4 ms·

"GMO-haters" are often blatantly ignoring science. However I fully agree that labeling is a pretty good idea. Transparency is good, a quick-facts box, a GMO sta

by kriro 10y ago

"GMO-haters" are often blatantly ignoring science. However I fully agree that labeling is a pretty good idea. Transparency is good, a quick-facts box, a GMO stamp of sorts and a QR-code that links to a dedicated website with super detailed information (even linking to relevant papers) would be ideal. The more transparent GMOs are the better. It seems there is quite a lot of FUD by anti-GMO people. Don't get me wrong, I don't think GMO companies default to being good people. Some spend decent chunks of money on lobby work which always has me worried and some are entangled in somewhat questionable science funding but by and large I think there's way too much blind hatred for GMOs in general (or my media perception is quite distorted which could also be true) The author of the article has it pretty right imo

smackay 10y ago
Most of the hate for GMOs are rooted in politics - the science often has little to do with it. Monsanto's business practices and their early attempts to create complete lock-in for farmers along with trying to get the EU to force GMOs on consumers drives a lot of the fear and anguish. As a far as the science is concerned there is plenty of fearmongering but again this drives the political debate. As a counter example look at the hype over CRISPR - nobody is up in arms about the possibilities for curing cancer although the chances of things going wrong for early trials in people are probably higher and the outcome rather more ghastly.
toufka 10y ago
Exactly. Provide a 'Gene list' similar to an ingredients list. It lists a gene identifier, and a percent regulation (+/-, up down). And a QR/link to more info. That way the public can both be informed about what is going on, and can figure out if they want RoundUpProtexion™ or Vitamin B Synthase in their food. And it is not information overload - or at least that should be a non-argument. The idea that the public knows what monosodium-glutamate, or high-fructose corn-syrup, or cholesterol, are all a result of labeling. And on the balance, significantly for the public's good.

by kriro 10y ago

smackay 10y ago

Most of the hate for GMOs are rooted in politics - the science often has little to do with it. Monsanto's business practices and their early attempts to create complete lock-in for farmers along with trying to get the EU to force GMOs on consumers drives a lot of the fear and anguish. As a far as the science is concerned there is plenty of fearmongering but again this drives the political debate. As a counter example look at the hype over CRISPR - nobody is up in arms about the possibilities for curing cancer although the chances of things going wrong for early trials in people are probably higher and the outcome rather more ghastly.

toufka 10y ago

Exactly. Provide a 'Gene list' similar to an ingredients list. It lists a gene identifier, and a percent regulation (+/-, up down). And a QR/link to more info. That way the public can both be informed about what is going on, and can figure out if they want RoundUpProtexion™ or Vitamin B Synthase in their food. And it is not information overload - or at least that should be a non-argument. The idea that the public knows what monosodium-glutamate, or high-fructose corn-syrup, or cholesterol, are all a result of labeling. And on the balance, significantly for the public's good.