Quote:
Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy
I'm a scientist. Show me the data that says GMOs are unsafe to eat. Show me the data that says they're a problem. You may say they haven't been tested enough for your satisfaction, but they have been extensively tested, there's a ton of data available. Moreso than on most foods. What of it proves there's any problem here?
You can speculate on whatever you like, but in science data trumps speculation, always. Let's see the data.
As I said, I agree with you on chemical pesticide residues. But, if anything, those are worse on non-GMOs. In any event, it's a separate issue.
|
How are pesticide residues worse on non gmos if genetic modification is done almost entirely for pesticide or herbicide resistance? They are genetically modifying our food to spray more chemicals on it not less. Most genetic modification is done by chemical companies trying to sell more chemicals. In bt crops the pesticide is actually made in the plant itself. There is evidence that bt crops are responsible for the mass death of bees. Without bees it would be impossible to feed the world.
As discussed in this thread the only evidence that gmo's are harmful is empirical evidence and the reason for that is because Monsanto doesn't allow testing. The only testing that has been done is by Monsanto, and I do not trust them enough to say their own product is safe. GMO's have been banned in other countries because of reports of animals dying after eating genetically modified crops. All I am saying is that the long term effects of gmos need to be tested by an independent researcher. Of course Monsanto wouldn't allow this and if they did Monsanto would try to discredit any researcher that found any negative effects.
Feel free to eat your pesticide laden, nutrient deficient, processed foods. I'll take care of myself and my family, and at this point I couldn't care less about what everyone else eats.
