Quote:
Originally Posted by carve
Plants have been modified since the dawn of agriculture. Direct gene manipulation is just the latest way to do this. It's using a scalpel for what we used to use a hammer for. The way your crop is modified is not inherently good or bad; the end results are. This is analogous to how a book written on a computer isn't inherently better or worse than one written by hand; it's just a lot easier to do on a computer.
GMO crops are commonly developed to resist pests with less need for pesticides. They're developed to be RoundUp resistant so we can now use roundup herbicide instead of the far more toxic herbicides we had to use in the past. They can also be developed to be more drought resistant, sometime more nutritious, to have DRAMATICALLY more edible yield per acre, and to be adaptable to different soils with less need for chemical fertilizers. Their biggest threat to the environment is that far fewer people starve to death, contributing to population growth. No peer-reviewed study has shown negative health consequences. Monsanto has only ever sued farmers who violate their contracts, and then donates the proceeds to charity.
I'd say an overall win, eh?
|
Not one thing you've said is true.
Organic farming is not hard at all. There's no reason organic food has to cost more money, as you can get better yields with very little cost. Modern farming methods decrease the quality of soil over time, wheras organic farming improves the soil over time. GMO's are not sustainable.
And btw Monsanto has also sued nongmo farmers that got their crops contaminated and reused their seeds. Its all about profit.