With a new batch of genetically modified corn crops set to debut next month, consumers will soon be able to eat more organic meat, but what about the meat from the corn itself?
The answer is, it’s probably a lot of different things.
“The first question is, what kind of meat do you want?
What kind of animal do you feed your kids?” says Greg St. Pierre, the president of the Humane Society of the United States.
“That’s really a very difficult question to answer.
But we’ve got a bunch of options.”
That question is likely to become even more of a priority as the corn crop goes public.
“People are going to be looking for a variety of meats,” says St. Prince.
And that’s going to require a new understanding of what is and isn’t safe for humans, and how the technology works, and what you can do to mitigate risks.
That’s what the Humane World has been doing in the wake of its decision to phase out corn imports.
It’s the world’s largest organization for animal welfare, and it’s not going away anytime soon.
In 2013, the organization announced that it would no longer use genetically modified (GM) corn to feed animals in the United Kingdom, citing health and environmental concerns.
It then went on to eliminate the use of GM corn in its production of meat.
In 2016, the same organization announced its intention to stop using GM corn for meat production in the U.K. for the first time in nearly 40 years.
The decision was largely driven by the fact that the U!
government had made it a crime to use GMO-tolerant corn, and the Humane Food Action Coalition, an advocacy group, had organized protests around the country, arguing that the country’s food supply was being driven by a transnational corporation that was killing animals for profit.
So, too, were groups like the Humane League, which has lobbied to ban GM corn imports in the country for decades.
The group has spent the past year pushing lawmakers in several states to do the same, and now they’re asking the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to step in.
The agency is now considering a request from the organization, and its executive director, Andrew Wakefield, is pushing to get the FDA to act.
“I think the FDA is going to have to be proactive and take the lead on this,” he told Politico last week.
“They have to say, ‘No, we’ve seen this and we can’t be in the business of selling meat and milk from this corn that has been genetically engineered to be resistant to a toxin, a herbicide, and to not produce the best quality of meat for human consumption.'”
And that includes the corn, which is genetically engineered with a trait called “mutagenic resistance.”
It’s one of the few traits in corn that the USDA has labeled as potentially dangerous, meaning that the corn is prone to a variety, if not every, of human cancers, birth defects, and other illnesses.
“If we are to make meat safe, we have to get to a place where we can look at the meat and say, well, what are we going to do with that meat if we can no longer produce it?” says St Pierre.
“And the way we’ve looked at meat in the past is, we make it safe by having a good quality product.
We make it delicious.
We don’t make it poisonous.
We’re not going to kill the plant, so we don’t have to make it toxic.
So, to make that argument, they’re going to need to have a lot more data, a lot less precedent. “
What we’re really asking the FDA and the USDA to do is to say to them, ‘This is a really, really bad product, and if you’re not looking at it, we’re not doing our job.'”
So, to make that argument, they’re going to need to have a lot more data, a lot less precedent.
St. Francis says he thinks the FDA should make sure that the new products aren’t genetically modified to be harmful to humans, but he also believes that the agency is not going in that direction.
“It’s very, very hard to look at all the data, to be honest,” he says.
“But we’re going into a world where it’s going away, where we’re seeing the effects of the herbicide glyphosate, where there are other chemicals in the food supply, and that’s really dangerous for us as consumers.
So I don’t think the federal government has a right to say no to a lot, if any, of these products.
They’ve already done a lot to get us to this point, and they have a responsibility to protect our food supply.”
The agency’s request for data will also need to go through a public comment period, which will be open to the public and can be rescheduled if enough people send in comments.
And then the agency