If GMOs mean more and better food to feed more people, why not label products as such?
As if there isn’t enough malaise about government already, here’s a great way to get the American people to feel their elected officials aren’t serving them: Tell them that they’re stupid and their opinions don’t matter. Which raises the question: Who are they serving? But I’ll come back to that in a moment.
The House of Representative’s Committee on Horticulture, Research, Biotechnology and Foreign Agriculture recently convened to discuss the benefits of biotechnology. The subject of whether genetically modified organisms, aka GMOs, in our food should be labeled – they currently are not – was on the table. One of the experts asked to testify was David Just, a professor at Cornell University. However, he's apparently not an expert on GMOs, but rather on behavioral economics in child nutrition programs, whatever that means. His opinion was that GMO foods should not be so labeled because people don’t understand about GMOs.
Rep. Ted Yoho (R-Fla.) asked him, “What is the biggest drawback? Is it the ignorance of what the product is, just from a lack of education?” To which Just replied: “It is ignorance of the product, and it's a general skepticism of anything they eat that is too processed or treated in some way that they don't quite understand.” In simple English, we’re too stupid to understand this complex subject. The entire Committee, made up of six Democrats and seven Republicans, agreed. In this case, it simply means that seeds are inserted with genetic material from other organisms. It doesn’t take a PhD or the word Congressman or Congresswoman before your name to understand that. That’s astounding when the Internet has allowed people to research and become conversant in countless complex topics. Plus, there has been enormous media coverage of the subject.
Regardless of whether GMOs are dangerous to people and to crops in the long run – that’s a whole other discussion – why would the people who run Monsanto and other companies that make GMOs and the manufacturers who use them in their food products be opposed to labeling? After all, their position is that GMOs mean more and better food to feed more people and decreased use of pesticides. Labeling would simply allow people to chose to consume such foods or purchase other products without GMOs. We already have that choice with organic products. Why not with GMO products? It’s worth noting that the European Union has mandated that GMO products be labeled, and six member nations have banned them outright.
So who are many of our elected officials serving? Could it be that that Monsanto, other chemical companies and big food companies regularly fill the coffers of our elected officials to fund their reelection campaigns? Just wondering. And by the way, guess whose payroll Just is on? That’s right. He’s a consultant to Monsanto. We’re not too stupid to understand that implication.
Many Good Links Here
Aunt Em's Famous Caramel Corn
5 weeks ago