Opinion of Union of Concerned Scientists

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

It's interesting that their favoured nuclear design is the European Pressurised Reactor. The ones Europe is building at the moment all seems to be elaborate scams.

Anyway, taking a moderate ground on GMO crops is the way to go, but I've said this too much so I don't want to repeat myself. They're fighting the good fight on Palm Oil and nuclear disarmament (among others) though.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Ironically pretty anti-science on GMOs.

You should be careful using the phrase "anti-science" in this context. You can be critical of GMO on a scientific basis.

It turns out that "anti-science" really means "anti-something I agree with because it sounds cool".

I say that as somebody who basically thinks GMO's may be needed in future. People (greens and technolovers alike) love these kwiksolutions a bit, err, too much.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

There is nothing inherently bad about modifying genes of plants. We've been doing it since the agricultural revolution for starters. And most (with a few notable exceptions like GM papaya) GM crops are rigorously tested (there is a real risk of plants becoming allergenic through the insertion of foreign genomes, but it's normally found as they are brought to market). Honestly I think "traditionally" selected crops are just as suspect.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Ideally we should also know what pesticides, fungicides and herbicides were used on our food, where it was made, whether any animals were harmed, the carbon, methane etc. emissions involved in their production, the wages of the farmhands and whether they have the right to unionise, the water usage in production etc.

Question is how big is the label? Like, if I see contains GMO on a foodstuff it doesn't tell me very much about how it was modified or why or whatnot. It could be seen as completely random, like mandatory labelling to tell if the farmer was named "Dave" - and in fact would probably immediately demystify the process (a lot of random processed foodstuffs cobtain GMO's that people merrily munch today, and I doubt people will give a crap when they comprehend it).

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Ideally we should also know what pesticides, fungicides and herbicides were used on our food, where it was made, whether any animals were harmed, the carbon, methane etc. emissions involved in their production, the wages of the farmhands and whether they have the right to unionise, the water usage in production etc.

Agreed strongly, and all of this strikes me as more important than whether the food is GMO or not.

Some are, some are not. The fact that some people (especially in the US) use silly arguments against GMO does not invalidate all concerns about the spread of modified genes etc.

This is a political consumer issue. You should be allowed to protest against food created in ways you disagree with.

But the only real beef with GMO's that carried weight is on environmental grounds not health issues (aside from fringe issues around allergens and concerns surrounding indiscriminate pesticide usage). Therefore GMo labelling has just as much right as any of the environmental issues I mentioned (in fact it has less right, as "contains GMO's" is a rather vague label)