I don't see the real health issues behind it, nor have I heard of many cases in which genetically modified food has put peoples health at risk. Carrots are an example of a food that has been genetically modified over time. Before the 17th century, almost all carrots were purple and the only reason why they are orange now is because of human interference using cross breeding methods.
The process of genetically modifying food is radically different from traditionally selective breeding and cross-breeding techniques. It involves the artificial modification of systemic DNA which
could in turn, theoretically, pose a health risk. This risk is absent in more natural forms of selective breeding, which simply requires the expedited evolution of traits in plant foods that are beneficial to or preferred by humans.
I dont really care. If one thinks GMO's are bad (idk if they are or not) or some government conspiracy to dumb down the population (yes, really), thats fine- just dont interfere with the rest of us. Go eat the organic stuff.
I dont know much about GMO's, but as far as I know, they aren't particularly bad for you and they allow for the more crops to be grown. However, I do not like the billions of dollars of government money going towards Monsanto and stuff.
Well, the idea of a government conspiracy is not completely out of the question. We do have
politicians who promise to make actions against GMO prevalence in our food supply, only to turn around and protect Monsanto once elected. I do not see how anyone is interfering with people's ability to eat GMO foods. They are nearly ubiquitous at this point, so if you want to assume the potential risks, by all means no one is stopping you. Still, many would like them to be labeled to increase consumer awareness of the ubiquity of GMO foods. It's not like it's impossible to tell now. You can rest nearly assured that any food that is not certified non-GMO or organic will run a huge risk of being genetically modified. Whether government compliance and subsidization constitutes a viable conspiracy is up for debate.
Because scientists are doing it, so it caused a backlash with the religious saying we're trying to play god. It's hardly god if you can do the same thing primitively by forcing animals/crops/etc to breed. The only real difference now is that genes donors can be animals from different genuses, etc.
This really misses the mark on what the debate is about, and how it has been framed by different groups. Traditionalist religious groups do not typically concern themselves with such ecological and nutritional concerns, though I don't want to overgeneralize. But this is not at all what the debate on GMOs rests on.
Combatting world hunger in developing nations would be one, as the only real way to sustainably feed those people is with GMOs with increased yields and resistant to the ills (pests, too much rain or lack thereof, of that particular area or region - not everything would normally grow wherever we need it to. You work around environmental limitations that way.
GMOs are safe, the science has made that abundantly clear. Now that being said, I don't like the idea of a huge corporation like Monsanto owning the food supply, directly or indirectly. That's where the apprehension should be coming from, not from the science of the thing.
We already waste
one third of the food produced globally. So higher yields means... yes, more food waste. If we already produce enough food to feed everyone in the world, why would producing more of it combat world hunger? There are tons of creative suggestions on how to combat world hunger. Particularly in Africa, strategies have been suggested to slow population growth, give more monetary resources to the people of Africa backed by the natural resources of the continent, provide poor Africans with agricultural skills and resources and disseminate human resource aid in hard-to-reach, remote areas of Africa. It is accepted that it is well within our means (as Western civilization, generally) to combat world hunger in meaningful ways. Growing more food is generally not a strategy that is discussed because it ignores critical failures in food dissemination that exist now in a wasteful world.
And with the science, it is more disputed than often made out to be. The posts in this thread would have many believe the science is settled when it is not.
Potential risks have been highlighted by many researchers who conclude that while there is no decisive proof of these risks that toxicity could result from the reckless genetic modification of our food supply.
Currently, we know that the majority of GMO's are safe, and have a net benefit. Of course research should be ongoing, and we should continue making sure that the things we eat are safe for our bodies and the environment, and won't have serious side-effects. We should also be wary of who's doing what and why - corporations care most about money and are amoral (neither moral nor immoral), after all.
~Psychic
Well, I don't agree about corporations, which are run by human calculation, as being amoral. Intentionally ignoring the potential risks of a business decision is, in my opinion, immoral. Though many economists would likely challenge me on this claim.
I don't see it as a problem at all. The anti-GMO movement seems like a marketing ploy to me. I went into a smaller local grocer with a huge sign above the door that said everything in the store was GMO free.
It's now also penetrating into the pet world...while getting horse feed the other day at my local mom and pop feed store I noted a new horse feed available: non-GMO, organic, soybean free, limited ingredient, non artificial, natural feed (seriously, EVERY single one of those adjectives were on the bag). The feed was also almost double the price and regular horse feed is already really expensive anyway. That's simply insane to me
Well, I wouldn't pay for all that in horse feed, but I would in food for myself.
