Наверняка существуют

ГМ продукты строжайшим образом контролируются на предмет ядов

Безвредность ГМ так-же исследовалась сотнями ученых и не вызывает сомнения

Какую альтернативу ГМ вы предлагаете?

продемонстрируйте механизм возможного влияния

Опять-же, я всецело за проведение таких исследований

Готовы ли Вы, положа руку на сердце, сказать, что все исследования, отрапортовавшие о безопасности ГМ-продуктов, были 100% объективными и не профинансированными заинтересованными сторонами? Ведь и такого нельзя исключать.

Regulatory agencies oppose labeling for the following reasons. First, labeling of GM foods
would stigmatize biotech products and scare away shoppers, and unduly alarm consumers about
potential safety risks thereby putting some retailers out of business; biotech products should
therefore not be singled out for special regulatory treatment unless there is a significant difference
in composition, a safety problem, or missing material information. When biotech foods are
labeled differently from their traditional counterparts, it will have the unintended and unfortunate
consequence of confusing consumers or misleading them into thinking that biotech products
have different effects. Second, labeling could also be difficult to implement because the label
has to be maintained throughout the food chain, no matter how many times the GM food is
used as an ingredient, food, or feed. This could create a logistical nightmare. Third, labeling GM
foods may be expensive, and the cost of labeling will be passed on to the consumer. However,
some people are optimistic that a technology that can easily distinguish GM foods from non-GM
ones would soon be developed, thereby making labeling an easy task (Hoef et al., 1998).

U.S. Delegate's Report, 38th Session, Codex Committee on Food Labelling

The 38th Session of the Codex Committee on Food Labelling (CCFL) was held in Quebec City, Quebec, Canada from May 3-7, 2010. The Session was chaired by Mr. Paul Mayers, Associate Vice-President, Programs, Policy and Programs Branch, Canadian Food Inspection Agency. It was attended by 251 delegates representing 61 member countries, one member organization, and 25 international organizations. The United States (U.S.) Delegation was headed by Dr. Barbara Schneeman of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, with support provided by Dr. Heejong Latimer (alternate U.S. Delegate) of the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service, 10 government advisors, and 4 non-government advisors.

The Committee could not reach consensus on the definitions and agreed to continue work on them, returning the definitions to Step 6 for country comment and discussion at the next Session of CCFL.

“We are concerned that the currentUS position could potentially create significant problems for food producers in the US who want to indicate that their products contain no GE ingredients, including on organic food, where genetic engineering is a prohibited method,” the letter states.

· In the U.S. in 1999, more than 40% of corn, more than 50% of cotton, and more than 45% of soybeans were genetically modified crops (Ahmed, 2002).
· At least 60% of products in US supermarkets contain GMOs (Ahmed, 2002)
· Yet only 14% of Americans correctly believed more than half of food products in U.S. supermarkets were made with GM ingredients (Program on International Policy Attitudes, 2003).
· Only 19% of Americans had thought they had eaten a GM product (Program on International Policy Attitudes, 2003).
· 45% of Americans think GM foods are safe for consumption (The Genetic Engineering Action Network, 2003).
· When asked if GM products would improve quality of life, only 39% of Americans agreed (The Genetic Engineering Action Network, 2003).
· 35% thought it would make diminish their quality of life (The Genetic Engineering Action Network, 2003).
· An overwhelming majority of Americans (94%) think GM foods should be labeled, but only about half (54%) said it would negatively affect their purchasing decision (The Genetic Engineering Action Network, 2003).