And the benefits of GMOS have been oversold by the industry: they haven't, so far, done much to feed the hungry.
Malaysia's Palm Oil Council was quick to respond to the threat, saying, "Every nutritional and food expert concludes that palm oil is in fact free of dangerous trans fats, free of GMOs and contains valuable vitamins".
"Contrary to Senator Daudigny's comments, every nutritional and food expert concludes that palm oil is in fact free of dangerous trans fats, free of GMOs and contains valuable vitamins," the council's chief executive said in a statement.
As it happens, some of the groups opposed to the spread of GMOS are backed largely by corporate interests: Just Label It, a dot-org coalition that favors GMO labels is financed by organic and "natural" food companies that benefit from the anxiety around biotech food.
I should add that I think often even opponents of GMOs sort of mix up [different types of] concerns.
The disagreements mainly derive from the current risk assessment practice of GMOs and differences in the perceived environmental risks.
To these scientists, I would recommend, when you start up a conversation with an opponent of GMOs, start with that point of common ground.
What I can't understand is that when I present actual facts to make a case real numbers, good data–[critics of GMOs] just throw out views without real basis.
He questioned whether French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who will probably run for reelection next year, would support planting when the "great majority of French people are opposed to the presence of GMOs [genetically-modified organisms] in our fields and in our plates".
The Roberts-Stabenow bill would require food labels to disclose the presence of GMOs but would allow for different ways of doing it.
The one thing I think both sides can definitely agree on is that WE JUST DO NOT KNOW THE LONG TERM EFFECTS OF GMOS.
