"What do you think of GM, a nutritionist?" I wrote a friend that I know liberal careful attention to issues of market freedom, not knowing (or perhaps knowing very well) to put myself in a quagmire. Let's make a summary of the most important arguments. .
A. NUTRITION. From a nutritional standpoint, the chemical composition of GM foods is usually equal to that of traditional food. For the consumer, at the table, nothing changes. Because researchers focus on nutrition is not toxic, able to prevent attacks by pests. Unless you want to act on this or that anti-nutrient or nutrient or part of a nutrient. Recently accepted the GM potato in Europe, for example, is very rich in a potato amylopectin, a starch component that makes the tuber very suitable to produce adhesives and other industrial products.
But there are other cases. For example, it is obvious that the traditional vegetables are extremely rich in phytates (a chelating agent that binds to certain minerals, like calcium, reducing assimilation), antitrypsin, saponins and other principles antinutritivi. So, in practice, in our bodies legumes provide less calcium or iron or protein or carbohydrate as the tables show nutritional theory based on chemical content, which is why in fact it is said who "lose weight" (see the Indians and other populations that feed on many legumes). It 'clear that a GM bean-reduced phytin, while having the same composition and giving the same calories as it has less biological substances near antinutritive would be "more nutritious". But it would be less anti-cancer, for one thing, because the substances antinutritive foods have a preventive anti-cancer. The risk, in short, is that vegetables or cereals GM GM-free or reduced content of antinutritional would, indeed, more digestible and more poor people living on the Global South, but less would protect them from major degenerative diseases (cancer, cardiovascular, diabetes, ecc).
.
B. DIRITTI. La risposta complessiva sugli Ogm deve essere articolata anche sul piano della libertà di scienza e dei diritti individuali. Da liberali difensori massimi della libera ricerca scientifica, ma anche di tutti i diritti (salute, concorrenza, informazione ecc), non possiamo dire semplicemente sì o no come nel tifo calcistico o nella politica all’italiana.
.
B1. SCIENZA LIBERA. Da liberali siamo ovviamente per la più ampia libertà nella ricerca scientifica. Anzi, la razionalità, la ricerca libera e la scienza sono interpretate meglio proprio dal Liberalismo.
B2. DIRITTI INDIVIDUALI. Da liberali siamo ovviamente per la tutela dei diritti, tutti e di tutti (ripeto, non di pochissimi, ché questo si chiama privilegio), compresi quello di tutti a conoscere (perché i cittadini possano deliberare, cfr Einaudi), quello alla salute, al gusto, e anche alla varietà biologica che, si è dimostrato, giova alla salute, all’ambiente, al gusto e alla conservazione del patrimonio colturale-culturale.
B3. CONCORRENZA E MERCATO. Da liberali siamo ovviamente per la massima concorrenza e la libertà di mercato, secondo poche regole ma precise e tassative.
.
B4. DISCUSSIONE. Proprio da quest'ultimo punto possiamo cominciare la discussione, perché sono evidenti strani silenzi e una allarmante, imbarazzata, omertà da parte delle società (And very few in league with each other: there is an oligopoly or monopoly!) Behind a part of GM research, which sadly reminds me of a similar reluctance about nuclear plants many years ago. Now the experts in part due to GM not deny the voices of opposition. So people do not know. But the researchers GM, tied to the producers, tend to generate and apodictic reassurance. Without evidence or details.
strange attitude that "all right" and "left to maneuver the manipulator" who knows more than you, without too much explanation.
We have seen that GM does not "do you cancer" or new "allergies" as saying the stupid alarmist. Okay, we had always supported. Because, you know, there were not even among the silences, disinformation and duplicity. In fact, the stupidity "cunning" of the pro-GM to the bitter end, at least in it for being related to the industries of the sector was offset by the stupidity of "dumb", ie without earnings, the GM for anti-bias, as well as stupidity " smart ", ie with high earnings, those who were anti-GM to defend the substantial income position of agriculture," organic "Italian, so suspect," the first in Europe. "
But the real question, and more alarming for a liberal is, after all, but "because" the GM? Are really useful? We need? And if they are useful, are useful to us all or a tiny minority?
