What is an ethical diet?

[rebecca]

Are you questioning that a cow does not provide hundreds of meals?

I cannot find the link to the study done by a man named "Davis" (I believe). Grass-fed cattle are grazing on pasture and not grains. Since the cattle do not eat grains (which require mechanization to produce), this means the tractor is not going into the field to sow/harvest grains.

Yes, I was questioning that because I hadn't heard of a number that high. I checked out your link, but saw nothing to support your number. However, after doing some quick googling, I came across pretty fuzzy numbers, as I guess it depends on how big the cow is and if you're eating all of it or not.

Perhaps. If that average meat eater is also eating the same vegetables as you. But if that average meat eater eats only locally raised animals (even if they are grain fed) and locally raised vegetables, s/he may not be contributing to as many animal deaths as the typical vegetarian who may be buying their vegetables that are produced in other countries. The shipping alone might be responsible for more animal deaths of a typical vegetarian diet.

I'm sure you checked out your own link, which included a link to a rebuttal here. So maybe your typical vegetarian IS harming less animals.

This is what I'm talking about - the typical vegetarian may not have even considered that their diet does result in animal deaths. They may very well think that by consuming only vegetables, they have not contributed to animal deaths. I've nothing against vegetarians, but only against claims that a vegetarian lifestyle is cruelity free, or doesn't cause animal deaths.

So is your purpose with this thread to let vegetarians know what they surely already do: that just by living, they cause the deaths of other organisms? Or are you trying to encourage people to join up with your lifestyle, that of being a vegan who eats only local, hand-sown grains and doesn't wear cotton? That is what you do, correct?

But vegan's also fall into the same trap of thinking that if they don't consume or use animal products they are not harming animals. One only has to look at the production of cotton - that harms many animals - yet, cotton is worn by many vegans.

All vegans think that? I don't know any who feel that way. In fact, all the vegans I know are pretty quiet about their choice of food (until our big Thanksgiving potluck, where we all go over the top with fun, exotic foods). The ones that I know are only interested in reducing the harm they cause, just like in the link above.

Rice paddies are flooded - the flooding drowns many animals. I've been searching for the link, but cannot find it right now.

I never implied that flooding paddies didn't drown animals. ??

Much as I hate to defend PETA, please show me where they say it is possible to survive without killing something. Oh. They don't. You can say they "mislead" people about it, but if anyone is stupid enough to believe that you can get through life without killing something, well, give me their names and address, I have a bridge I want to sell them.

I would say if PeTA is really about the ethical treatment for animals they would write about those farmers who do as much as possible to raise their animals humanely. They would tell people that eating grass-fed cows is better than eating grain-fed, factory farmed cows. They would talk about the collateral death of animals in regards to crop production. Instead they tell people to eat no meat .

Debaroo [/B]

You made a good case against PETA, but you didn't address my point. You claimed that they duped people by stating that a vegan can survive without killing anything. I believe you exaggerated, which is interesting considering your claim.

 

[Fat Bottom Gurl]

Originally posted by Rebecca

Yes, I was questioning that because I hadn't heard of a number that high. I checked out your link, but saw nothing to support your number.
However, after doing some quick googling, I came across pretty fuzzy
numbers, as I guess it depends on how big the cow is and if you're
eating all of it or not.

The link wasn't meant to support my number of meals, I thought you were
asking me to provide you with information about grass-fed beef being a
better choice in relationship to less deaths.

A cow will supply many meals (could be hundreds
depending on serving and cow size) and typically a family of four can
buy a side of beef for the larder for the year. Of course the size of
the cow is going to reflect the number of meals. The average cow weighs
somewhere in the neighbourhood of 1,000 to 1,200 pounds when it's ready
for slaughter. Once it's been butchered, about 700 to 800 edible pounds
remain. Let's say I make a meal using 1 pound of ground beef - that
could feed 3 to 4 people (depending on portion size).

I'm sure you checked out your own link, which included a link to a rebuttal here. So maybe your typical vegetarian IS harming less animals.

Well, my typical vegetarian doesn't know where their food comes from or
how it is produced.

So is your purpose with this thread to let vegetarians know what they
surely already do: that just by living, they cause the deaths of other
organisms? Or are you trying to encourage people to join up with your
lifestyle, that of being a vegan who eats only local, hand-sown grains
and doesn't wear cotton? That is what you do, correct?

Nope. I was just curious to see what others think and whether the
typical vegetarian or vegan has ever considered that their lifestyle
does indeed cause harm. What I've read on vegetarian ethics groups
seems to indicate that many vegetarians/vegans have never bothered to
think about it and they do not realize their diet causes harm to
animals. Many people are so far removed from how food is produced, that
they simply never consider the methods employed for their food
production. I was also curious as to what others might think is an
ethical diet.

For the record - I am a typical omnivore and well aware of what is on my
plate.

As I stated before, I've nothing against a person's choice to be a
vegetarian (I've been one myself). My problem lies with a person's claim
that their vegetarian diet is bloodless. If someone says that to me,
then I will ask them if they know where their food comes from. Do they
know how it is produced? Are they aware of animals deaths involved with
crop production? I make no claims about my diet being ethical, and if I
gave you that impression it was not my intent to be misleading, for that
I do apologize.

All vegans think that? I don't know any who feel that way. In fact, all
the vegans I know are pretty quiet about their choice of food (until our
big Thanksgiving potluck, where we all go over the top with fun, exotic
foods). The ones that I know are only interested in reducing the harm
they cause, just like in the link above.

Of course not all vegans or vegetarians. Have you ever asked your vegan
friends if they are aware of the animals that die for their food
production? Have they even considered it? Have they ever seen a field
being prepared for crops? Even large-scale organic farming use
mechanization.

I never implied that flooding paddies didn't drown animals. ??

You asked where I get my info on how many animals die for rice
production. I assumed you may not be familiar with how rice is
produced. Here is a link for your consideration:

http://www.ranchers.net/bullpen/veg/veg.mv?module=view&viewid=11355&row=

You made a good case against PETA, but you didn't address my point. You
claimed that they duped people by stating that a vegan can survive
without killing anything. I believe you exaggerated, which is
interesting considering your claim.

I did not make that claim...this is what I wrote:

"one only has to read PeTA and other animal right's propanganda that say
if one doesn't eat meat, one is not harming animals."

This is the PeTA statement on their webpage:

"PETA believes that animals deserve the most basic rights—consideration
of their own best interests regardless of whether they are useful to
humans. Like you, they are capable of suffering and have interests in
leading their own lives; therefore, they are not ours to use—for food,
clothing, entertainment, or experimentation, or for any other reason."


If you go to their vegetarian starter kit here
http://www.vegetarianstarterkit.com/

At the bottom they say:

"A vegan diet helps animals. Modern high-pressure agriculture commonly
keeps cows, calves, pigs, chickens, turkeys, ducks, and other animals in
overcrowded stalls, cages, crates, or sheds where they are often unable
to turn around or take even a single step for their entire lives.
Deprived of veterinary care, exercise, sunlight, and even the feel of
grass beneath their feet, these living, breathing, thinking, feeling
beings, whose senses are so much like our own, suffer and die at the
rate of millions per day just so that we can have burgers, patties,
nuggets, and wieners. Deciding what we will eat means choosing between
the horrors of factory farming and respect for animals."

***
They do not once mention that the production of the vegetables/grains
involves animal dealths. They do not mention that the production of
clothing, such as cotton, involves animals deaths. They encourage
people to become vegetarian, which implies that animals are not being
harmed. It's dishonest by omission.

BTW Rebecca - I'm enjoying the discussion .

Regards,
Debaroo

 

[rebecca]

Well, my typical vegetarian doesn't know where their food comes from or
how it is produced.

Sorry to hear that. Most vegetarians I know are very aware of where their food comes from, which is one of the reasons why most of them are vegetarians.

Nope. I was just curious to see what others think and whether the
typical vegetarian or vegan has ever considered that their lifestyle
does indeed cause harm.

You should take a poll. Put me down for "Yep, I know where my food comes from."

What I've read on vegetarian ethics groups
seems to indicate that many vegetarians/vegans have never bothered to
think about it and they do not realize their diet causes harm to
animals. Many people are so far removed from how food is produced, that
they simply never consider the methods employed for their food
production. I was also curious as to what others might think is an
ethical diet.

I guess I'm just not seeing where you are getting this idea that vegetarians don't know where their food comes from.

For the record - I am a typical omnivore and well aware of what is on my
plate.

As I stated before, I've nothing against a person's choice to be a
vegetarian (I've been one myself). My problem lies with a person's claim
that their vegetarian diet is bloodless.

Show me that claim, and I'll agree that you have every right to tell that person that their diet is not bloodless. But you haven't shown me anyone that has said that, yet, which is why I don't understand your point.

If someone says that to me,
then I will ask them if they know where their food comes from. Do they
know how it is produced? Are they aware of animals deaths involved with
crop production? I make no claims about my diet being ethical, and if I
gave you that impression it was not my intent to be misleading, for that
I do apologize.

No need to apologize. It's just that usually, a person who claims that another person's diet is unethical usually sticks to a diet which, in their opinion, is the most ethical possible. It seems a little hypocritical not to do so, though I don't agree with telling anyone what to eat or what not to eat, anyway.

Of course not all vegans or vegetarians. Have you ever asked your vegan
friends if they are aware of the animals that die for their food
production? Have they even considered it? Have they ever seen a field
being prepared for crops? Even large-scale organic farming use
mechanization.

Yes, I have asked. Just now. They looked at me like I had a second head growing out of my neck, because they know that it is impossible to live without causing the deaths of other organisms.

You asked where I get my info on how many animals die for rice
production. I assumed you may not be familiar with how rice is
produced. Here is a link for your consideration:

Thanks, I refer you back to your own original link above that included a rebuttal to this same argument.

"one only has to read PeTA and other animal right's propanganda that say
if one doesn't eat meat, one is not harming animals."

But this is what you quoted PETA as saying:

A vegan diet helps animals.

Those are two different things: saying that a vegan diet harms no animals, or saying that a vegan diet helps animals. Your own link made it clear that it is very possible that a vegan diet kills less animals than a meat-eating diet. You're attributing things to PETA that you haven't backed up. If you're going to attack that organization, there are plenty of better ways to go about it.

--snip--
They do not once mention that the production of the vegetables/grains
involves animal dealths. They do not mention that the production of
clothing, such as cotton, involves animals deaths. They encourage
people to become vegetarian, which implies that animals are not being
harmed.

I don't understand what you want. Encouraging someone to become a vegetarian does NOT imply that animals are not being harmed. It MAY imply that less animals are being harmed, which you've shown may be true.

It's dishonest by omission.

Would you prefer it if PETA listed every way in which one could kill an organism? Taking antibiotics, or walking on grass, or scratching your skin? Again, I just don't understand why you are making the argument that you are making. If someone has stated that his life is completely bloodless, then go ahead and let him know ways that he could cause less harm, and let him know that it's impossible to live without killing anything. And maybe call the psych ward at the mental hospital, let them know you have a fresh one.

 

[scribble]

In nethack, you get extra bragging rights for going through the game without eating anything. Lesser bragging rights for not eating meat, or dairy, and still lesser bragging rights for not eating just meat.

I've never made it through with any of those claims to fame. :/

 

[crimresearch]

I'm not willing to be part of the consumer process that needs customers to profit from the way veal is produced, and haven't eaten any since I was a teenager.
And I am distressed by the way factory meat production comes closer to that model over time, so I lean towards eating much less meat.

But my dilemma over eating vegetables has a lot more to do with the modern day slavery that is needed to produce enough veggies to feed the masses.

And on neither product do I have the money to make sure that I can only eat veggies grown by happy shiny commune members, or only eat volunteer free range chickens.

Likewise, I don't have the resources to verify any such claims made by my local food co-op or health food store (who are also making health benefit claims that turn out to be suspect).
How do I know that is really free trade coffee? Or union tomatoes?
How do I know that is really humane ostrich steak?

So at the end of the day, I have to admit that the real world doesn't allow us that many opportunities to live out our idealism, without becoming complicit in one unpleasant consequence or another.

 

[farmermike]

Good thread!How ethical would it be for someone to start up their SUV,drive ten miles to buy a bag of organic vegetables,drive back to a $ 300,000 home (paid for by an ethically correct job of course).Cook the veggies on a stove that's plugged into the grid with countless coal and oil fired plants at the other end.
There's no end to how far this ethics issue could be taken.We justify some things and close our eyes to others,but in my opinion meat/veggies based on ethics,you're splittin'hairs.

 

[seayakin]

There's no end to how far this ethics issue could be taken.We justify some things and close our eyes to others,but in my opinion meat/veggies based on ethics,you're splittin'hairs.

That has always been my dilemma. I try my best to have a better understanding of my impact and not disregard it. I have gone as far as being a ovo-lacto vegetarian. I have moved from this stance because I can no longer justify it in my mind.

Its like buying clothes. It is difficult some item that has had no part made in a sweat shop in some third world hell hole.

 

[Jyera]

Here's my opinion,

I propose rule of thumbs to steer us through this "ethical minefield", towards a pleasant meal.

Definition...
Ethical - Means conforming to the social or professional standard. Definitely associated with a GROUP of people. The group of people "collectively" decided what is the "Code of ethics" which is supposed to be followed. This "Code of ethics" is either explicitly written or not.

Rule 1: What constitute an ethical diet depends on who you have lunch with.

Why I say this is because, the people whom you are willing and happy to have lunch with, are your social or professional group.
If they are unhappy about your choice of food for lunch, you will know about it. If it is considered offending and unpleasant. You will be considered an outcast who has deviated from the "accepted acceptable" code of ethics/conduct.

Consider my case, in a cosmopolitan society. I can have lunch with muslim who don't eat pork. Hindu who don't eat beef. vegan who insist we eat only vegetable.
Fortunately, my lunching partners are all under another overriding "code of ethics/conduct". It is a national code of ethic and conduct to be tolerant of other's racial, religious preference. So we eat in peace and conscience.

There are instances where some people consider their own belief/practice as too sacred. In this case I never get invited for a meal together. Or I could get invited but get the feel that they would like to to convert me to adopt their practices.

Rule 2: It depends on who is most powerful and most influnential.

In many cases, the "ethical diet" specifying what is right and what is wrong to eat isn't written down. In such case, the most influnential person calls the shot. If he don't eat eggs, you ought not to eat eggs. If he finds it okay to eat grains produced by a mechanised farm that kills lots of rats, you ought not oppose.

Otherwise either one of you gets "thrown out" of the "group", depending on who is more influential. Note "thrown out" need not be physical.

If you are powerful/influential enough, you could "democratically", "politically" or "capitalistically" change the written "code of ethics" of a group.

Rule 3: Trust your internal "Disgust meter".
Everyone find something disgust. When it is disgusting, you don't eat it. This sense of disgust isn't rational nor objective. It is programmed by your experience. Which means to some extend by others. Your mother, friends, society. It is possible to change it but not easy.

One sure way to change diet preference, is to meddle with the disgust meter. Make it disgusting and peole will not eat it.

eg. Find factual photos of actual field mice being crushed into a bloody lumps on your plate.

 

[farmermike]

I feel most people base their "ethical diet"on a fuzzy feeling.Minimizing the killing of inocent lives,can I leave this world a better place,living in harmony with nature and such.Excuse me while I remove my finger from my throat.Back to reality we humans do what humans do,look out the window and see,and that seems to be basically taking raw material and transforming it into things for our use.I guess what I'm trying to say is,we're all in this together.

 

[Jyera]

Respect what we eat

Being respectful of what we eat is important.
Ethical diet based on belief might have help in the following situation.

Some pre-historic hunter gathers hunt animals to survive.
They hunted them indiscriminately until the animals become extinct in some areas. Some tribe died off due to starvation. Many others found it tough and disenchanted by the toughness to track prey in the vast plains.

Some adopted an illogical belief that they should throw a sacred bone for the gods or spirit to tell them where the animals are.

It is not necessarily scientifically proven to be effective. But this "simple random generator", plus the respect for nature, turns out to be the saviour.

Animals are hunted in a random fashion, in North South East West. Presumably in an evenly distributed fashion. Defying logic to hunt in an area previously known to have prey.
Thus the animal population get chance to recover.

To these people, to follow the instruction of the "sacred bone" is to consume an ethical diet.

Illogical it might seemed, ethical diet practice might be useful.

Muslim have the practice of making their food "Halal".
As I know they have someone to "pray" for animals that they are preparing for consumption.
In my opinion, this approach injects respect into the food they eat. It think it is good.

 

[Eleatic Stranger]

You don't happen to have any sort of evidence for that theory do you?

Just curious.....

 

[Hardenbergh]

An ethical diet involves the cooperation of the producers. For instance, the Oakhurst Dairy in Maine only does business with those dairy farmers who make a pledge not to use any artificial growth hormones. I also buy certified organic eggs and Seven Stars Farm Organic Yogurt at a health food store in the midcoast town of Damariscotta. I'm certainly not saying that I buy organic products exclusively but I appreciate the fact that they are available and that the farmers are making the effort to provide them.

Maine Organic Farmers & Gardeners Association:
www.mofga.org

 

[farmermike]

An ethical diet involves the cooperation of the producers. For instance, the Oakhurst Dairy in Maine only does business with those dairy farmers who make a pledge not to use any artificial growth hormones. I also buy certified organic eggs and Seven Stars Farm Organic Yogurt at a health food store in the midcoast town of Damariscotta. I'm certainly not saying that I buy organic products exclusively but I appreciate the fact that they are available and that the farmers are making the effort to provide them.

Maine Organic Farmers & Gardeners Association:
www.mofga.org

Does this mean that conventional farmers are doing things unethically.In the case of bst(bovine growth hormone)here in canada it is not available,but even if it were I would not use it on my herd because I don't like the idea of giving the cows shots all the time.In the end product which is milk,the milk from bst herds and non bst herd are indistinguishable because bst is naturally found in milk and the level is constant,thus Oakhurst must rely on the honour system.

 

[SpaceFluffer]

Interesting thread going on here. I want to add my name to Debaroo's list of vegetarians who know where their food comes from (and I don't mean the fridge).

I think we need to be clear about what qualities an ethical diet would have, before we can decide whether a particular diet fits the bill. For instance, is eating conventional produce bought from a local farmer's market more or less ethical than buying organic produce from one of a chain of grocery stores?

It's a sticky subject to be sure, and one I'll be sure to contribute more to once my head no longer feels like a rat died in there.

 

[Jyera]

Originally posted by rebecca quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jyera
No Beans: Genetically modified danger...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What's this mean, from both a scientific and an ethical standpoint?

I know of no danger of GM-Bean.
There is need to know if there scientifically proven difference between GM bean today and non-GM bean in the yesteryears .
Has the bean lost it's beneficial quality while picking up explicitly designed ones?
At least in my country eating more beans and drinking soyabean drink is considered good for you. And one way some merchants tout the benefit is to infer the benefit based on historical consumption. They don't just say it is edible. But says that it will make you more healthy. But bean may have changed especially with GM.

