Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Sun, 19 Feb 2006 18:31:57 +0000 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On Feb 18, 2006, at 6:03 pm, Ken Stuart wrote:
> Much opposition to GMO and other techniques comes from science-free
> irrational
> knee-jerk responses.
Personally I think they are justified knee-jerk responses. Just
about everything that has changed in agriculture in the last 50 years
has been for the producer's (or retailer's) benefit, not ours. And
the repeated story is that these modern "advancements" are shown
later to be hazardous to our health, not beneficial. I have yet to
hear of an additive or sweetener that *protects* against cancer or
nerve damage.
Our digestive systems took millions of years to evolve, so to
introduce completely new foods and chemicals to it is asking for
trouble, especially for things where the dose is so low that effects
may not appear for many years. It should be proved beyond any
reasonable doubt that preservatives, colours, sweeteners, GM etc is
safe, because these things are much easier to get into market when
they are assumed harmless, than to get them off the market when
people take them for granted or the producers make too much money off
then (think aspartame).
I'm all for irrational knee-jerk responses to attempts to pollute our
food. They seem to be our only hope right now.
Ashley
|
|
|