There is talk of utility in developing countries: possible and sensible to lower parasitic losses after considering the weather and hygienic conditions and sloppiness.
But the costs? GM seeds do not provide fertile plants that produce seeds that can be reused in agriculture. So the seeds should be repurchased every year at the same oligopolists those companies. Very few companies have the ownership of seeds from around the world. And right on name and copyright. A market easily and without competing for billions of euro. One thing never seen in history: bread Monsanto, Monsanto spaghetti. All the same, everywhere in the world. A terrible simplification. And then
increased costs for the less wealthy farmers who have so far planted their own seeds for free ... Their agricultural products, often of a quality, traditional or niche (a p.es spelled), could increase dramatically in price and then get them out of the market. On the other hand, monopoly profits for 2-3 companies in the world.
you begin to understand the speculation?
It has never been proven that GMOs are useful in developed countries or with agriculture and quality food such as Italy. We are coming from the great civilization Etruscan-Roman Civilization flagship agri-food (enough to say that the broccoli was invented by them) save thousands of rare species that would disappear with the old omologazioone GM. See the regarding the concerns expressed in an earlier article on Ecology Liberal . On the other hand, we "rich" Westerners do not suffer from hunger and famine. But we are strong with a rich historical heritage cultivation. It would be a net loss of crops and cultural. Already in Italy are sold everywhere only 3 or 4 varieties of apples, compared to 30-40 in ancient Rome. And Prof. CNR Perrino says that GM will not eliminate all pesticides. Perhaps it would be nice just to reduce aflatoxins in maize ...
is worth all this upheaval? Look at comment that Ecology Liberal wrote to the professors' proposal pro-GM.
I would be at most - in order not to penalize your search - for very separate markets, but ... can co-exist? The pollen flying ...
On the other hand, some researchers argue GM, a search without a huge commercial outlets could not settle for limited uses. But who said that everything we study should then expect to invade the world instantly turned into the more invasive and irreversible process of economic history? Freedom of Science is one thing, the license of another monopoly.
short, the horrible suspicion that GMOs do not come to the cancer to children, but are like new highways in the South where there is little question that much traffic, and how the Department Lavori, le cattedrali industriali nel deserto, utili solo a pochi cittadini (costruttori e politici corrotti loro manutengoli), comincia a prendere sempre più corpo.
Liberali, sì, certo, ma non fessi. Amanti della Scienza libera, certo, ma non delle truffe. D'altra parte non tutta la ricerca deve essere messa per forza e subito in pratica. Quindi affiliamo le armi, pronti ai sì o al no, o ad entrambi non appena ne sapremo di più. Ma ormai colpi di scena sono improbabili. Se ne sa così poco che conviene sospettare. Quando produttori e ricercatori non parlano è bruttissimo segno.
Nella reticenza attuale siamo, dunque, per ora, per un sospettoso no. A meno che non vengano fuori, subito, dati rassicuranti e dettagliati. And certainly not enough for us the prospect of "lower cost". Lower costs for whom? For the last farmer or industrial speculator who has never seen a bean plant? The poor Einaudi turns in his grave. It's already very cheap food. Last small producers are paid a few cents. What kind of "savings" still intend to make the big producers? Liberalism does not mean giving money to incumbents passing off speculation as "freedom of science." Science has nothing to do: advanced knowledge of the genetic modification have long been known. So far, favorable
said that GMOs are safe and necessary, those opposed said they are very damaging. But if, instead, GMOs were just completely useless, at least in Western countries, especially in Italy? And if their harmfulness derived from their own worthlessness?
.
(see also previous articles on GMOs through the search engine of this blog: small window at the top to the left, or click on the tag under the articles).
