You may have heard that popular scientist Bill Nye has mysteriously revised his outlook on genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Several years ago, the children’s show host advocated for the labeling of genetically modified foods, citing concerns about what GMOs could do to ecosystems. But now his position on the controversial technology has flipped.
A blanket condemnation of all GMO's on the basis of health effects is largely pseudo-scientific nonsense.
GMO's might have some health effects in some cases, but in moth cases have no health effects. For example a GMO corn that is resistant to the mold that produces aflatoxins - the most carcinogenic substances known and the cause of many or most liver cancer cases in the less developed where proper storage and testing is not available, would be a great lifesaver - but only if it was public domain so that poor farmers could afford to buy and then legally save the seeds.
The main problem with GMO's is economic. Under the "intellectual property" regime in which they are developed, they threaten to impose monopoly control of the global food supply.
But of course labels should indicate GMO content if for the above reason alone.
Whether or not gmos pose any health risks, people have a right to support whichever mode of food production appeals to them through their purchasing decisions in the marketplace. They can only do so with effective labeling of which products are made with gmos.
yes, but we also see a blanket safety assurance on all GMO's from scientists and industry. Nothing could be less scientific as the safety of any GMO depends on the individual variables of the situation and it's interaction with the environment. Much the same could be said for chemicals in general. Many chemicals are safe in their intended uses at their intended amounts but many times some unintended consequence turns out to be extremely hazardous like CFCs for the ozone layer or Asbestos for lung cancer. Very little protection exists to protect us from the inevitable accident/mistake/unintended consequence that either lies down the road or that we simple aren't aware of yet. Having half-baked authorities like the science guy say otherwise demonstrates a willful denial of the very principles of science which should logically demonstrate that nothing about wholesale GE changes to foods is inherently safe all the time
The GMO companies tells us the GE foods do not need to be tested because they are "substantially the same" while at the same time patenting these "substantially the same: variations
What could be more democratic than having the information to make a reasonable decision.
From what I've read and heard from genetic scientists, the risks come from the unpedictable effects of gene insertion.
Genes do not create proteins with a 1:1 ratio. Different interactions amongst different genes produces a wide variety of proteins. When you inject a foreign gene, you will be creating all sorts of unpredicted (and unpredictable) effects in the behaviour of the genetic system.
Speaking of "spin doctors" AND "democratic", recall Hillary Clinton addressing a GMO cartel conference in San Diego in June 2014 and admonishing them to put a different spin on GMOs to convince young voters that labeling and regulation of GMOs is not needed, since she will need young voters who are willing to overlook her anti GMO regulation and labeling platform.
Truth in labeling
"The Science Guise"
You might want to edit that phrase to "her anti-GMO-regulation-and-labeling platform." or similar, since without the dashes to turn it into an adjectival phrase, I was uncertain how to parse it -- it looked as though you were saying "her anti-GMO regulation and labeling platform" which I was sure couldn't be true.