Slashdot Mirror
Genetically Modified Crops Are Safe, Report Says (nbcnews.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from NBC News: Genetically modified crops on the market are not only safe, but appear to be good for people and the environment, experts determined in a report released Tuesday. "The committee delved into the relevant literature, heard from 80 diverse speakers, and read more than 700 comments from members of the public to broaden its understanding of issues surrounding GE crops," the report reads. Panel members read more than 900 reports. A lot of concern centered on health effects. The committee determined the following: there is no evidence of large-scale health effects on people from genetically modified foods; there is some evidence that crops genetically engineered to resist bugs have benefited people by reducing cases of insecticide poisoning; genetically engineered crops to benefit human health, such as those altered to produce more vitamin A, can reduce blindness and deaths due to vitamin A deficiency; using insect-resistant or herbicide-resistant crops did not damage plant or insect diversity and in some cases increased the diversity of insects; sometimes the added genes do leak out to nearby plants -- a process called gene flow -- but there is no evidence it has caused harm; in general, farmers who use GM soybean, cotton, and corn make more money but it does depend on how bad pests are and farming practices; GM crops do reduce losses to pests, and if farmers use insect-resistant crops but don't take enough care, sometimes pest insects develop resistance. The National Academics of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine have put the evidence up on a website for skeptics of the report. The report also includes a 'Summarized Comments Received from Members of the Public' section for people to look up the facts to answer their concerns.
I am sure the Republican Party is interested in the Genetic Modified Chinks as the Democrats are only interested in the Blacks, the moslems, and the transvestites
The only POSSIBLE reason you could have for not labeling is that you don't want people to have the ability to make an informed decision.
Inform the public and let each one decide. What they decide and why they decide it is irrelevant. I don't like the taste of asparagus so I choose not to eat it. I don't like the idea of escargot so I don't eat that either, no matter what it might taste like. Irrational? Yes. Preferences are not rational, but they should be respected.
Stop trying to control everyone so you can selfishly increase profits.
It's absurd to think this requires regulation at all. There are already laws against selling foods that are harmful; already terrible repercussions for companies if they sell food that turns out to be harmful.
These plants are being modified in ways that make it pretty much impossible anything harmful can come of it. You really, really need to research the science behind what genetic modification of food is actually doing.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Thanks for the attention, I hope your masters pay you well for being a liar.
For the innocent bystander, this is more propaganda. Law suits about "stealing seed" relate to what farmers call "bleed" where plants grow on areas of land which are not farmed and not maintained. At least one of those cases was brought about by the farmer suing Monsanto because their seed started creeping into their land, and Monsanto successfully sued them for patent infringement in retaliation.
There is a very well known revolving door between the highest Federal offices and Big Business, Agriculture is a part of this cronyism.
When businesses behave altruistically they can be treated as such, and I would defend them and their altruism. They don't, so I don't.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.