Ianben,
If you want all your food radiated, fine. If you want it washed with chlorine, fine. If you want it steamed, chopped or frozen or boiled or mashed, chlorided, treated for worms, or combined with goat dung, go for it.
Processes that affect food will vary. To date, there is a choice of the way food is processed, and I can purchase what I want. Processes are kept separated and labelled.
Not everyone is equal in the world either, albeit you envision portioning sperm. So when you are eating your smoked pate with your four genetic copies, a mother in Gihlaghyej drowns her two children in the river because she has no food.
That is the way the world is.
My objection is about changing the very esssence of food. Irrevocably. Changing what it is. Changing it so that bodies no longer recognize say, the protein it needs, that has been transformed.
Manipulating genes changes food irreversibly forever.
I have been assuming that there could be kept a separation of GMO and non-GMO food if there a commitment to do do, by farmers themselves.
But.
Will producers who are seemingly ambivalent to the permanence of genetic tic tac toe, and approach the present altering-phenomena with complete uttered trust and total abandon, also approach their segregation and accountability commitments and responsibilities with an air of casualty?
I read the Wheat Growers presentation in Australia and was hopeful from it's content that GM and non-GM could co-exist.
Farmers themselves, who, all of a sudden are demanding they have a "right" to eat genetically modified food, causes me to set my glass of wine down for a sober thought.
Pars
If you want all your food radiated, fine. If you want it washed with chlorine, fine. If you want it steamed, chopped or frozen or boiled or mashed, chlorided, treated for worms, or combined with goat dung, go for it.
Processes that affect food will vary. To date, there is a choice of the way food is processed, and I can purchase what I want. Processes are kept separated and labelled.
Not everyone is equal in the world either, albeit you envision portioning sperm. So when you are eating your smoked pate with your four genetic copies, a mother in Gihlaghyej drowns her two children in the river because she has no food.
That is the way the world is.
My objection is about changing the very esssence of food. Irrevocably. Changing what it is. Changing it so that bodies no longer recognize say, the protein it needs, that has been transformed.
Manipulating genes changes food irreversibly forever.
I have been assuming that there could be kept a separation of GMO and non-GMO food if there a commitment to do do, by farmers themselves.
But.
Will producers who are seemingly ambivalent to the permanence of genetic tic tac toe, and approach the present altering-phenomena with complete uttered trust and total abandon, also approach their segregation and accountability commitments and responsibilities with an air of casualty?
I read the Wheat Growers presentation in Australia and was hopeful from it's content that GM and non-GM could co-exist.
Farmers themselves, who, all of a sudden are demanding they have a "right" to eat genetically modified food, causes me to set my glass of wine down for a sober thought.
Pars
Comment