It is opposed by some organizations and individuals because they are not convinced that the safety of the crops to the environment or human health has been proven, the regulatory process in the U.S. appears to have been influenced by those who develop and profit from the technology, etc.
Most people and organizations that oppose cultivation and breeding of GMOs do so because they believe valid evidence points to harmful effects of GMOs on health and/or the environment.
No, they do not. There are no laws that protect consumers if they do not want to eat GMOs. The consumers' only choice if they wish to avoid eating GMOs is to stop eating lots of foods that may contain GMOs.
GMOs (genetically modified food) may create allergies.
I just wrote an article that talks about GMOs. The GMO rice, called golden rice, is described under the section "GMOs Can Improve Nutrition."
GMOs are transgenic organisms. A gene is taken from one species and forced into another, which is what creates a transgenic organism.
To be fair, it was not Obama that made GMOs legal. President George W. Bush (and possibly presidents before him) was very supportive of GMOs and the FDA has responsibility of approving them. As for whether Obama and his family eat GMO foods, no one knows.
The terminology in this is muddled, but, no, hybrids are not GMOs. Hybrids do not use technology that manually removes a gene from one species (bacteria, virus, human, etc) and inserts it into another species (corn, soybeans, etc), which is horizontal breeding. Hybrids are developed through vertical breeding of the same species without the use of genetic engineering methods, though in rare cases cross-breeding of similar species has occurred.
There is no known information that indicates GMOs are easier to grown than non-GMOs.
There is no evidence that GMOs have improved food production.
No, they do not. There are no laws that protect consumers if they do not want to eat GMOs. The consumers' only choice if they wish to avoid eating GMOs is to stop eating lots of foods that may contain GMOs.
GMOs (genetically modified food) may create allergies.
People don't hate GMOs. Those who oppose GMOs being used commercially at this point in their development are called anti-GMOers and fearmongers, among other names.
No, whole grains (like all foods) can have GMOs added to them, can be artificially flavored, or can be sprayed with pesticides during cultivation. So just like every other food, there are organic whole grains and inorganic or non-organic whole grains.
No, they would not be required to be labeled. No foods that contain GMOs are required to be labeled as such.
I just wrote an article that talks about GMOs. The GMO rice, called golden rice, is described under the section "GMOs Can Improve Nutrition."
I just wrote an article that talks about GMOs. The GMO rice, called golden rice, is described under the section "GMOs Can Improve Nutrition."
GMOs are transgenic organisms. A gene is taken from one species and forced into another, which is what creates a transgenic organism.
To be fair, it was not Obama that made GMOs legal. President George W. Bush (and possibly presidents before him) was very supportive of GMOs and the FDA has responsibility of approving them. As for whether Obama and his family eat GMO foods, no one knows.