Quote:
Originally Posted by blueangel
Wonderful! I welcome you to debate this issue with me since you have such wonderful logic skills. Or, is your "logic" to launch personal attacks because you dont HAVE the skills to debate the topic???
|
I'll try - this seems to be your main point:
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueangel
I don't choose to be the FDA's guinea pig. Do you?
|
Your other points, simply stated:
2 - genetic modifications are dangerous to the human population
3 - genetic modifications make no sense from a fiscal standpoint
So there's three points: labeling, danger, cost.
So far, you've supported these points entirely through quotations that are not contextually relevant (see: Seattle paper quotation) or via biased sources (see: PACs with hip names like "PEOPLE FIGHTING CANCER.org").
Let's go through these points, piece-by-piece:
1 - Labeling
I've already put into dispute your theory that labeling reduces "choice" - you show a fundamental misunderstanding of 'markets' if you really believe this. You have a choice, as a consumer, to use only meat that is labeled as non-modified, and if consumer action forces this labeling, it will occur. Furthermore, your 'choices' are not limited or taken away in this scenario - you have the same number. You may argue that you're not able to make an informed choice, but this is a lazy and philosophically weak argument.
In actuality, the labeling issues you've described instead foist the responsibility onto the shoulders of the consumer. This is a go-nowhere debate, as well - personally, I believe consumer responsibility is at an all-time low, and I would embrace anything that requires people to take action to become more informed. I do not feel it is the government's job to regulate this - the market will self-correct. You obviously disagree. There's not much more to it than that, so we can move on.
2 - Safety
We're now well over a decade into genetically-modified milk, tomatoes, and other cash crops - and corn has been hybridized in this fashion for somewhat longer. There are exactly zero epidemiological studies linking any diseases to these modifications.
Also, there is little to support your theories on rBGH - although I'm not a particular fan myself, most of the 'scary' parts of the rBGH process are more bark than bite. Increases in IGF-1 are about 3.5x normal (
source), which is the 'vast increase' often quoted in pro-organic literature. The problem here is that the body naturally produces ample amounts of IGF-1 in humans, and that uptake of the IGF-1 molecule is not strong.
So there are two issues here: first, while there is a considerable increase in the Insulin-like Growth Factor-1 in milk (which is, by the way, identical to human IGF-1), it pales in comparison to the amount you would normally produce (less than 1% increase in serum quantity (source: NIH) and second, the IGF isn't even necessarily going into the blood.
The second needs further exploration, though. In reality, we don't know the effects of IGF-1 on intestinal tissue or the stomach - again, I understand your desire to know conclusively before ingesting, but there is simply no evidence either way, except the circumstantial lack of epidemiological evidence of disease. Also, even if uptake were significant, IGF-1 is NOT necessarily a problem - in fact, IGF-1 is being prescribed as we speak to older people, to help offset osteoporosis, muscle atrophy, and other issues of aging (IGF-1 production drops as you age).
High levels of IGF-1 are related to an increase in colon cancer, yes - but not at the 1% higher level. All of your links are fine and dandy, but they lack context - with that context (the increase is not significant in the BLOOD), you're swimming upstream.
3 - Fiscal
Again, you misunderstand markets - the market for high-grade beef (think Kobe, or prime-cut high-grade steak) could be radically altered by weeding out weaker lines . . . this is exactly how corn hybridization has worked for about 100 years. This simply makes the process viable for a species that has to actually, y'know, sexually reproduce.
Is it cheap now? Of course not - but DVD players once cost over $1000. If it doesn't make fiscal sense, it won't be used - period. Markets self-correct.
Yes, it costs $15,000 for ViaGen to clone your steer . . . then you use it to stud dozens of animals per year, and recoup the cost and more. The yield is higher, the quality is better, and the cash will increase. Simple, really.
Here's a
good summation of counterpoints to cost arguments.
Also, here's
the entire FDA report, which includes full disclosure of good and bad. I invite you to pore over this, and let me know which primary sources you can find to support your specious claims - and no, I won't accept pro-organic organizations, or even sponsored research from a School of Public Health. You've clearly never worked with scientific research in the past, and you're cherry-picking . . . it's intellectually dishonest.
)
Linear Mode
