The science has been well and truely proven…they aren’t experimental and about 20% of Australia’s canola crop is GMO.
Yes, some GM plants impact on pest animals/insects to maximise crop yield while minimising pesticide use. Because GM plants purpose is to impact on these pests, it doesn’t translate to impacting on people.
There are many things which are also toxic to other vertebrates/mammals and not toxic to humans. A good example is chocolate, while it is toxic to dogs, human can eat it without the same risks.
GM crops are regulated in Australia and if there was any hint that it impacted on human health, it would not be approved as an agricultural crop…or approvals cancelled if already approved.
This was nothing to do with health, but the transfer of the modified genetic material through polinatiin to the organic crop. The organiic crop as a result would exhibit some of the properties of the GM crop if sold and used a seed for crops. While I may not necessarily agree with the basis of the court case, it is something which Australia must accept if GM crops are grown.
Yes, if there was a difference between non-GM and GM crops. As there is no nutritional or health difference, then the only basis for knowing the difference is possibly to satisify a belief. It is bit like knowing if your food is organic irrespective of it is certified or not, endorsed by someone famous who says one should eat it and the list goes on.
If one eats processed foods or prepared meals, the çhances of eating GM increases as it is used in many products. Purchasing foods made with from ingredients sourced other countries, where those ingredients are potentially GMO, also increases one’s chances of eating ingredients from GMOs.
Labelling of GM foods has also been covered here…
