973-Eht-Namuh-973.com The Oracle Forum

The basic excuse offered by big food corporations when pressed on the issue of their lack of support for prequisite labelling to indicate the existence of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) in their products, is that doing so would be too expensive, raising costs that would have to be passed on to retail consumers.

However an investigation into the justification behind this rationale has revealed that taking such a profit defensive position on the subject is nothing but an arbitrary farce. Large food production companies routinely spend $1 billion a year or more, just on advertising the nutrients contained in their products alone. So why not the total ingredients, both good for and of concern to society. Therefore, in the event that a consumer feels strongly about the presence of GMOs they can opt for an alternative product.

Good evening HabiRek welcome to the Oracle Forum and thanks for your contribution, well said I'd say.

As a permaculturist, I am with you all the way on this, the consumer has every right to know about and decide on GMO content in their personal food chain.

Genetically modified foods or GM foods, also known as genetically engineered foods or bioengineered foods, are foods produced from organisms that have had genetically engineered changes introduced into their DNA. Genetic engineering techniques enable both the introduction of new traits and greater control over existing crop traits than earrlier methods, for example selective breeding and mutation breeding.

Commercial sale of genetically modified foods began in 1994 with a delayed ripening tomato. Most food modifications to date have primarily focused on cash crops subject to high demand by farmers such as soybean, corn, canola, and cotton. Genetically modified crops have been engineered for resistance to pathogens and herbicides and for better nutrient profiles. GM livestock have been developed, although as of November 2013 none had been brought to market. Given the high incidence of soya protein in the vegan diet, it is highly likely that a good majority of vegans would object stronly to the GMO influence.

While there is a consensus among the scientific community that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food, the opinion is but that each GM food needs to be tested on a case-by-case basis before introduction. It is also accepted by them that members of the public are much less likely than scientists to perceive GM foods as safe.

Now what is worse is that the legal and regulatory status of GM foods varies wildly frrom country to country, with some nation states banning or restricting them altogether, and others permitting them with widely differing levels of regulation. The eternal massive inconsistency of capitalism's moral compass rides again! A status quo which has lead to a widespread of ongoing public concerns related to food safety, regulation, labelling, environmental impact, research methods, and the fact that some GM seeds, along with all new plant varieties, are subject to plant breeders' rights owned by corporations. How can such small pockets of humanity be allowed to own the staff of life that belongs to all humankind.

Once more I'm handcuffed to a fence in Billericay.


Redbeck