The Djao'Mor'Terra Collective (fayanora) wrote,
The Djao'Mor'Terra Collective


I hate the way my brain works sometimes. Especially how it will think back on stuff that happened days ago and come up with new responses. And a demonstration of why that's annoying:

The other day I saw a post on Tumblr, where the initial post involved the person revealing that the reason they were against GMOs was because they thought GMOs had “chemicals” in them. The rest of the post was a long response by somebody lambasting them and mocking them in a very pro-GMO stance, with equally wrong information (they argued that hybrids and breeds of dogs were the same thing as GMO, which is not the case at all). I didn't agree with either stance, and at the time I wanted nothing to do with the drama involved, so I scrolled right on by. And now that my brain has revisited that moment against my will and given me the perfect response, there's no way I can find that post again except by sheer dumb luck. Unless one of my followers happens to have a link to it?

Anyway, here is the response I would give:

Aside from a few doofuses who jump on the bandwagon without understanding the issues, there are also intelligent and sane people with very good reasons for their beliefs. I myself am not anti-GMO, however I am in favor of proper and complete labeling for GMOs, and here's why: First of all, a GMO (Genetically Modified Organism) is distinct from breeds or hybrids because you can only create regular hybrids between species that are related to one another in some fashion, and therefore already have most of their genes in common. Breeds are even less modified than hybrids because that is selective breeding within a single species.

Where GMOs differ is that they are made via genetic engineering, IE splicing DNA from unrelated species together. And there are perfectly valid reasons for being against these, or at least wanting to label and/or regulate them. Because you could – and some people have – put human DNA in food organisms and then sell it for food, which is basically cannibalism. But an even better reason: say you put a peanut gene in a tomato. Under the current rules, the GMO doesn't even have to be labeled, much less labeled as containing peanut DNA. So some poor fool with a peanut allergy comes along not knowing the danger and eat the tomato, which contains the peanut proteins they're allergic to because of being genetically modified with peanut DNA, and the poor sod dies. That can happen.

Adding shit to food without knowing or caring about the dangers is why there's so many people allergic to wheat gluten these days, because in the US all our bread and even a lot of our meats have wheat gluten added to them, so much so that more and more people's bodies are becoming sensitive to it and causing bad reactions. A lot of those same people can eat wheat bread from Europe and be perfectly fine. If something as simple as added wheat gluten can be such a huge health risk, why aren't we labeling GMOs? Why aren't corporations required by law to list the sources of all the added DNA in their GMOs?

This was cross-posted from
You can comment either here or there.
Tags: gmos, rant
  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded