Genetically Modified With Human Genes - Will You Eat It?

Well, in my ideal world, people would pay for the product features they want, and would have the freedom to do without the feature and not paying its price. Information on food boxes is just another such product feature. But as I said, I have no major problem with your request, and it's well within the range of policies I would be willing to compromise on.

tommrr wrote:
So if a baseball player eats the rice, would he violate the MLB drug policy concerning human growth hormones?


You do realise that liver enzymes and HGHs are different substances, correct?

I agree. I just don't feel it's fair that, as it stands, we have to pay extra for the absence of features.

I see you have a 'different' view of what constitutes a feature. If foods that are genetically engineered are a bonus, good for us, good for everyone, then I shouldn't have to pay more for food that doesn't have it. If they are the equivalent of trains running through the front lawn and roaches in the kitchen, then I should. Or rather, then they should be discounted, and as obvious to spot as roaches and trains.

This has been happening for centuries, the only idfference is that we are speeding up the process. Have any of you ever seen corn that was around when the white man arrived. It was short and not very ediable. (sp)

How about if it's a feature that is good for some people and bad for others -- which, if you're right, is the best description of genetically engineered crops? For example, many people like sugary stuff, and are arguably willing to pay more if it has more sugar in it. A few others, including diabetics such as myself, get sick and even die from it. We routinely pay extra for ice cream, cookies etc. precisely because they don't have sugar in them. Would you say we are treated unfairly? It certainly never occurred to me that we are.