Letter: Freak cows and false attack ads
In the anti-genetically modified organism law flier, which arrived in my mailbox, Agribusiness’s (there are now sadly few family farms) leading point faults an alleged “loophole” in the proposed GMO-labeling law: namely, that the proposed law stupidly “omits” obvious things such as labeling beef “GMO” from a beef cow that was fed GMO corn or grass. It’s even their lead argument against the proposed law. But look, fellas, an ordinary beef cow fed corn with altered corn genes does not thereby get its own cow genes altered. Duh! So, of course, that beef need not be also labeled ‘genetically modified,’ it’s still an ordinary beef cow. The cow might get some new disease from eating GMO corn, but he’ll still be the same old cow. But, such altered corn itself, if sold to us in grocery stores, does need to be GMO-labeled, so we’ll know what we are buying. That’s no loophole; that’s just common scientific sense. Now, if you do go in and change the beef cow’s actual genes, then that beef should be GMO-labeled — just as the proposed law does say. And, guess what? If you then eat that genetically modified beef (or corn) it will not thereby change your own genes; you will still be the same ‘ol you. Otherwise, anyone could escape criminal DNA proof against him by simply eating GMO beef or GMO corn. Duh! Although, one might thereby get some new disease, or indeed might thereby avoid some disease — which is why GMO labeling is a new law we need. Finally, we will see no proof (only the whining claim) of significantly increased costs because, for the same reason, there’s no need for separate cow-feed bins.
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.