I gather there is some discussion about the horrific effects of genetically modified foods on rats. I was warned about it recently by an old colleague whom I met by chance whilst travelling and who now works in the science sector.
It's not my area, and from the recommended brief google of "tumours caused by GM foods", it appears that as usual the scientific community is split. One could be cynical and say that it's split along the lines of who is being paid by the GM producers and who is not. I have no easy way of verifying this one way or another and certainly no time to try, and it may be completely incorrect.
As a conservative and a capitalist, I'm not against profit, of course - it's a necessary incentive for achievement - and the shareholder model can work well and be widely beneficial.
However, as we all know, it can fail when the impetus for making money has to be balanced with the need to ensure consumer and product safety, and this is where sensible regulation and independent verification are necessary. I don't believe that these are robust enough in much of the food industry, as evidenced by the continued use of HVOs and such chemicals as aspartame and the recurring cases of caterers being prepared to buy food unfit for human consumption.
As far as we're concerned, we have never knowingly ingested GM foods and will not buy such. Nor will we allow it to be grown on any of our property. This won't change until we are completely sure that there is no risk. At the moment, such certainty is a very long way off, and I recommend that all posters are wary of this technological "advance". Also, remember that not all food labelling is necessarily 100% accurate.
bws Simon
EDIT
btw I have not posted this to start a big discussion, let alone an argument. I have no axe to grind and no direct commercial interest in any foods.
I posted, genuinely, because I am concerned about the subject and because I wanted to encourage others to research for themselves with a view to doing what they judge is the correct thing as regards what they and their families purchase and consume.
It's not my area, and from the recommended brief google of "tumours caused by GM foods", it appears that as usual the scientific community is split. One could be cynical and say that it's split along the lines of who is being paid by the GM producers and who is not. I have no easy way of verifying this one way or another and certainly no time to try, and it may be completely incorrect.
As a conservative and a capitalist, I'm not against profit, of course - it's a necessary incentive for achievement - and the shareholder model can work well and be widely beneficial.
However, as we all know, it can fail when the impetus for making money has to be balanced with the need to ensure consumer and product safety, and this is where sensible regulation and independent verification are necessary. I don't believe that these are robust enough in much of the food industry, as evidenced by the continued use of HVOs and such chemicals as aspartame and the recurring cases of caterers being prepared to buy food unfit for human consumption.
As far as we're concerned, we have never knowingly ingested GM foods and will not buy such. Nor will we allow it to be grown on any of our property. This won't change until we are completely sure that there is no risk. At the moment, such certainty is a very long way off, and I recommend that all posters are wary of this technological "advance". Also, remember that not all food labelling is necessarily 100% accurate.
bws Simon
EDIT
btw I have not posted this to start a big discussion, let alone an argument. I have no axe to grind and no direct commercial interest in any foods.
I posted, genuinely, because I am concerned about the subject and because I wanted to encourage others to research for themselves with a view to doing what they judge is the correct thing as regards what they and their families purchase and consume.
Comment