That's just how it works nowso you may sleep safe.
(
Pasanonic 's been known to cause insanity in laboratory mice,
Mon 9 Feb 2009, 13:33,
archived)
i know...remember my bais, I'll always want more research so people will pay me money.It's just that the typical gm argument (particularly ones by political people) that i've seen goes down the lines of
"oh it's untestested, therefore bad and we must stop it immediately" vs. "People are starving, it must be accelerated and put in place as soon as possible"
And I don't want politicians cutting corners and research budgets.
(,
Mon 9 Feb 2009, 13:40,
archived)
"oh it's untestested, therefore bad and we must stop it immediately" vs. "People are starving, it must be accelerated and put in place as soon as possible"
And I don't want politicians cutting corners and research budgets.
I just don't understand the 'untested' bitjust because a word is bandied about does not make it fact.
There is international law on this. It differs slightly in some areas but EU law states that.
Article 4
Requirements
1. Food referred to in Article 3(1) must not:
(a) have adverse effects on human health, animal health or the
environment;
(b) mislead the consumer;
(c) differ from the food which it is intended to replace to such
an extent that its normal consumption would be nutritionally
disadvantageous for the consumer.
2. No person shall place on the market a GMO for food use
or food referred to in Article 3(1) unless it is covered by an
authorisation granted in accordance with this Section and the
relevant conditions of the authorisation are satisfied.
3. No GMO for food use or food referred to in Article 3(1)
shall be authorised unless the applicant for such authorisation
has adequately and sufficiently demonstrated that it satisfies the
requirements of paragraph 1 of this Article.
so I fail to see what the fuss is all about. People want it 'testing'. The law requires that it is 'tested' and the WHO passes it after the requirements are met ( and it does not pass a lot ) so it appears that people are arguing for a situation that already exists. Granted there will always be a group that oppose change for the sake of needing some cause to justify their petty existence but these can, and should, be mostly ignored.
(There is international law on this. It differs slightly in some areas but EU law states that.
Article 4
Requirements
1. Food referred to in Article 3(1) must not:
(a) have adverse effects on human health, animal health or the
environment;
(b) mislead the consumer;
(c) differ from the food which it is intended to replace to such
an extent that its normal consumption would be nutritionally
disadvantageous for the consumer.
2. No person shall place on the market a GMO for food use
or food referred to in Article 3(1) unless it is covered by an
authorisation granted in accordance with this Section and the
relevant conditions of the authorisation are satisfied.
3. No GMO for food use or food referred to in Article 3(1)
shall be authorised unless the applicant for such authorisation
has adequately and sufficiently demonstrated that it satisfies the
requirements of paragraph 1 of this Article.
so I fail to see what the fuss is all about. People want it 'testing'. The law requires that it is 'tested' and the WHO passes it after the requirements are met ( and it does not pass a lot ) so it appears that people are arguing for a situation that already exists. Granted there will always be a group that oppose change for the sake of needing some cause to justify their petty existence but these can, and should, be mostly ignored.
Pasanonic 's been known to cause insanity in laboratory mice,
Mon 9 Feb 2009, 13:48,
archived)
The problem there is that people DO NOT ignore the (largely) unfounded oppositionand unfortunately the opposition are capable of making persuading arguments to people who cannot understand the facts for themselves, or for some reason, including laziness, refuse to find out the learned opinion on the matter. What's worse is, there is an awful lot of these thick/lazy people.
(,
Mon 9 Feb 2009, 14:05,
archived)
This is why I argue.I have no wish to upset people or fall out with them I just have an innate need to challenge people when they use sweeping generalisation and misinformation to back up their claims. I just want to say "let's look at what you are saying and then let us look at what we actually know on the subject as opposed to what we would like to believe".
I think that's fair and I often enjoy the debate. It's a shame some people see it as some kind of attack when it never is.
(I think that's fair and I often enjoy the debate. It's a shame some people see it as some kind of attack when it never is.
Pasanonic 's been known to cause insanity in laboratory mice,
Mon 9 Feb 2009, 14:09,
archived)
i shall sleep safely nowfor what it's worth i tend to agree with you.
my only concern with gm crops is the modified sterility of the seed, but i guess the guys have got to fund their research/holidays somehow
(my only concern with gm crops is the modified sterility of the seed, but i guess the guys have got to fund their research/holidays somehow
god save the queen making another unremarkable comeback,
Mon 9 Feb 2009, 13:41,
archived)
hahawell cynicked that man ;)
( Pasanonic 's been known to cause insanity in laboratory mice,
Mon 9 Feb 2009, 13:43,
archived)