Thanks for asking kindly. Propaganda is the misuse of facts to achieve a goal which not obvious from the text itself. So, for instance, Ted Kaczynski (the Unabomber) says that attacking biotechnology, with any means available, is the ideal method for attacking corporate America. Ted never says that he's actually against biotech. People who bomb train stations aren't actually against trains, you see.
So, when you use phrases like, "contaminated," "playing with fire" and "Frankenstein foods," I sense something less than neutral media coverage.
Now, to clear up a few things. You say that StarLink had a "potential to trigger allergic reactions," but in the end, it was proved there were no allergic reactions.
You wonder if the "modifications make the food more nutritious," and they do. They also reduce carcinogens in food.
Do the modifications make the food more tasty? Not, as you say, "Quite the opposite." The only consumers who get a chance to taste "GM food" are those who eat GM sweet corn. Otherwise, it's all just an ingredient, and the result is up to the cook. But GM sweet corn reduces pesticide spraying by half.
GM modifications do not make the food prettier, but that would be a waste of time, and as you say, "packaging is everything."
You wonder if "the modifications make the plants more durable to stand up to even more massive sprayings of toxic pesticides?" That's *not* the point. You gotta check out the difference between pesticides and herbicides, and their impact on insects that don't destroy crops. You might even discover the fact that GM crops have bankrupted some pesticide and herbicide companies.
What this has to do with the "Bush administration" boggles the mind. GM crops have been tested for 25 years, and consumed around the world for over a decade, and grown on over one billion acres. Bush's godlike properties are overrated.
Ms. Media,
Thanks for asking kindly. Propaganda is the misuse of facts to achieve a goal which not obvious from the text itself. So, for instance, Ted Kaczynski (the Unabomber) says that attacking biotechnology, with any means available, is the ideal method for attacking corporate America. Ted never says that he's actually against biotech. People who bomb train stations aren't actually against trains, you see.
So, when you use phrases like, "contaminated," "playing with fire" and "Frankenstein foods," I sense something less than neutral media coverage.
Now, to clear up a few things. You say that StarLink had a "potential to trigger allergic reactions," but in the end, it was proved there were no allergic reactions.
You wonder if the "modifications make the food more nutritious," and they do. They also reduce carcinogens in food.
Do the modifications make the food more tasty? Not, as you say, "Quite the opposite." The only consumers who get a chance to taste "GM food" are those who eat GM sweet corn. Otherwise, it's all just an ingredient, and the result is up to the cook. But GM sweet corn reduces pesticide spraying by half.
GM modifications do not make the food prettier, but that would be a waste of time, and as you say, "packaging is everything."
You wonder if "the modifications make the plants more durable to stand up to even more massive sprayings of toxic pesticides?" That's *not* the point. You gotta check out the difference between pesticides and herbicides, and their impact on insects that don't destroy crops. You might even discover the fact that GM crops have bankrupted some pesticide and herbicide companies.
What this has to do with the "Bush administration" boggles the mind. GM crops have been tested for 25 years, and consumed around the world for over a decade, and grown on over one billion acres. Bush's godlike properties are overrated.
Best wishes,
Schiller.