Chipotle Says Adios to GMOs, as Food Industry Strips Away Ingredients

Re:Chipotle Says Adios to GMOs, as Food Industry Strips Away... by dragonwriter on Tuesday April 28, 2015 @12:34PM (#9453502)

> That comes down to one question: Do you want to eat food that someone has tampered with genetically, or do you want to eat food that humans have been eating for thousands of years with no recorded negative side effects?

Well, that's the question asked by people who know absolutely nothing about the modern techniques that are not classified as "genetic modification" and, in fact, frequently accepted for "organic" labeling, like mutation breeding.

Almost everything in crop development is about tampering with crops on a genetic level; the differences are about particular techniques (and lots of the opposition to GMOs is subsidized by big business that makes money off of alternative techniques of tampering on a genetic level that produce results that are no more "food that humans have been eating for thousands of years with no recorded negative side effects" than the results of genetic modification are.)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Chipotle Says Adios to GMOs, as Food Industry Strips Away... by balabaster on Tuesday April 28, 2015 @12:41PM (#9453556)

> Well, that's the question asked by people who know absolutely nothing about the modern techniques

Which is virtually everyone.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Chipotle Says Adios to GMOs, as Food Industry Strips Away... by dragonwriter on Tuesday April 28, 2015 @12:48PM (#9453622)

> > Well, that's the question asked by people who know absolutely nothing about the modern techniques

> Which is virtually everyone.

Perhaps, but its no one that has any ground to be taken seriously on the issue of whether we should selectively abandon one of those techniques (in effect promoting the others.)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Chipotle Says Adios to GMOs, as Food Industry Strips Away... by balabaster on Tuesday April 28, 2015 @01:28PM (#9453899)

Everyones concerns deserve to be taken seriously. That's how we get along as a society. We play nicely with others and we don't do things that piss off 99.9% of the population... because more often than not, the 99.9% of the population turn out to prove what we think is right, wrong. Occasionally you find a Copernicus that manages to proves an entire civilization wrong and their ideas stand the test of time. But more often than not, history eventually proves much scientific theory wrong, most studies flawed and that many of the most powerful companies will eventually put their profits ahead of human life if they can afford to successfully lobby their Government to allow them or make laws to protect them.

This is why we see continuous flip-flopping of scientific research that suggests that red wine is good for you, bad for you, makes no difference. 1 glass a day with dinner is fine, women should avoid it. Men should avoid soy etc. Yesterday salt was bad for you, today I see studies that claim they were wrong and it has little to do with high blood pressure and so the suggestions keep coming. If the science weren't flawed, we wouldn't see this continuous flip-flopping of scientific opinion, yet we do. So should those doing the research be taken any more seriously than those who just have concerns? Perhaps slightly, but I wouldn't offer it a great deal more credence, someone else will do another study tomorrow to prove it wrong and then I'm right back to square one. Until then, I'll stay on the fence eating my home grown heirloom produce that I can be as confident as I am able is safe - at least insofar as I know its providence and I can make an informed decision about it - chemical free. Draw conclusions as you see fit.

[ Parent | on HN ]