I love seeing vague reports like this… it is a testament to poor news reporting. Of course, I am curious… what is the “root source” of this news that you have “quoted”? Was it this one from Greenpeace?
Regardless… when you have reports making claims without showing specific evidence like for instance; ‘the exact percentage of rats that showed negative effects from MON863’, you’re setting yourself up for political car wreck.
Monsanto argued that the lab results of negative effects to the rats are “statistically insignificant”, even though they never released the numbers either. That’s not the point though… when you have political lobbyist going around trying to persuade people to your cause, you don’t follow the data of those 9 out of 10 doctors who said the product is good… no, you go to that 1 doctor out of 10 who said the product is bad and you make that doctor’s data the center of attention, ignoring the other 9 of 10.
Genetically engineered food should not be the target of political activist assault groups… fast food on the other hand…
It is shown that tests were done by an Italian lab for 2 years with Monsanto GMO soja on 150 mice and that these mice saw their organs modified + had less digestive enzymes than another 150 mice. The Italian government inexplicably put a term to the research after this period.
On the Monsanto OGM corn, French health analysts were not given access to Monsantos study concluding that there was no difference on mices health between those who ate normal corn and Monsanto corn. This is where Greenpeace came in. The German government was not releasing the Monsanto study either, and, through Greenpeaces action, a judge declared the report should be handed over (which apparently showed that the Mansanto corn eating rats saw some of their organs modified). A French government scientest then says that it is not confirmed that this corn is detrimental to health, but he cannot exlude it either. Monsantos study stated that rats who had ate their corn (over 90 days only) did not have significatively more lesions, but the sample of the other group of rats was 6 times more important.
Knowing this, I say the principle of precaution should be adopted.
You’re both wrong. The precautionary principle forbids itself. The whole of the food industry should come under extreme scrutiny by political activist assault groups and more credible people. The connections between diet and psychology are widely documented, and easily demonstrable. Ergo they are of utmost significance both politically and socially.
Well, actually, precaution was just a first step. The number one priority in my mind is solving the colony collapse disorder “mystery”. Given that bees are central to having healthy and natural foods.
How about we swipe the FDA from existence and rebuild from the ground up a tougher food and drug evaluation board that will enforce a stricter food and drug code that scrutinizes even the most mundane manufacturer. They will have people looking over their shoulders to make sure they never take bribes or go outside their own code restrictions.
“Gen-en” food manufacturers will be pressured to produce a product that shows absolutely no chance for any adverse side effects. Fast food companies (especially McDonald’s) will be forced to use “real” or “unaltered” food. It will be like a hammer coming down on the American freedom of getting fat as easy and quickly as possible.
My favorite part was when they unsettled that guy from the FDA about them promoting Prozac over L-Tryptophan, and he starts getting angry enough to tell the producers to cut the camera off… punk.
Also, on the comment about the FDA regulating ‘natural’ health supplements, vitamins, etc. one of the things you have to bear in mind is that too MUCH of a vitamin is bad for you, I’ve vaguely followed the debate about regulating these which started over 10 years ago. I was working at GlaxoWellcome (now GlaxoSmithcline) at the time. There have been reports of some vitmain tablets containing toxic levels of vitamins. They can get away with this precisely because they aren’t regulated.
OK, the FDA is going over the top, but without regualtion they’d all be out of a job. It’s hard to meet in the middle ground.
It is well known that many people suffer allergies tied directly to natural foods. Some people cannot eat anything containing nuts. Many suffer a gluten allergy that can be life threatening. Some people are so allegic to honey products that they have to carry atropine with them at all times. There is no food, natural or gen-modified, that will ever be 100% safe for everyone.
I’m not defending Monsanto, the FDA, or anyone responsible for food safety, but just how much regulation is enough? We know that all of our life-saving vaccines, that all of our drugs manage to kill individuals every day. Where should the line be drawn? Is 100% safe our bench mark? When is the last time you heard or saw anything 100%? (other than death)
Maybe we sould just let the drug manufacturers and everyone else just put whatever they want on the market and then let them declare bankruptcy and walk away from the $100Billions in damages these mass experiments will cause to people and the environment.
“Oh, sorry to hear our drug caused your children to be deformed but there is nothing to be done about it.”
or
“Oops, sorry we made all the weeds pesticide resistant and made all the wheat so it can’t reproduce. Here have some rice instead.”
There might be a slight difference between zero regulation and 100%. The reality is that there is a risk of some degree in everything we consume, inject, or are otherwise exposed to. Granted, we definitely want negative effects to be at the lowest possible minimum, but just where is that “minimum” line to be drawn? That was my question. Your conclusion that I was suggesting zero regulation was just a bit wide of the mark…