The FDA has been quietly attempting to ban the labeling of GMO's (genetically modified organisms). Their contention is that there is not a difference between food that has been altered genetically and food that hasn't.
A few concerns had by non-supporters of GMO's
- Allergenicity
- Antibiotic resistance
- Gene transfer
- Out crossing
- GM genes introduced into the wild population
- Gene stability
- Susceptibility of nontarget organisms (insects)
- Loss of biodiversity
So, naturally (no pun intended heh heh) this raises questions about the FDA's alliances- who does it work for? Who does pushing for non-labeled products help? What's the big deal? Simply put, with no labels comes no questions or concerns, no concerns allows the consumer to purchase the product without a care in the world, happily nomming down on something that could be potentially harmful to them in the long run.
Hi Chris,
ReplyDeleteThis is a very important and oft-censored story, yes. "Big Ag" has a tremendous amount of political clout, and money to match.
And the FDA is sometimes too much of a "captive regulatory agency," doing the bidding of Big Ag at the expense of ordinary food consumers.
You do a fine job of applying our Web 2.0 and matrix tools here - the "Franken Carrot" cartoon is hilarious, and the embedded YouTube videos is eye-opening (I feel like I've seen this first one before.)
How might Big Ag rebut some of the claims made here?
Excellent work,
Dr. W