Can I just say first that this is only my opinion and I'm not after a flame war with anyone at all.
Bear in mind our very own autoflowers have been genetically modified through generational selection at the very least.
I do not agree that GMO foods are a bad thing for humanity, the majority of the world's population do not have enough to eat, they starve!
We are in the lucky position of living in 1st world countries and can choose what we eat based on taste/beliefs/morals as opposed to eating to survive.
If we redefine genetic modification for this argument and say we're only talking about organisms that have been genetically altered in laboratories instead of through breeding then we can't go any earlier than the discovery of DNA in the 1940's and realistically we can't call something truly a lab modified organism until genome mapping and chromosome sequencing became a realistic commercial possibility with more powerful computers from the early 1990's onwards.
We are now in the position that the presumption that GMO's are safe is rightly being questioned, definitive proof of whether they are safe or unsafe does not yet exist.
There has been nowhere near enough research on the effect of each modification as a whole or as part of multiple modifications to each specific plant on humans. Each one would need to be done individually and Monsanto, for example, if they have really bothered to do human research, aren't telling us much at all.
Want to bet human testing is taking place right now on entire populations in the poorer countries of the world who don't have as many hungry lawyers as we do?
Equally on the other side of the argument there is a lot of pseudo science and unproven claims being used by the anti-GM movement, much like that youtube video. I can't find any scientific sources for the claims made in this video, the one's I've found that are close to what's in the video are either inconclusive or just one scientist's opinion, no collective scientific opinion which in my view makes the video just anti-GM propoganda.
The main reason to alter the genetics of a food crop is to allow it to thrive in climates and conditions it would not normally be found and to increase the size of harvest.
Pest resistance is another use but the safety risks of doing that has to be balanced against the proven hazards of pesticides which imo are a much greater threat than any genetic modification.
Feeding the world seems like a fair enough reason to modify food crops but the problem is that it costs a lot to achieve and is only really a viable option to large multinationals.
Whether we trust them or not is a whole different argument!
I personally don't think it's worth the deaths of generations of humans who don't get to choose where they are born on our planet because those of us lucky to be where we are are a little bit worried that we might lose a year or two off our already overextended life spans.
I guess you could say I'm a humanist who genuinely believes the brotherhood of man applies to the world as a whole
Bear in mind our very own autoflowers have been genetically modified through generational selection at the very least.
I do not agree that GMO foods are a bad thing for humanity, the majority of the world's population do not have enough to eat, they starve!
We are in the lucky position of living in 1st world countries and can choose what we eat based on taste/beliefs/morals as opposed to eating to survive.
If we redefine genetic modification for this argument and say we're only talking about organisms that have been genetically altered in laboratories instead of through breeding then we can't go any earlier than the discovery of DNA in the 1940's and realistically we can't call something truly a lab modified organism until genome mapping and chromosome sequencing became a realistic commercial possibility with more powerful computers from the early 1990's onwards.
We are now in the position that the presumption that GMO's are safe is rightly being questioned, definitive proof of whether they are safe or unsafe does not yet exist.
There has been nowhere near enough research on the effect of each modification as a whole or as part of multiple modifications to each specific plant on humans. Each one would need to be done individually and Monsanto, for example, if they have really bothered to do human research, aren't telling us much at all.
Want to bet human testing is taking place right now on entire populations in the poorer countries of the world who don't have as many hungry lawyers as we do?
Equally on the other side of the argument there is a lot of pseudo science and unproven claims being used by the anti-GM movement, much like that youtube video. I can't find any scientific sources for the claims made in this video, the one's I've found that are close to what's in the video are either inconclusive or just one scientist's opinion, no collective scientific opinion which in my view makes the video just anti-GM propoganda.
The main reason to alter the genetics of a food crop is to allow it to thrive in climates and conditions it would not normally be found and to increase the size of harvest.
Pest resistance is another use but the safety risks of doing that has to be balanced against the proven hazards of pesticides which imo are a much greater threat than any genetic modification.
Feeding the world seems like a fair enough reason to modify food crops but the problem is that it costs a lot to achieve and is only really a viable option to large multinationals.
Whether we trust them or not is a whole different argument!
I personally don't think it's worth the deaths of generations of humans who don't get to choose where they are born on our planet because those of us lucky to be where we are are a little bit worried that we might lose a year or two off our already overextended life spans.
I guess you could say I'm a humanist who genuinely believes the brotherhood of man applies to the world as a whole
Hope to convert half of my tent energies to herbs and veggies
