Comments on: Biotech food industry shoots itself in foot – again! http://www.foodpolitics.com/2009/02/biotech-food-industry-shoots-itself-in-foot-again/ Sat, 11 Feb 2012 22:07:26 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Inoculated Mind http://www.foodpolitics.com/2009/02/biotech-food-industry-shoots-itself-in-foot-again/comment-page-1/#comment-12977 Inoculated Mind Sat, 21 Mar 2009 08:30:45 +0000 http://www.foodpolitics.com/?p=1139#comment-12977 I would agree that the biotech industry has a tendency to shoot itself in the foot when it comes to public relations. But in response to Annie, several studies and experiments have shown the opposite of what you suggest - when labeled as "GM", compared to the pesticide-sprayed conventional equivalent, genetically engineered sweet corn has been preferred by consumers by a margin of 3 to 2, up to 2 to 1. The reason is, fewer worms, and fewer (if any) pesticides. Indeed, one study found that "GMO" labels in Europe had no perceptible effect on buying practices. There is a constant small percentage of people who refuse, no matter what the evidence is, to eat a food that has had a transgene inserted into it. Sinclair appears to be of that type. With hundreds of studies relating to the safety of GE crops, but few trying to explain it to people, it can be hard to avoid the panic reaction of folks like Sinclair. (Notice this person is not actually concerned with <em>what</em> is in the food, but <em>how</em> it was produced - there is a difference.) I started a group blog to discuss plant genetics and genetic engineering, http://www.biofortified.org, I recommend checking it out if you want to learn more about the genetics of what we eat. I would agree that the biotech industry has a tendency to shoot itself in the foot when it comes to public relations. But in response to Annie, several studies and experiments have shown the opposite of what you suggest – when labeled as “GM”, compared to the pesticide-sprayed conventional equivalent, genetically engineered sweet corn has been preferred by consumers by a margin of 3 to 2, up to 2 to 1. The reason is, fewer worms, and fewer (if any) pesticides. Indeed, one study found that “GMO” labels in Europe had no perceptible effect on buying practices.

There is a constant small percentage of people who refuse, no matter what the evidence is, to eat a food that has had a transgene inserted into it. Sinclair appears to be of that type. With hundreds of studies relating to the safety of GE crops, but few trying to explain it to people, it can be hard to avoid the panic reaction of folks like Sinclair. (Notice this person is not actually concerned with what is in the food, but how it was produced – there is a difference.)

I started a group blog to discuss plant genetics and genetic engineering, http://www.biofortified.org, I recommend checking it out if you want to learn more about the genetics of what we eat.

]]> By: Annie http://www.foodpolitics.com/2009/02/biotech-food-industry-shoots-itself-in-foot-again/comment-page-1/#comment-12310 Annie Sun, 22 Feb 2009 00:49:24 +0000 http://www.foodpolitics.com/?p=1139#comment-12310 I would say the issue absolutely is if these foods are safe to eat. We just don't know, because of the lack of real testing and the questionable actions of the companies all along the way. These foods have never been tested on humans except for when and if the co feel they should. Meanwhile, they're flowing into the food supply - if they were labeled no one would eat them. I would say the issue absolutely is if these foods are safe to eat. We just don’t know, because of the lack of real testing and the questionable actions of the companies all along the way. These foods have never been tested on humans except for when and if the co feel they should. Meanwhile, they’re flowing into the food supply – if they were labeled no one would eat them.

]]> By: Sinclair http://www.foodpolitics.com/2009/02/biotech-food-industry-shoots-itself-in-foot-again/comment-page-1/#comment-12304 Sinclair Sat, 21 Feb 2009 08:26:18 +0000 http://www.foodpolitics.com/?p=1139#comment-12304 I don't care WHO claims them safe, or even WHETHER they are ultimately deemed safe. I SHOULD HAVE THE FREEDOM TO CHOOSE WHAT I PUT INTO MY BODY. I absolutely would choose NOT to eat Frankenfood. I want no part of it, and I CERTAINLY want no part of being kept in the dark about the origins and purity of the foods I eat. It is ridiculous that this has been allowed, and that we cannot have definitive answers. I suspect that many people would feel the same as myself, but greed always seems to win the day. I don’t care WHO claims them safe, or even WHETHER they are ultimately deemed safe. I SHOULD HAVE THE FREEDOM TO CHOOSE WHAT I PUT INTO MY BODY. I absolutely would choose NOT to eat Frankenfood. I want no part of it, and I CERTAINLY want no part of being kept in the dark about the origins and purity of the foods I eat. It is ridiculous that this has been allowed, and that we cannot have definitive answers. I suspect that many people would feel the same as myself, but greed always seems to win the day.

]]> By: jennywenny http://www.foodpolitics.com/2009/02/biotech-food-industry-shoots-itself-in-foot-again/comment-page-1/#comment-12293 jennywenny Fri, 20 Feb 2009 21:55:19 +0000 http://www.foodpolitics.com/?p=1139#comment-12293 I'm playing devils advocate here, but I'm just wondering, if this group do a badly co-ordinated study and it proves that GM crops are bad for you then I can see the problem. I totally agree that transparency is really important. I’m playing devils advocate here, but I’m just wondering, if this group do a badly co-ordinated study and it proves that GM crops are bad for you then I can see the problem. I totally agree that transparency is really important.

]]>