Monsanto inspires another documentary
After volunteering for the "Yes on 27" campaign in Oregon back in 2002, I haven't been much of a fan of Monsanto. Why? Had that ballot initiative passed, it would have required the labeling of all genetically-modified food (aka GMOs), and Monsanto is a big producer of these crops. They hold the patent, apparently, on 90% of seed varieties that have been genetically-engineered.
(I've got no problem with producing hybrids, preferably the old-fashioned way. But when you start moving genes between species, I believe you're setting the stage for a bunch of unintended consequences... and mostly negative ones ones at that.)
A new French documentary, The World According to Monsanto, reveals more dirt on Monsanto. The documentary I blogged about earlier today, The Corporation, does as well.
Besides their support for GMOs, a big black mark on Monsanto is their product Posilac:
(I've got no problem with producing hybrids, preferably the old-fashioned way. But when you start moving genes between species, I believe you're setting the stage for a bunch of unintended consequences... and mostly negative ones ones at that.)
A new French documentary, The World According to Monsanto, reveals more dirt on Monsanto. The documentary I blogged about earlier today, The Corporation, does as well.
Besides their support for GMOs, a big black mark on Monsanto is their product Posilac:
More recently Monsanto received a bad reputation for the promotion of growth hormones from GE organisms known as rBGH, which the company sells in the US under the brand name Posilac. Monsanto claims that Posilac holds, “benefits to consumers”. The reality is that, rBGH growth hormones were banned in Europe and Canada after the authorities found out about the health risks resulting from drinking milk from cows treated with rBGH hormones. Monsanto's way of "addressing" this problem was to sue the Oakhurst dairy company in the state of Maine (US) - attempting to force them, and other dairies, to stop labelling diary products “rBGH-free” and “rBST-free”.Here's a link to a related post which just happens to be one of my oldest.
Labels: environment, food, health
posted by michael at 12:25 PM
Subscribe to this RSS feed
1 Comments:
There is every good reason for you to be pessimistic about genetically modified foods. But such pessimism must be grounded in science. So far, no science has found genetically modified foods to be injurious to human health or the environment. The World Health Organization (WHO) some years ago released a report to the effect that there are no known dangers of genetically modified foods. The U.S. National Academies of Science has urged caution on genetically modified foods, but has, nevertheless, declared these foods pose no threat to human beings on the environment. I'm one person who welcomes the debate about genetically modified foods, as long as such a debate cognizance of scientific principles. I've always argued that genetically modified foods and their organic counterparts can help in solving the current food crisis. No single solution can solve the current food crisis. We need multi-pronged approaches to solving this problem.
Post a Comment
<< Home