Thoughts on GMOs: an Interview with Dag Falck

Thank you for your compassion

Yes! Thank you so very much for your compassion and caring for the human race! You are taking such a strong and very needed stand for all of us who don’t have very much of a voice. Genetically Modified foods are monsterous from what I have been trying to study on line. How dare Monsanto put us into the position of fear and questioning about what we are eating! Man needs peace of mind to be able to complish his goals and have a life that is happy and free of fear. I’m an artist who loves to create and problem solve, but all of this has been put on hold because I feel the need to inform people about GMO Foods and their tremendous hazards. It a must! We all have to make a difference in this world - in our own way. I eat “naturally”, and very seldom eat out - but like you said, GM food can be hiding in our food - contaminating it. I felt this when I became very ill and dropped down to 92 pounds because of a gallbladder attack (didn’t know that was the problem). I went to a Homeopathic who gave me a “Gallbladder Remedy”, and it cured me- no drugs or operations!. Now I eat as much raw vegetables as possible - and cereal by Nature’s Path. Absolutely delicious and I have PEACE OF MIND! Thank you so very much for your voice! Take care, Be Happy and Be Healthy Ghandi said: “Be the change you wish to see in the world”….and you and your organization are doing just that!

gmo v organic

we’ve genetically modified all our food through the centuries by selective breeding of plants and animals - that we can now do it directly with gene technology is just another advance that’s not really different than selective breeding used previously - only now, we can select for specific traits instead of a random chance of the previous method

gmo v organic

Even though it is completely true that humanity has practiced selective breeding of plants and animals for eons of time, this does not equal the genetic engineering techniques used today. The differences lie not in the objectives being different (breeding or engineering for new or improved traits), but rather the difference is that the original (natural) selective breeding is limited by nature in that you cannot succeed in breeding two species unless they are the same or very closely related, for instance a horse with a donkey to produce a mule. If you tried to breed a horse with an elephant this would not work. Assuming that nature put these boundaries in place to protect a natural balance and to retain species pureness, it leaves us to question if we (humans) have the wisdom to judge whether overriding natures limits is indeed safe in the long run. Overriding the natural limits is exactly what genetic engineering does, and this is what makes organic proponents elect to avoid this technology. Just because we can do something does not mean that it’s the right thing to do. Organic is based on mimicking nature, not attempting to “improve” her. A view that naturalselective breeding results in “random” or “chance” traits is based on placing a higher value on control than on safety. Another way to view this is to appreciate that natural selective breeding contains within it a safety limit, that will prevent bizarre and sometimes dangerous outcomes. A good example is the transgenic Pea that was developed, but rejected (even by the developer), because it was found to contain a transgenic protein that was processed differently than it’s natural counterpart, and this provoked immune reactions like lung inflammation in mice. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/TPTMMI.php All the best, Dag