Originally posted by StratComm
Idiots. Now there are issues with GM crops that are legitimate, but 99% of the stuff that makes the news doesn't come close. Cross pollonating with other crops (of the same species) to produce strains with unknown and unpredictable traits, yes, that's a concern. Cross-pollonating with a weed so far genetically removed from any form of commercially exploitable crop in a way that even creates a viable offspring? Not so likely. PETA, the orgo food camp, all of them have their heads in the sensationalistic, not the realistic.
Exactly.
There are some problems associated with GM foods that could cause possible problems. I'm not surprised. They are only a few years old while conventional farming is thousends of years of constant improvement. There are bound to be teething troubles whenever you try something like this. However running around like chicken little is not the way to solve the problems. What needs to be done is a sensible analysis of the potential problems and ways to solve them or limit their impact.
The anti-GM lobby aren't against GM because of the dangers. They are anti-GM because they're luddites. The problem isn't the safety of GM, the problem is that it
is GM. These people have a fundemental objection to the idea of GM food and no amount of science will ever convince them because it's almost religious with them (in fact for many of them it is religious!).
Originally posted by Rictor
Regarding GM foods, I am certainly not a fanatic or extremist when it comes to accepting them if they are indeed useful. I don't know enough to pass judgement (no one here does I expect), but it they are useful then sure - bring 'em on. However, I have a general opinion that when you try to mess with nature's doing, you only end up screwing yourself in the end. We are as of yet too stupid and technologically primitive to forsee all sideeffects of new technology. If you try to improve upon nature, generally you get al sorts of terrible and unpredictable sideffects. But if "they" managed to prove GM foods have more benefits than drawbacks, I'm for it.
That's the other arguement I hate. The it's not natural arguement. Load of crap. If you want natural move out of the city, buy some land and hunt mammoths on it. The very act of living in the city is unnatural. Instead of hunting and living off the land we set aside part of the country to grow specially breed plant and animal species who we then kill to provide us with our food.
All farming is unnatural. Plain and simple. The consequences of organic farming I mentioned above are futher proof of the fact that it's unnatural too.
So again what we need to do is to sit down and compare all the methods of farming against each other. What needs to be seen is how much damage they do to the enviroment compared to the amount of food they bring in. This whole unnatural arguement is just a smokescreen and a flawed one at that since organic farming does more damage to the enviroment than conventional farming does due to it's unnaturalness.
