No. We just don't know the harmful effects of GM products.
73%
No. GM food is bad for the environment.
20%
Maybe. No one seems to have suffered any ill effects so far.
2%
Yes. GM reduces the cost of agriculture and the amount of pesticides used.
7%
Yes. I don't really mind what goes into food, as long as it tastes good.
1%
New GM food guide released
Tuesday, 25 November 2008
Consumers now have a new tool to help them avoid eating ingredients from genetically altered crops, with the launch of the Greenpeace True Food Guide - Canola Edition.
Comments
if GM food crops are so amazing and will save the world why is there a need to push so hard? If immunization is creating health why is there a need to punish those who don't accept them? Scientists have created the religion of science and blind faith is required of us. The fact that they still cannot explain the fabric of the universe shows that they do not understand interdependence. How can a doctor who doesn't understand a patient's body and therefore is without diagnosis dare to treat this person and call it medicine? These are the actual questions behind all the topics listed here... Sad.
I would have liked to have voted in the poll but I did not think that the options expressed covered the full range of possibilities. "Yes" "Maybe" and "No" would have done so - but by trying to suggest to the voters the reasons for their opinions I rather think that you spoiled it.
I'm over the moon that I live in Tassie - at least here the State Government has the sense to hold off on GM crops until 2012!
Kangaroos are wildlife and cannot be transported, handled or easily fenced. They are not like sheep and cattle that mature quickly. They take about 12 years to be fully sized and then they only have a small amount of quality meat. There is no way of wildlife replacing meat from sheep or cattle. There would be millions more needed, despite Garnaut's report. They have a long period of dependency and joeys are ripped from their pouches to be bashed to death. At foot joeys are left to die slowly. This industry is not humane or sustainable. In fact, areas where they are "harvested" are showing that they are in quasi-extinction numbers, but the killing keeps on! They are vilified as a "pest" species, but the reality is quite different and their impact on soils and land is minimal and they are actually beneficial for vegetation.
Indigenous people killed kangaroos, but on a subsistence level. They are killed now for their meat and skins for an international trade, the biggest terrestrial ongoing wildlife killings on the planet. Their meat is classified as "game" so a parasite or disease free status is not guaranteed. About 3.5 million kangaroos are killed each year and this is shameful for Australia while we (supposedly) are against Japan's whale killings!
Omega 3 can be found in flax seed, freshly milled, or in walnuts and other sources. No need to eat kangaroos! If you want iron and protein, the best source is from green leafy vegetables and foods such as lentils and soy products.
The hunter-gatherer theory is probably distorted anyway! People impose their own beliefs on archaeological records. There was probably more gathering going on than hunting!
Many western diseases can be traced to our meat-dairy diets. For longer and healthier life, and less carbon footprint, why not try a vegan diet? Diabetes and heart diseases are minimal among non-meat eaters! Of course governments won't recommend this because we have our diet and health, food, and medical industries and exports etc etc all dependant on meat-dairy diets.
We treat our iconic native animals with such scorn and hate here in Australia. No wonder we are listed as one of the best killers of biodiversity in the world! Being environmentally friendly, and humane, means not eating meat! Surely our diets are more easily adapted than other un-environmentally friendly habits?
I'm a member of the MADGE network (Mothers are Demystifying Genetic Engineering) - www.madge.org.au . MADGE is a network of individuals interested in how our food is grown and the effects it has on our health. We are concerned about the lack of adequate labelling and testing of GM foods. We advocate on behalf of consumers for the right to know what is in our food. We promote information on natural foods and healthy farming practices.
It was difficult to read the poll option, "Maybe. No one seems to have suffered any ill effects so far." There have been no studies anywhere in the world to examine whether GM food has been safe to eat or not (see Food Standards Chief Scientist's replies to Senator Rachel Siewert's question in the Oct 22 Senate estimates hearings this year). We often hear the line "It's been tested", but this is not 'tested' in the way that most of us understand the meaning of the word.
GM techniques are about engineering crops to produce new proteins (99+% to survive being sprayed with herbicide or to produce own insecticide, or both), but these techniques are random and disturb the host plant DNA in unevaluated ways. Pieces of the new genetic material can be scattered through the host plant DNA - there are many unintended effects of the GM techniques.
Very slight alterations in plant proteins can cause susceptible people to become allergic to proteins in other foods, and there is a strong association between the introduction of GM foods and the massive increase in food allergy in Australia (indeed, around the world, depending on national food policy). See www.madge.org.au/allergy-report.pdf . We don't know what the longer term effects could be yet, but looking at the few animal studies looking at human health endpoints liver and kidney damage could be hypothesised.
The option "Yes. GM reduces the cost of agriculture and the amount of pesticides used." was also difficult to read. Please go to The Network of Concerned Farmers website www.non-gm-farmers.com to read about the farming issues. The NCF factsheet has a statement "GM canola is promoted as a benefit to farmers yet it can be proven to be a potential financial loss with little agronomic gain and far higher costs". If US farmers are making a profit growing GM crops, consider the heavy US subsidies on the two main GM crops, Soy and Corn.
Furthermore, there has been an increase in the use of pesticides in the USA with the increased employment of GM crops, and a number of the GM crops have been 'engineered' to produce their own pesticides, even if they're not sprayed by the farmer. Protected by the plant these pesticides are not degraded by sun and water, and end up in the environment, in animal feed, or in our food.