haven’t been any long term studies, but to also say “it is becoming common knowledge that research shows links between GMOs and [various ailments]” is disingenuous at best.

            1. cailin rua

              I used to have incredibly good eyesight but it has gotten so bad I couldn’t even see the blue lettering of the link you put up:

              overview of the last 10 years of research
              I don’t know if that will show up as a link.  Weren’t you implying that the ten year overview was long enough to reach a conclusion about GMO’s? I’m not familiar with Informa but it’s so frustrating to find medical research papers like these only to be teased by an abstract if you do not have the dough re mi for the whole enchilada.  The medical establishment is so paternalistic.  I’ve been through this movie too many times before.  

              1. jgardner

                Not implying that at all, As I stated before, the author claimed it was becoming common knowledge that GM crops caused all sorts of ailments… the problem with that statement is the body of scientific evidence we do have has apparently not reached the same conclusion. Would have been nice for the author to provide some evidence for the “common knowledge” assertion.

                1. cailin rua

                  I agree. 10 years is not a long time. Have found “common ground”, jgardner?
                  :) have a good night.

  2. Barry

    jgardner and cailin both made good points, thanks.  Its the headline that was misleading.
    My brother who lives in CA told me the referendum there on requiring GM labelling unexepectedly lost in part because there was a group that didn’t think it went far enough.  I hope this doesn’t hppen here and that even the folks that want to ban the GM foods (I think a really bad idea both in substance and politically) will still help the effort to pass  required labelling in RI.  

Add Comment Register

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.