NoNukes excerpted here:
....{}...It can be really hard for people to sort out the science, but sorting out villains and good guys based on their methods is not so hard....{}.... But some people just don't trust that group to be independent anymore.....
Again, Michael Taylor working in the FDA is BY DEFINITION a conflict of interest. Clarence Thomas not recusing himself from every case involving Monsanto is BY DEFINITION a conflict of interest...but, meanwhile....
more of NoNukes's post:
You've convinced me that labeling sucrose is silly, but the issues with corn syrup, soybeans and beets themselves is not going to be a simple matter of looking at identical molecules. Some people might call such campaigns misleading because they don't address the real objections.
Indeed - it isn't the sugar molecule at all - it's the Bt pesticide sitting next to it that you ingest with Corn Bt. Now - don't get me wrong, but on this level Cotton Bt is fine, because, except for the fictional character in Catch-22, Milo Minderbender, no one is trying to get people to eat cotton. Perhaps they can come up with GMO cotton garments that repel mosquitoes.
[satire]
Now on to a whole other issue here with GMOs "solving" the world's food problems as the population continues to lumber on towards 20 billions:
Maybe making more food is not a good idea?? Do we really want to live on a planet of 20+ billions?
How about a GMO that reduces family size - ooo, let's have it affect sperm count and testosterone levels in the male population this time and leave experimenting with the female population alone for once. Maybe put it in beer.
Sort of a "modest proposal"....instead of
increasing food crop yields, we ought to be
decreasing human crop yields.
[/satire]
- xongsmith, 5.7d
™ Version 4.2
(1)
