>…It's a small move from here to say that people accept these crops as organic. And then another small move to say that since transgenic crops are no different from these other crops, that transgenic crops should also be accepted as organic. Is this fair? This is the sense I get when reading your "What is ironic about the GMO debate" phrase. Perhaps the shoulds are a bit strong. How would you change my analysis?
What I find ironic about the GMO debate is simply that it appears many of the people opposed to GMOs know little about the precursor to GMO even though mutation breeding has produced many of the crops we grow. If someone is worried about inserting one known gene into a plant, I would assume they would be much more worried about eating plants that were exposed to radiation/chemicals to create multiple random genetic changes. (Or maybe people wouldn't be as worried about GMO crops if they did know the long history with mutation breeding - I don't know.)
I don't think most people have any idea that crops created through mutation breeding are labelled "organic" so that was another unexpected fact. In terms of the "organic" label, I just believe in truth in advertising. It seems like it should be very clear to the consumer what it means when a food is labelled "organic". I wasn't trying to make a judgement as to what should be labelled "organic". I wouldn't say the marketing of the "organic" label has been fraudulent, but many consumers do have a misleading idea of what they are buying.
- There are people who don't know a lot about earlier methods of causing mutations such as chemicals and radiation as applied to crops (labeled organic or otherwise, I suspect)
- There should truth in advertising/labeling for food. We've been talking about the organic label, but I think we both agree that it shouldn't be limited to just organic, correct?
I think your points about random mutation possibly being more worrisome than targeted (transgenic) mutation, or perhaps knowledge of what's been done in the past may alleviate fears is right on the money. It'd be good to raise awareness of this as well.
What do you think? Substantially accurate representation? Anything to add/subtract/modify?
>...I think we're pretty close to being in agreement.
Well... I think we agree on part of this and disagree on other parts...
I think producers should be free to market their products as organic, cage free, free range, kosher, etc, and the consumers should understand what the label means. I think more work needs to be done here to make sure consumers know what they are buying.
I am opposed to mandated labeling of anything unless there is a scientific basis for it being a safety concern - potential allergens, etc. For that reason, a GMO food that has passed EPA, FDA, USDA and state regulations as being safe should not have to be labeled - besides imposing a cost on food, it would likely confuse the customer as the implication would be there are health risks compared to other food. If a producer wants to indicate a product as GMO or not GMO, they should be free to do so, but it shouldn't be imposed on them by the government.
>…It's a small move from here to say that people accept these crops as organic. And then another small move to say that since transgenic crops are no different from these other crops, that transgenic crops should also be accepted as organic. Is this fair? This is the sense I get when reading your "What is ironic about the GMO debate" phrase. Perhaps the shoulds are a bit strong. How would you change my analysis?
What I find ironic about the GMO debate is simply that it appears many of the people opposed to GMOs know little about the precursor to GMO even though mutation breeding has produced many of the crops we grow. If someone is worried about inserting one known gene into a plant, I would assume they would be much more worried about eating plants that were exposed to radiation/chemicals to create multiple random genetic changes. (Or maybe people wouldn't be as worried about GMO crops if they did know the long history with mutation breeding - I don't know.)
I don't think most people have any idea that crops created through mutation breeding are labelled "organic" so that was another unexpected fact. In terms of the "organic" label, I just believe in truth in advertising. It seems like it should be very clear to the consumer what it means when a food is labelled "organic". I wasn't trying to make a judgement as to what should be labelled "organic". I wouldn't say the marketing of the "organic" label has been fraudulent, but many consumers do have a misleading idea of what they are buying.