A. NUTRITION. From a nutritional standpoint, the chemical composition of GM foods is usually equal to that of traditional food. For the consumer, at the table, nothing changes. Because researchers focus on nutrition is not toxic, able to prevent attacks by pests. Unless you want to act on this or that anti-nutrient or nutrient or part of a nutrient. Recently accepted the GM potato in Europe, for example, is very rich in a potato amylopectin, a starch component that makes the tuber very suitable to produce adhesives and other industrial products.
But there are other cases. For example, it is obvious that the traditional vegetables are extremely rich in phytates (a chelating agent that binds to certain minerals, like calcium, reducing assimilation), antitrypsin, saponins and other principles antinutritivi. So, in practice, in our bodies legumes provide less calcium or iron or protein or carbohydrate as the tables show nutritional theory based on chemical content, which is why in fact it is said who "lose weight" (see the Indians and other populations that feed on many legumes). It 'clear that a GM bean-reduced phytin, while having the same composition and giving the same calories as it has less biological substances near antinutritive would be "more nutritious". But it would be less anti-cancer, for one thing, because the substances antinutritive foods have a preventive anti-cancer. The risk, in short, is that vegetables or cereals GM GM-free or reduced content of antinutritional would, indeed, more digestible and more poor people living on the Global South, but less would protect them from major degenerative diseases (cancer, cardiovascular, diabetes, ecc).
.
B. DIRITTI. La risposta complessiva sugli Ogm deve essere articolata anche sul piano della libertà di scienza e dei diritti individuali. Da liberali difensori massimi della libera ricerca scientifica, ma anche di tutti i diritti (salute, concorrenza, informazione ecc), non possiamo dire semplicemente sì o no come nel tifo calcistico o nella politica all’italiana.
.
B1. SCIENZA LIBERA. Da liberali siamo ovviamente per la più ampia libertà nella ricerca scientifica. Anzi, la razionalità, la ricerca libera e la scienza sono interpretate meglio proprio dal Liberalismo.
B2. DIRITTI INDIVIDUALI. Da liberali siamo ovviamente per la tutela dei diritti, tutti e di tutti (ripeto, non di pochissimi, ché questo si chiama privilegio), compresi quello di tutti a conoscere (perché i cittadini possano deliberare, cfr Einaudi), quello alla salute, al gusto, e anche alla varietà biologica che, si è dimostrato, giova alla salute, all’ambiente, al gusto e alla conservazione del patrimonio colturale-culturale.
B3. CONCORRENZA E MERCATO. Da liberali siamo ovviamente per la massima concorrenza e la libertà di mercato, secondo poche regole ma precise e tassative.
.
B4. DISCUSSIONE. Proprio da quest'ultimo punto possiamo cominciare la discussione, perché sono evidenti strani silenzi e una allarmante, imbarazzata, omertà da parte delle società (And very few in league with each other: there is an oligopoly or monopoly!) Behind a part of GM research, which sadly reminds me of a similar reluctance about nuclear plants many years ago. Now the experts in part due to GM not deny the voices of opposition. So people do not know. But the researchers GM, tied to the producers, tend to generate and apodictic reassurance. Without evidence or details.
strange attitude that "all right" and "left to maneuver the manipulator" who knows more than you, without too much explanation.
We have seen that GM does not "do you cancer" or new "allergies" as saying the stupid alarmist. Okay, we had always supported. Because, you know, there were not even among the silences, disinformation and duplicity. In fact, the stupidity "cunning" of the pro-GM to the bitter end, at least in it for being related to the industries of the sector was offset by the stupidity of "dumb", ie without earnings, the GM for anti-bias, as well as stupidity " smart ", ie with high earnings, those who were anti-GM to defend the substantial income position of agriculture," organic "Italian, so suspect," the first in Europe. "
But the real question, and more alarming for a liberal is, after all, but "because" the GM? Are really useful? We need? And if they are useful, are useful to us all or a tiny minority?
