I Run a G.M.O. Company — and I Support G.M.O. Labeling

[sangha]

[h=1]I Run a G.M.O. Company — and I Support G.M.O. Labeling[/h]
MY first exposure to biotechnology was from my father. He grew up with juvenile diabetes, and for most of his life had taken daily injections of insulin from pigs, even though it came with a risk of side effects. That changed in 1982 when Eli Lilly introduced Humulin. I remember the Humulin box with “human insulin (recombinant DNA origin)” proudly displayed on the label: Biological engineers had transferred human DNA-encoding insulin into bacteria, and that meant my dad could get the real thing and no longer had to make do with insulin from animals.
Twenty-six years later, I became a founder of a biotechnology company that makes products with genetically modified organisms for the food industry. Like88 percent of my fellow scientists, I believe that genetically engineered foods are safe. But unlike many of my colleagues, I’m among the 89 percent of Americans who believe that bioengineered ingredients should be identified on food packaging.

To me, there’s no contradiction in these two beliefs. For years, scientists have celebrated the many benefits of genetic engineering, from increased crop yields to improved nutritional content. They have also been embracing transparency, in the form of open access to research findings and calls for increased public engagement. It doesn’t make sense to advocate a better understanding of biotechnology in one breath and, in the other, tell consumers they don’t need to know when that technology is used to make their food.

Foods with bioengineered ingredients are safe, but shrouding them in secrecy breeds doubt and fear. Clear, informative labeling is a first step toward transparency that can build trust and educate consumers. But trust has to go both ways: Biotechnology companies and food producers must trust consumers to educate themselves and make informed decisions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/16/opinion/i-run-a-gmo-company-and-i-support-gmo-labeling.html

I look forward to seeing how people label this guy "anti-science" and explain why consumers should trust GE foods while they don't trust consumers

 

[KevinKohler]

Perfectly logical.


Honest advertising.




How quintissentually un-american.

 

[Kobie]

I have absolutely no problem with GMO food, but the fight against labeling makes me wonder if some people are up to something they shouldn't be. There is no logical reason that people shouldn't be able to know what they're putting in their bodies.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

GMO is an incredibly broad term that covers any genetic manipulation of any kind to our food supply. The vast, vast majority of which is probably perfectly safe, but you can't blanketly say everything's safe or everything's harmful. (IE: "We genetically engineered this banana to be much bigger!" vs "We genetically engineered this banana to be poisonous to insects!")

There is absolutely zero reason not to label GMOs as such so that consumers can make decisions about what's best for them. I'd like to see it taken even further so that consumers can easily identify and research what type of modification has been made and the associated benefits and risks.

 

[RetiredUSN]

If people would take the time to read, study, and understand plant life, they would know that genetic modifications to plants can happen just as easily by changing a plants environment over time. They adapt through the different soils, germs, bacteria, salinity, PH, moisture etc. etc. etc. If the environment change is too severe the plant will die off.

Nature has been doing the GMO thingy for a very long time.

 

[Gaztopian]

Funny thing is that I was thinking of starting a poll about the subject just yesterday.

I have no problem with GMOs and I'm not willing to spend the extra money on organic products, but there's absolutely no argument that allows food purveyors to withhold information the consumer demands. I don't care why he demands it, as he has a right to know what he's buying.

 

[fmw]

I have absolutely no problem with GMO food, but the fight against labeling makes me wonder if some people are up to something they shouldn't be. There is no logical reason that people shouldn't be able to know what they're putting in their bodies.

Understandable position. I think the issue is just having another iteration of government becoming ever more intrusive. I don't think the labeling is the issue. It is what is demanding the labeling. Perhaps the industry could simply start labeling without government intervention and save everyone from a hassle.

 

[Ntharotep]

I hate topics that have no real debate
I also agree that the GMO labeling is a no brainer regardless of the safety of GMO foods.
As was put best, IMO. We have the right to know what we put in our bodies.

 

[Carjosse]

Sure, as long as you are not banning it. But almost everything we eat is GMO by some definition.

 

[Un biased]

Maybe in the future when the fear about gmo foods has subsided. Hysteria and fear going surrounding these foods maybe not viable economically , but it may , just may help in the long run when people find out that the majority of all the food they consume has been genetically modified .

 

[Ikari]

GMO isn't toxic or anything, but it should be clearly labeled. It's just information. GMOs are not going to collapse because of some labels.

 

[sangha]

I hate topics that have no real debate
I also agree that the GMO labeling is a no brainer regardless of the safety of GMO foods.
As was put best, IMO. We have the right to know what we put in our bodies.

Actually, GE labelling laws usually provokes a good deal of debate. It's just that in this instance, the pro-GE posters have been robbed of their old and tired standby "You're anti-science"