We are what we eat

In Russia, they suddenly spoke about the new rules for registering GMOs, what exactly to attribute to them and how to continue to live with it. And this, of course, is a very serious question.

If the medical drug or sweetener is obtained using genetically modified bacteria-is it GMO or not? If the cow was powered by transgenic soy flour - it has become transgenic, to be registered with information on packaging? The traditional opinion of the majority is that it is necessary to register. And write on the label in large red letters. “We are what we eat,” so we must know what exactly we buy. The more information, the easier it is to make his choice to the consumer.

GMOs are still half -worn. Yes, and not find them today in the vastness of our Motherland. Similar requirements for the need to transfer on the label, in the column “composition”, the names of antibiotics that were treated with cows have long been heard. And on the packages of juice - pesticides that processed apples. Individual fans of natural economy require even to write about fertilizers that were introduced into the soil. Have the right to know.

Personally, I am for the label only relevant information to be listed. Calorie content, but not according to the reference book, but real. The content of proteins, fats, carbohydrates, vitamins. Best before date. Contraindications for certain categories of citizens. All the extra information that is not related to health, but contributing to the development of unhealthy competition, is to remove.

In fact, the phrase “contains GMOs” is meaningless and harmful. It is perceived not as information about the composition, but as a pointer to the catastrophic consequences for health. Which are not and never will be. If you do not really believe the newspapers and the TV in order to avoid the effect of “Nocebo” (from lat. Nocebo - “I damage”, the term invented as an antithesis to “placebo”. - Ed .). A reliably proven fact is that GMOs are no more harmful than ordinary products. At least equivalent. In most cases, it is better. Residual amounts of antibiotics in meat and milk, pesticides in vegetables, if they meet the norms, also do not harm a person. This is the same scientifically established fact. Why indicate them in the composition? For the development of no advantages, but backward technology of organic farming? The competition is not very honest.

Well, well, let it be in your opinion. We are what we eat, and the origin of food matters. Let there be complete information. Fertilizers are made of chemicals, pesticides - from oil, GMOs are generally made using viruses and bacteria. We eat oil, chemistry and viruses, many of us do not want to do this and have the right to do so.

So what to indicate in the composition? Where to find a balance between extreme opinions - only relevant or most detailed information? Is it possible to do this in principle? An attempt is not torture.

We will reason sequentially, starting from the maximum. We will have to list all the genes that are contained in the product and where they came from. But I demand that not only the “built -in” artificially be indicated. I am also a consumer and have the right to know about all genes in general. Be sure to paint when each gene arose during evolution. It is necessary to indicate all available proteins with the image of the spatial structure. What if they are “incorrectly folded”, and I am very afraid of Prion. Of course, we add to the list and antibiotics, pesticides and the rest of the chemistry that fell into the product, regardless of the quantity. I got it, it means you need to indicate. We have the right to know.

Obviously, at the exit, we will receive a certain semblance of a chemical encyclopedia in n volumes instead of the label. Muchno. It is necessary to reduce. We will use a simple idea that consumers cannot but support. We will look at the origin.

As for genes, proteins, fats, carbohydrates - everything is clear here. Their source is necessarily photosynthesis. Sunlight, carbon dioxide, water and some minerals. The list has sharply reduced. We write down instead of a list of dozens of pesticides - oil. Oil, in turn, if you adhere to the theory of its biogenic origin, can also be described as a product of photosynthesis. From the point of view of origin, the composition of any product is well unified to the list of those molecules that were once used by plants to be transformed and eaten by us. Light, water, carbon dioxide and a relatively non -long list of different mineral components.

We move on. Molecules consist of atoms. There are many atoms of different, a whole table of Mendeleev. Does it make sense to list them all? Not at all. Protons, neutrons, electrons - these are their composition. And do not forget about sunlight, call it “photons”, without it there is no photosynthesis.

A guest reader may decide that I will climb into quarks and strings theory, but he will be mistaken. I want to get away from the spatial measurement in temporary. To go back, at the very beginning, when there was nothing but such a small singularity, until the big explosion of which was nothing. It is after all that quarters, and protons, and atoms, and genes, pesticides, and GMOs with its defenders and opponents appeared from it. So, information about the composition on an ideal, universal label, which will never mislead anyone and should like all interested parties equally, will sound simply: “Singleularity point, time” (original idea: http://xkcd.com/1123/ ).