View Single Post
      06-04-2014, 12:38 AM   #139

Drives: 2010 128 Covertible
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Mountains

iTrader: (0)


Originally Posted by bmw325i View Post
Like I said before I am not against gmo's just because it is new technology. I am against them because they are untested. Next you guys are going to start telling me that DDT, PCB's, and dioxins are safe and I am just overreacting.
Thing is, GMOs are not the same thing at all. The chemicals you list are known to have adverse effects. GMO's are not. They're just a variation on the genetic engineering we've always done to crops. Today's corn bears little resemblance to what was grown by Native Americans back when.

I'm on your side about chemical contamination of our food. Not to mention the risks to ag workers. But one goal GMO's are engineered for is natural pest resistance, reducing the need for chemicals. It's a better tool, with less likelihood of unintended consequences. Take this statement for example:

"Alternatively, the new gene could interfere with a metabolic pathway causing a stressed plant to produce more toxins in response. Although these effects have not been observed in GM plants, they have been observed through conventional breeding methods creating a safety concern for GM plants." In other words, we've seen this issue in conventionally genetically modified plants, which few worry about, so we're worried about it in GMOs, even though nobody has ever seen it in GMOs. To me, this is an argument for GMOs, not against.

It seems to me that a lot of the force of the anti-GMO people comes from the unfortunate anti-science attitude prevalent today. Any time a sentence starts with "we just don't know enough...", I'm skeptical. Nothing is perfectly safe, but GMOs just haven't been found to have serious adverse consequences, and they have been tested extensively, even if not enough for some people. It's mostly speculative fear.

Last edited by 128Convertibleguy; 06-04-2014 at 12:58 AM..