The more popular the food, it leads to more fund from demand to support research for GM for better productivity or "quality".
I suspect productivity takes precedence over quality.
As the GM-Bean become more and more different from the historically consumed bean, I am getting less and less certain that the benefit of a "traditionally-proven" food applies.

From ethical point of view.

I recall news of US wanting to give aid in the form of beans/grains to a third world country.
The third world country had refused the aid. I don't know the reason why it is dangerous for consumption. But the reason for the rejection was, they do not trust GM beans/grain. To allow the bean/grain into the country, even if it is for eating and not as seeds, it'll slip into farms and proliferate in the country. They are willing to accept the aid if the bean/grains are processed (grinded into powder). But that would significantly increase the cost. For people in those country, not eating GM bean will reject GM, and resist acceptance and proliferation of GM bean. So it is a socially responsible thing to do.

I suppose this don't only apply to GM-bean but GM food in general.

What others don't eat or don't trust, I'll take note to avoid.
But frankly I don't see anyone dying after eating/ drinking GM bean. If I have a choice, I'll choose non-GM modified product.
Else I won't be fussy.

 

[rebecca]

I know of no danger of GM-Bean.

OK, so when you said "Genetically modified danger," you didn't mean any kind of real, quantifiable danger . . . ?

From ethical point of view.

I recall news of US wanting to give aid in the form of beans/grains to a third world country.
The third world country had refused the aid. I don't know the reason why it is dangerous for consumption. But the reason for the rejection was, they do not trust GM beans/grain. To allow the bean/grain into the country, even if it is for eating and not as seeds, it'll slip into farms and proliferate in the country. They are willing to accept the aid if the bean/grains are processed (grinded into powder). But that would significantly increase the cost. For people in those country, not eating GM bean will reject GM, and resist acceptance and proliferation of GM bean. So it is a socially responsible thing to do.

I suppose this don't only apply to GM-bean but GM food in general.

What others don't eat or don't trust, I'll take note to avoid.
But frankly I don't see anyone dying after eating/ drinking GM bean. If I have a choice, I'll choose non-GM modified product.
Else I won't be fussy.

This I find very interesting -- a large group of people demonstrate an unjustifiable fear, and your solution is to join in that fear with them, despite your own research which has proven them wrong? Don't you think the more responsible solution would be to educate people, particularly when lives are at risk?

 

[SpaceFluffer]

I know of no danger of GM-Bean.
The more popular the food, it leads to more fund from demand to support research for GM for better productivity or "quality".
I suspect productivity takes precedence over quality.

Not so. GM foods are the some of the most rigorously tested foods in history. See the following report from the GAO (Government Accountability Office):

http://www.gao.gov/docdblite/summary.php?recflag=&accno=A03410&rptno=GAO-02-566

My favorite phrase is "No scientific evidence exists, nor is there even a hypothesis, suggesting that long-term harm, such as higher cancer rates, results from these foods."

Of course, the mere possibility of long-term harm cannot be completely ruled out, but a mechanism must exist for it to occur. So far, nobody has come up with one.

From ethical point of view.

I recall news of US wanting to give aid in the form of beans/grains to a third world country.
The third world country had refused the aid. I don't know the reason why it is dangerous for consumption. But the reason for the rejection was, they do not trust GM beans/grain. To allow the bean/grain into the country, even if it is for eating and not as seeds, it'll slip into farms and proliferate in the country. They are willing to accept the aid if the bean/grains are processed (grinded into powder). But that would significantly increase the cost. For people in those country, not eating GM bean will reject GM, and resist acceptance and proliferation of GM bean. So it is a socially responsible thing to do.

The reason that things like this occur is the pressure groups like Greenpeace are convinced of the dangers of GM foods and do their best to convince others of the same. In the case of the Zambia (which is the 'third world country' you reference - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/2199189.stm) there was significant pressure from many groups to the Zambian government to turn down the offer. Now many more starving people have died there - do you think they would have accepted the food even if there was a very small chance that it could harm them in the long-term? These people don't have a long-term any more...

