Discussion » Health & Fitness » Require special labeling for genetically modified

  • Shaowei Lv
    Shaowei Lv wrote:
    Should the State Food and Drug Administration require special labeling for genetically modified foods? Use examples to illustrate your point.
  • Malin Aaker
    Malin Aaker wrote:
    Are you trying to have us do your homework?
  • Shaowei Lv
    Shaowei Lv wrote:
    but we have the right : select or against
  • Shaowei Lv
    Shaowei Lv wrote:
    to saibo,
    I need opnions all of u
    :)
  • 叮噹叔叔 (令狐叮噹)
    ...

    The customers and general public has the right to be informed ... but the government cannot control whether they pay any attention to it ... consider the example of the cigarette packs ...
  • Shaowei Lv
    Shaowei Lv wrote:
    peter, appreciated
  • Petter Meisfjordskar
    Not food alone, even some people. But the truth is, they should be labeled. But would you buy them? That means they should be all together thrown out. That is what it means.
  • Da Fan
    Da Fan wrote:
    Maybe, after all there are people who are against genetically modified crop, and people have the right to know, so as to make choice, and labeling is not that hard and costy for producers.

    I personally do not against genetically modified crop. All living things on the earth are mutating everyday, but as long as they are toxic, no matter how their nucleotide order changed, our digestive system will turn them into six basic nutritions. Who proves that they are not toxic? Hey, sometimes we just worry tooo much, and sometimes "green is much better" is just a ad. strategy for those producers.
  • Da Fan
    Da Fan wrote:
    "but as long as they are toxic" should be "but as long as they are not toxic", typo
  • Da Fan
    Da Fan wrote:
    twitter is still banned in China, sigh...maybe one day in the furture our staple is not planted in field, but massively produced in chemical plant using solar energy, water and carbon dioxide. I'll still enjoy eat this coz WHY NOT?
  • Joakim Berg Solum
    And if we can genetically engineer meat by reproducing tissue in a factory instead of reproducing the entire animal (wasteful + you have to slaughter the animal), that's even better right?
  • Da Fan
    Da Fan wrote:
    definitely better, that we don't need to kill, and we can make sure all the thing are not toxic (the only risk is the control failure of production process).

    Think about it, guys: we use sea water and carbon dioxide from the open air, powered by nuclear fussion power, to produce food we need in seconds! no killing of animals, no starvation in developing countries!
  • Da Fan
    Da Fan wrote:
    no waste emitted, no fertilizer, herbicide and pesticides needed, and major cities are surrounded by forest again, but not cropland full of degenerated soil, or desert
  • Da Fan
    Da Fan wrote:
    Yeah, that't nature if really happend, but I don't think we have the ability to reset the universe. Actually we never "invented" anything, but just discovered a quite small part of the natural rule, then take advantage of the rules we discovered and learnt. Everything is set and started with the big BANG! ^^

    btw, I love bang, haha
  • Malin Aaker
    Malin Aaker wrote:
    Peter, the argument of feeding the whole planet does not stand, food is already produced in sufficient quantity to feed more than the current earth human population.

    GMO's in crops etc... have the major inconvenient that they spread to all the previous non GMO seeds and make our floral ecosystem poorer and poorer
  • Da Fan
    Da Fan wrote:
    Hey Saibo, the thing is, actually cropland and flora we intentionally raise on cropland are never a really part of the ecosystem, and they are always a treat to the ecosystem, and the main cause of degeneration of soil, then desert. There are no wheat, maize and other crops on the earth even 5000 years ago
  • Malin Aaker
    Malin Aaker wrote:
    How could it not be a part of the ecosystem? Plus if I'm right, but it's something that I studied like 8 years ago, so I might not be completely accurate, however I recall that traditional techniques of crossing breeds together are believed to enrich the ecosystem.
  • Da Fan
    Da Fan wrote:
    Well, maybe you are right, that our action, artificially and intentionally change our environment, is also a way how the nature rebuilt its ecosystem as long as what we do is not too harsh to the enviornment.

    What I mean to say is...errr...from the perspective of a much longer period of time, say, 5000-10000 years, maybe agriculture is a bad thing for our mother earth, and now we can forsee that our technology will be advanced enough, so there is a chance to reverse what we were, had to made wrong, that's it~
  • Gøran Viken
    Gøran Viken wrote:
    Peter, have you ever heard of monocropping? Monsanto et al. and other GM crops have had documented negative effects on native ecosystems that they were forced on. India is a good example where now farmers are killing themselves because GM seeds are expensive and require special fertilizers; they are forced into debt and when they can't pay it off because of a shitty crop year, they are fucked.

    I'm not saying technology sucks and that all genetically modified plants are bad (shit I love seedless watermelon/grapes), but we should be careful when making sweeping generalizations about modified crops being "good for both the soil they are grown in, and the people that eat them."

Please login to post a reply to this thread.

WeLiveInBeijing

WeLiveInBeijing.com is a social community for people living in or traveling to Beijing.

Powered by: Bloc