Looking back on your childhood, there are undoubtedly many things you don't remember because you were a child. But they were there. If you don't remember allergies, does than mean there were hardly any allergies? I'm eighty three. When I was in college, I had a part-time job assembling products like teddy bears and pillows for people who were allergic to common ingredients. Are you aware that there has a never been a known case of a GMO food causing an allergy? In fact, the anti-GMO groups didn't even think of this as an issue until they learned about how genetic engineers had considered the possibility of a novel protein causing an allergy and established reliable ways to prevent that happening. You can look this up. Pioneer Hi-bred, a seed company, sought to develop a soybean enriched in methionine, one of the essential amino acids. The protein they would have inserted was from a Brazil nut. The scientists knew that some people are allergic to Brazil nuts, so they had the protein tested and found that it was an allergen. The soybean project was stopped, and they published their discovery so that genetic engineers were alerted to the possibility of an allergy problem, and protocols were established such as this - No gene may be transferred from an organism to which anyone is allergic.; of this - The novel protein must be shown to digest so quickly that there is no time for the body to react to it. Do you really think that foods like peanuts, which are not genetically engineered, somehow became more allergenic because people were eating other GMO foods? Hey, they were also drinking more sodas, playing more video games, eating more organic food, breathing in less lead from gasoline, etc.
Seriously? You wanted to learn about GMOs so you used a one-sided propaganda film? Do you know that the non-GMO Project makes its money by licensing the use of its copyrighted butterfly icon? Do you know that they will license that icon to producers of foods that have non GMO equivalent, such as olive oil or lettuce, so that it provides no benefit to any consumer, but can mislead consumers to purchase one product over another based on a non-existent difference? Do you really believe that a patent on a crop allows a patent holder to sue a farmer due to pollen drift? (By analogy, could a publisher sue you for copyright infringement if a page from a discarded magazine appears on your lawn?) Here's one: "In 2015 the World Health Organization determined that glyphosate is probably carcinogenic to humans". Here's the truth. The World Health Organization has a subsidiary organization that advises it, called International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). IARC made that determination. The World Health Organization rejected that determination.
Looking back on your childhood, there are undoubtedly many things you don't remember because you were a child. But they were there. If you don't remember allergies, does than mean there were hardly any allergies? I'm eighty three. When I was in college, I had a part-time job assembling products like teddy bears and pillows for people who were allergic to common ingredients. Are you aware that there has a never been a known case of a GMO food causing an allergy? In fact, the anti-GMO groups didn't even think of this as an issue until they learned about how genetic engineers had considered the possibility of a novel protein causing an allergy and established reliable ways to prevent that happening. You can look this up. Pioneer Hi-bred, a seed company, sought to develop a soybean enriched in methionine, one of the essential amino acids. The protein they would have inserted was from a Brazil nut. The scientists knew that some people are allergic to Brazil nuts, so they had the protein tested and found that it was an allergen. The soybean project was stopped, and they published their discovery so that genetic engineers were alerted to the possibility of an allergy problem, and protocols were established such as this - No gene may be transferred from an organism to which anyone is allergic.; of this - The novel protein must be shown to digest so quickly that there is no time for the body to react to it.
Do you really think that foods like peanuts, which are not genetically engineered, somehow became more allergenic because people were eating other GMO foods? Hey, they were also drinking more sodas, playing more video games, eating more organic food, breathing in less lead from gasoline, etc.
Seriously? You wanted to learn about GMOs so you used a one-sided propaganda film? Do you know that the non-GMO Project makes its money by licensing the use of its copyrighted butterfly icon? Do you know that they will license that icon to producers of foods that have non GMO equivalent, such as olive oil or lettuce, so that it provides no benefit to any consumer, but can mislead consumers to purchase one product over another based on a non-existent difference? Do you really believe that a patent on a crop allows a patent holder to sue a farmer due to pollen drift? (By analogy, could a publisher sue you for copyright infringement if a page from a discarded magazine appears on your lawn?)
Here's one: "In 2015 the World Health Organization determined that glyphosate is probably carcinogenic to humans". Here's the truth. The World Health Organization has a subsidiary organization that advises it, called International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). IARC made that determination. The World Health Organization rejected that determination.