 

[Jyera]

OK, so when you said "Genetically modified danger," you didn't mean any kind of real, quantifiable danger . . . ?

Yes you are right.
I'm sorry, to add, as far as GM food is concern, I'm poorly educated and inexperienced.

Originally posted by rebecca
This I find very interesting -- a large group of people demonstrate an unjustifiable fear, and your solution is to join in that fear with them, despite your own research which has proven them wrong? Don't you think the more responsible solution would be to educate people, particularly when lives are at risk?

I do not fear, I did not join, I made my own rational decision
about what I'll adopt.

I have no evidence that large group of people demostrated unjustifiable fear to GM food or bean.
I have no public research to prove that GM food is safe or dangerous. I'm unaware of local (Singapore) law requiring GM food to be labelled.

I'm just a simple individual making sense of what to eat safely in my changing environment.

I could predict fairly well that
"large group of people continue to demostrate apparent unjustifiable fear over many things."

I say "apparent" because it might not be fear.
And it might not be "unjustified".

Why apparent....
It might be a personal belief rationalised or irrationally decided upon until a new info comes, and new decision made to "upgrade" the belief system.
In my case, I'm not fearful of GM food. But I do know some people say that it is dangerous and decided I'll be careful. Anyway I've no lack of alternative non-GM food. And as a gluttony Singaporean, loves to eat.

Why not unjustified...
A personal decision to be cautious isn't bad. The desire to minimise my chance of death through poor choice of food justify to myself the need to be cautious. Consider a timid deer that runs at the slightest disturbance. Do we expect them to discern if a human approaching them is harmful? It's just their way of survival.

If I get to hungup about people's unjustified believe I guess I would be mad. I'm a free thinker, and have no fear of ghost because it doesn't exists. But cannot understand why some one whom I live with, who has the protection of god, is so fearful of ghost, darkness etc, etc.

[/b]Don't you think the more responsible solution would be to educate people, particularly when lives are at risk? [/B]

I don't understand whose life is at risk from what?
If you are refering to starving nations who rejected food aid because it is GM. Then yes I think their decision makers should be educated. I don't think the starving people needs any education to eat.

 

[SpaceFluffer]

Yes you are right.
I'm sorry, to add, as far as GM food is concern, I'm poorly educated and inexperienced.

No problem with not being aware of the issues, but as someone with an internet connection it's a simple matter to do some research on the subject.

I do not fear, I did not join, I made my own rational decision about what I'll adopt.

I'm confused - how can you make a 'rational decision' either way if you're admittedly 'poorly educated' on the subject? As far as I can see, you are only equipped to make a gut reaction at present...

I have no evidence that large group of people demostrated unjustifiable fear to GM food or bean.

Again, ignorance is no excuse - not when you have the internet at your disposal:

http://www.afrol.com/News2002/zam009_gmo_foodaid3.htm
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...mmentColumnists/commentColumnists_temp/2/2/4/

I have no public research to prove that GM food is safe or dangerous.

See for example, http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2002/02/04/document-165.pdf

I'm just a simple individual making sense of what to eat safely in my changing environment.

That's great - but you need to know at least some facts about the subjects before you can start to make sense of what to eat safely.

I don't understand whose life is at risk from what?
If you are refering to starving nations who rejected food aid because it is GM. Then yes I think their decision makers should be educated. I don't think the starving people needs any education to eat.

The problem is people making gut reactions to GM foods without knowing the facts and pushing this viewpoint onto others. There are plenty of people in Greenpeace who've made a similar snap decision on GM foods to the one you've made. They just happen to go around trying to convince others too.

 

[rebecca]

No problem with not being aware of the issues, but as someone with an internet connection it's a simple matter to do some research on the subject. . . . etc.

What he said.