We read that the U.S. Department of Agriculture has come up with its first labeling requirements for GMO foods. Why, we wondered? About all we have eaten since our birth has been genetically modified; what’s the shtick?
We called up the search box and came up with: “10 Reasons to Avoid GMO Foods.” To us, the ‘reasons’ seemed more political propaganda than scientific fact; you may draw your own conclusion by following the link. We suspect that the term: “Political” sheds light; and that the new labels proceed from the Obamafolk, the most politicized Presidential Administration in aeons, sheds more.
What we have concluded may or may not seem right to you; fine. Eat what you like. Our kids at school though, can’t do that now; they must eat what Michelle Obama likes, if we understand things. But you’re still o.k.
It appears that GMO foods are dangerous and unpleasant … so long as we take somebody’s word for that; real investigation and statistics seem scarce. Once past that, another point arises: We have been eating GMO for millennia. Our cows, chickens, pigs, sheep, corn, wheat and rice are all heavily genetically modified by man and have been for a long time. But none are complaining.
Turns out, new lab science lets us do in a short time in a lab what has before taken ages in the fields. It seems that the objection isn’t what we do; it’s how we’re doing it. The objection then, is to progress.
Where are the statistics reporting illness and death from GMO? Ain’t nopne that we can find. Those reporting poor nutrition? Same deal. These objectors to “Frankenfoods” are starting to resemble modern day Luddites. You are welcome to disagree.
We sympathize when folk complain of commercialized strawberries retaining only a hint of flavor. We cheer complaints of de-beaked chickens squeezed into tiny cages and stuffed with tasteless powder to add useless fat that can be charged by weight at sale and that seem nearly inedible.
But GMO? Sure, some of it lacks flavor, much of it tastes the same or better than the original. So, what’s the deal? We suppose it’s somehow political; the squawks are coming from the same Lefties selling global warming with fudged data. We suppose GMO lowers producers’ costs. Therefore, it also lowers eaters’ costs. We guess that offends some. But it has been the road to progress since agriculture replaced hunting and gathering. We ought to be used to it by now …
Our theory is: If you don’t like your dinner; don’t eat it. The anti-GMO folks seem to hold: “If I don’t like my dinner, you can’t eat.” Why not let us decide for ourselves?
Sometime for fun, compare (you can use Google) “Teosinte” with modern corn from the market. Such corn started with Teosinte, near as anyone can figure. Millennia of careful breeding (GMO!) produced the difference. Frankenfood! Don’t eat corn! (Well, Europeans don’t much..)
The whole thing strikes us as a silly political game of some kind. There’s likely money involved somewhere along the line. Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has signed on with its new labeling requirements. With that, were SURE that there’s money involved!.