There is talk of utility in developing countries: possible and sensible to lower parasitic losses after considering the weather and hygienic conditions and sloppiness.
But the costs? GM seeds do not provide fertile plants that produce seeds that can be reused in agriculture. So the seeds should be repurchased every year at the same oligopolists those companies. Very few companies have the ownership of seeds from around the world. And right on name and copyright. A market easily and without competing for billions of euro. One thing never seen in history: bread Monsanto, Monsanto spaghetti. All the same, everywhere in the world. A terrible simplification. And then
increased costs for the less wealthy farmers who have so far planted their own seeds for free ... Their agricultural products, often of a quality, traditional or niche (a p.es spelled), could increase dramatically in price and then get them out of the market. On the other hand, monopoly profits for 2-3 companies in the world.
you begin to understand the speculation?
It has never been proven that GMOs are useful in developed countries or with agriculture and quality food such as Italy. We are coming from the great civilization Etruscan-Roman Civilization flagship agri-food (enough to say that the broccoli was invented by them) save thousands of rare species that would disappear with the old omologazioone GM. See the regarding the concerns expressed in an earlier article on Ecology Liberal . On the other hand, we "rich" Westerners do not suffer from hunger and famine. But we are strong with a rich historical heritage cultivation. It would be a net loss of crops and cultural. Already in Italy are sold everywhere only 3 or 4 varieties of apples, compared to 30-40 in ancient Rome. And Prof. CNR Perrino says that GM will not eliminate all pesticides. Perhaps it would be nice just to reduce aflatoxins in maize ...
is worth all this upheaval? Look at comment that Ecology Liberal wrote to the professors' proposal pro-GM.
I would be at most - in order not to penalize your search - for very separate markets, but ... can co-exist? The pollen flying ...
On the other hand, some researchers argue GM, a search without a huge commercial outlets could not settle for limited uses. But who said that everything we study should then expect to invade the world instantly turned into the more invasive and irreversible process of economic history? Freedom of Science is one thing, the license of another monopoly.
short, the horrible suspicion that GMOs do not come to the cancer to children, but are like new highways in the South where there is little question that much traffic, and how the Department Lavori, le cattedrali industriali nel deserto, utili solo a pochi cittadini (costruttori e politici corrotti loro manutengoli), comincia a prendere sempre più corpo.
Liberali, sì, certo, ma non fessi. Amanti della Scienza libera, certo, ma non delle truffe. D'altra parte non tutta la ricerca deve essere messa per forza e subito in pratica. Quindi affiliamo le armi, pronti ai sì o al no, o ad entrambi non appena ne sapremo di più. Ma ormai colpi di scena sono improbabili. Se ne sa così poco che conviene sospettare. Quando produttori e ricercatori non parlano è bruttissimo segno.
Nella reticenza attuale siamo, dunque, per ora, per un sospettoso no. A meno che non vengano fuori, subito, dati rassicuranti e dettagliati. And certainly not enough for us the prospect of "lower cost". Lower costs for whom? For the last farmer or industrial speculator who has never seen a bean plant? The poor Einaudi turns in his grave. It's already very cheap food. Last small producers are paid a few cents. What kind of "savings" still intend to make the big producers? Liberalism does not mean giving money to incumbents passing off speculation as "freedom of science." Science has nothing to do: advanced knowledge of the genetic modification have long been known. So far, favorable
said that GMOs are safe and necessary, those opposed said they are very damaging. But if, instead, GMOs were just completely useless, at least in Western countries, especially in Italy? And if their harmfulness derived from their own worthlessness?
.
(see also previous articles on GMOs through the search engine of this blog: small window at the top to the left, or click on the tag under the articles).
IMAGE. A tomato cubic, easy to store. The science fiction series, in the days when anti-alarmists fear of GM aimed at housewives, schoolteachers, children and health-conscious, talking about cancer and mixing strawberries and legs of beetles, corn and elephant tusks. Fault of their own now they are silent about the real dangers of Ogm.
