My insulin comes from genetically modified bacteria
But you know what? Sticking the human insulin gene into them isn't the only thing they do. They also slice out a lot of genes controlling key nutrient systems pathways, so that the bacteria cannot survive except in a very complex nutrient mix. Wonder why they think it would be a bad idea if these critters ever went wild successfully?
No, the problem isn't the specific technology--it is the end goals of Monsanto's GMO products that matter. I also have no objection to the Golden Rice project. Sure, just cheap vitamin A capsules are pretty effective right now, and you have to have adequate calorie and fat intake to even be able to absorb the beta carotene. Still
1. If it isn't helping as much as they might wish, it isn't hurting. The carotene levels could conceivably be boosted a lot.
2. They aren't trying to dominate the agricultural sector in poor countries--they work through a non-profit foundation that gives the seeds away.
3. They aren't aiming to ramp up pesticide use
4. Beta carotene genes are already in the leaves of the plant anyway.
And now--
http://www.nationofchange.org/2015/08/25/the-new-england-journal-of-medicine-asks-fda-to-reconsider-labeling-gmo-foods/
Two recent developments are dramatically changing the GMO landscape. First, there have been sharp increases in the amounts and numbers of chemical herbicides applied to GM crops, and still further increases—the largest in a generation—are scheduled to occur in the next few years. Second, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified glyphosate, the herbicide most widely used on GM crops, as a “probable human carcinogen” and classified a second herbicide, 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D), as a “possible human carcinogen.
Finally, we believe the time has come to revisit the United States’ reluctance to label GM foods. Labeling will deliver multiple benefits. It is essential for tracking emergence of novel food allergies and assessing effects of chemical herbicides applied to GM crops. It would respect the wishes of a growing number of consumers who insist they have a right to know what foods they are buying and how they were produced. And the argument that there is nothing new about genetic rearrangement misses the point that GM crops are now the agricultural products most heavily treated with herbicides and that two of these herbicides may pose risks of cancer. We hope, in light of this new information, that the FDA will reconsider labeling of GM foods and couple it with adequately funded, long-term postmarketing surveillance.
