4 ms·

We Owe Food Regulation to a 19th-Century Chemist Who Poisoned His Colleagues

• sigmaprimus 7y ago
  Enter the lobbyists... Because of the recent creation of the political class in modern democracies, where people are able to now become career politicians rather than common people who make the sacrifice of leaving their jobs temporarily to serve the people. It has empowered corporations with the ability to corrupt politicians who are more concerned with getting re-elected rather than protecting the people they represent. Just look at how difficult it is to get a lable put on food containing GMO products and you will see how bad things still are. Yes there is no longer chalk and formaldehyde in milk, or milk from cows eating spent mash, but what about steroids, antibiotics, peticide laden grains and gmo crops? There is still a very long way to go, and until holding political office becomes a noble sacrifice rather than something to aspire to, change will be very difficult if not impossible.
  • postpawl 7y ago
    I don’t think labeling GMOs is going to help anything. There’s strong evidence that GMOs are safe: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/pbi.12798 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/pbi.12798 I think there’s a much stronger case to be made for getting rid of high fructose corn syrup subsidies. Added sugar is the real enemy.
    • sigmaprimus 7y ago
      Sure GMOs might be safe? Golden Rice? Yes that one is probably good for humanity, increased protein levels means you can feed more people. But lets get real, the majority of GMOs being used in agriculture are produced by Monsanto or Bayer, and what is the improvement that modifying their genes has made? Oh thats right now you can spray pesticides on them and they won't die!! Sorry but Roundup ready GMOs might be safe if grown without drenching them in poison but if the only reason they are "GMO'd" is to allow this, I would prefer products made with GMO to be labeled.
      • postpawl 7y ago
        There’s a study about that too: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5394230/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5394230/ “Although GE crops have been previously implicated in increasing herbicide use, herbicide increases were more rapid in non-GE crops.”
        • deleted 7y ago
          [deleted]
        • sigmaprimus 7y ago
          Isn't it sad that herbicide use was increased in both, regardless of the rapidity?
    • redis_mlc 7y ago
      It turns out that most nutrition and tobacco studies were paid for. So linking to a study just makes you a tool. > Added sugar is the real enemy. Ironically, there was a paid study that said fat was the enemy and sugar was good for you.
      • postpawl 7y ago
        Not sure I follow this logic. Tobacco and fat studies were paid for, therefore the study I linked must be paid for? That study is meta study and talks about lots of studies. My point is there’s good evidence that GMOs are safe and there are more consequential things to worry about in the American diet (like added sugar).
        • sigmaprimus 7y ago
          I follow the logic of the comment this way, there is many studies that favor both sides of the argument. In this age of information abundance you can find a study for anything. I would not agree that posting links to studies is a bad thing, and I actually appreciate it as it brings value to the discussion, and all information has benifits. All information has benifits which aligns with my argument that labeling GMOs has benifits.