The biotech debate about labeling genetically modified food is in essence a battle between cost-effectiveness and the right to information. The pro-biotech side argues that this new food is produced more effectively for a lower cost, and does not offer any disadvantages to counter the benefits. The other side states that the new science is dangerous, overstepping its limits, and that people have a right to know if their food is genetically modified. I side with those arguing for genetic modification. Their products have been shown to be safe, and allow for much more widespread distribution of cheap food. Those claiming they are unsafe provide bad examples with little data to back them up, and nearly all scientists agree that the science has been safely tested. Starvation is a terrible affliction in the world, and if we can in any way diminish its effects through the use of safe, reliable technology, why wouldn’t we? It seems ludicrous to demand even increased labeling of these products, because the costs of such a pursuit would be enormous, when the labeling is useless. The products are essentially identical to normally grown goods, and there is already labeling in place for those goods which differ substantially.
2 comments:
Although what arguments we've read have said that testing had proved them safe, they were unclear about what kind of testing. The amount of genetically modified foods and over what period of time they were tested was never said. Hormones for cows were shown to be safe, but young girls who drank those cows' milk ended up menstrating as young as 8, growing unnaturally fast, and in general, developing too early. Even there, that's only gone through one generation. How can you tell if it won't worsen for the next generation? To really test to see if the biotech foods are safe to eat, it would take 100 years. We pump enough chemicals into our bodies anyway; we have the right to know what's been done to our food.
I agree with JP, and I would like to make the argument that hormones in cows were shown to be safe... to a certain amount. What created problems were farmers who used more than the safe limit of hormones, and the girls who were exposed to more than the researched safe limit of hormones, such as those who had been living on the farms.
I would also like to point out that saying something like "essentially identical" is going to get you chewed out.
Suggested reading: My Year of Meat
I don't remember the author but it's a very good book that shows the effects of the modern meat industry. Well, not modern anymore, but the meat industry in the 90s.
There are many more regulations on hormone usage now than there were, it is really barely an issue.
Post a Comment