RE: [pf] Risks, imposed or chosen

by David A

18 December 2000 01:50 UTC

tully wrote:
>> What percentage of GM grain are you willing to tolerate in your
>> food labeled GM-free?
> 
> None. I see no point in gm products for me as a consumer. IMO they > 
> only exist for the benefit of mega-business which I am not fond of > 
> either.

So why then shouldn't you be personally responsible for ensuring that 
you are eating 100% GM-free foods instead of Kellogs? 
 
>> But your point does raise the issue: what's the point of labeling
>> foods that haven't been shown to be dangerous,
> 
> I don't understand how you can say it has not been shown to be  > 
> dangerous. 

Show me, then, documented reasons why I should be worried about 
ingesting GM foods.

> Is it like nuclear power where Three Mile Island and Chernobyl  
> isn't enough to proclaim its threat, that we must have a full-scale > 
> meltdown before people will open their eyes to the problem? 

Show me, also, please, what GMO events have occurred that are equivalent 
to TMI or Chernobyl.

(Incidentally, how many deaths have occurred due to power production by 
coal-fired plants? How does it occur to deaths by nuclear plants?) 

> Doesn't the threat of mega-weeds worry you?  Doesn't the threat of 
> viral contamination of our precious soil so that it can no longer 
> support life not scare the hell outta you?  What does it take?

It's not like these things popped out of a box last year. Recombinant 
DNA technology has been used for 25 years, with thousands of studies 
undertaken. Where are the Chernobyls? 

> There is also no proof that the vastly increased immune deficiency 
> problems surfacing everywhere are not linked to gm products. 

No, of course not, and there never will be such prove, because you can't 
prove a negative.

David