Hugh, since you have posted your comments twice, I guess I'll have to debunk you twice. So, here you go....happy learning.
I am responding to your statements by directly quoting you and systematically debunking your assertions. I look forward to hearing back from you.
"The reason for promoting labelling is to then argue that GM foods are labelled because they are dangerous."
No, Hugh, that is not the reason, though it could be a reason. In short, the reason is label them so that we can know what is in our food so that we can make the choice to consume products that have not been adequately tested, nor had their increasingly complex an dproblematic and yes, toxic, pesticide cocktail applications adequately tested. We want them labeled for lots more reasons too I cannot get into because of time, but you can google it and read for yourself why we want labels.
"Most anti GM claims are lies. "
No, sir, the biotech companies are the ones lying, and so deeply so. As a most recent example: have any YES on 37 tv ads been pulled because of fallacious advertising? Did DDT, agent Orange, dioxins, PCBs, aspartame--all produced by Mosnanto---prove to be safe? No. Did they injure millions of people. Yes.
Get a clue, sir, you are in the dark.
"I know that indian cotton farmers are having problems,"
Uh, yeah, like hundereds of thosuands committing suicde. Please, dont; minimize this goliath atrocity with eupehmisms like "having problems."
"There is no way for small farmers to compete with giant mechanised farms producing cotton or anything else, especially when customers want the cheapest possible products. Fair trade or farmer cooperatives would help them to be more competitive in our global economy."
Sir, I am done responding to your nonsensical comments, made worse by your "silly claims" label. If you want fair trade, get biotech out our gevernment and out of our backyards and out of our local commerce.
Vote YES on 37 and salute the end of your ignorance.
Here is my rebuttal to your claim of "silly claims." I think it will be clear who is the one making the silly claim, after all. Cheers....
"The genetically modified gene product – for example, the Bt toxin in GM insecticidal crops may be toxic or allergenic.
Yes it might, be, so be careful of ORGANIC food because it is sprayed on organic crops as a biological control. That is Green agriculture to you. In fact they spray on whole bacteria producing bt toxin. For the organic food movement to complain about bt is very hypocritical."
Did you know, Hugh, that the Bt-toxin produced by GMO Bt plants is a surrogate protein for the naturlly ocurring one produces in the soil by the bacterium b. thurengensis? did you know that as it is produced in Bt-corn that it is thousands of time stronger than the naturally occurring one used in organic agriculture? Did you know that it is endogenously produced by every cell in the corn plant and cannto be washed off as in organic farming methods.
So now, let's look at who is making silly claims, shall we?
"The GM transformation process may produce mutagenic effects, gene regulatory effects, or effects at other levels of biological structure and function that result in new toxins or allergens and/or disturbed nutritional value.
Again yes, but all the crops - maize, wheat, rice - currently used commercially contain mutations that occurrred when they were first domesticated in the stone age. Others were produced by radiation or chemicals to produce the improved variaties needed for the green revolution in the 1950s (see above). Mutations are OK to eat, and you were born with a few score new ones unique to you. Not that I want anyone to eat you, of course."
Sir, the method for intriducing cross-species genetic modification—i..e, bacteria to flora—has never been seen before in nature. We are dealign with a whole new order of genetic engineering unlike any of previous decades or eons. Couple that with the engineering goal of being able to douse food crops with multiple rounds of herbicide and an increasingly unknown and toxic soup (a la the toxic treadmill of adaptation by superbugs and superweeds requiring now the introduction of 2,4-D), and we have a big problem. you tell on yl part of the story, and at that, you are inaccurate.
"Changes in farming practices linked to the use of a genetically modified organism may result in toxic residues – for example, higher levels of crop contamination with the herbicide Roundup are an inevitable result of using GM Roundup Ready® crops
Bad example, One reason glyphosate (Roundup) is so safe is that bacteria in the soil immediately break it down into phosphate fertiliser."
Nonsense. Let's see the science for that done by independent study. I read a while back that RoundUp persists in the soil for many months, if not longer. Here is a pdf put out by the NPIC, not that I trust them, but even they say it can persist up to 6 months. Other studies find that it is highly toxic and much more so than we can imagine. Here is ome reading amterial for you: