RE: GMO Toxins and Pregnant Women
December 19, 2011 at 4:23 pm
(This post was last modified: December 19, 2011 at 4:34 pm by Autumnlicious.)
(December 19, 2011 at 3:57 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote: I hope you already gave me that benefit of the doubt before you wrote that.
Wouldn't have it any other way.
I just like to hear myself be pedantic sometimes.
(December 19, 2011 at 4:13 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Conventional Ag relies on hard physical science. Organics actually get a pass, because it's an ad campaign, not science. This is the official stance of the USDA on the subject matter, and they wrote the NOP.
You, of all people, should know that the "hard physical science" should be "hard physical science AND/OR legal chicanery."
Judging by the history of litigation and corruption in our government and major corporations, it is not unreasonable to assert.
Still, I regard the "organic" movement the same way I regard "global warming evironmental activists" -- with annoyance and irritation at taking legitimate concerns (I use that word very specifically) and turning them into a circus that can be disregarded on bias grounds.
(December 19, 2011 at 4:13 pm)Rhythm Wrote: To put the whole thing bluntly, squid/bacteria/what-have-you DNA is already in the crops we eat. Always has been. We have no complete model of toxin buildup over time and the effects of the same, but this actually applies to our non-GMO food sources and procedures as well. At the end of the day we have to eat.
One mode of chronic viral pertussis infection that has been observed in infants occurs from the genetic fragments of the virus floating freely in the blood, recombining and becoming infectious, ignoring capsid construction entirely.
The above example serves to illustrate that DNA simply is, like your statement above Rhythm. But just because it is every where does not mean anything other than the phrase "mostly harmless".
I do not care for the "at the end of the day" statement -- it is obvious. People will proceed and operate with partial models all the time -- why must you express a pragmatic observation with a fatalistic "it will happen anyways" tone? Does that somehow invalidate my analysis, that because we lack information, we might as well proceed?
I've not stated anything to the contrary (or even for), merely noted that the science is incomplete and necessitates caution (as you've already stated with the USDA -- they do have a history of such, and I will not ignore it). Then again, however, I was under the impression that the USDA has not dealt with the massive over use of anti-biotics in live stock raising to substitute for sanitary conditions.
Nothing is truly fool proof.
I'd hate for the existence of fools to allow for foolish things to get through though.
Slave to the Patriarchy no more
