4 ms·
I mean, you're certainly not wrong. The article went from discussing the issue of going back to non-GMO on the environment to a full-on "here's the data for lik
by BinaryIdiot 10y ago
I mean, you're certainly not wrong. The article went from discussing the issue of going back to non-GMO on the environment to a full-on "here's the data for like 50 things that shows how awesome GMO is".
While I am certainly for using GMOs (there is too much great science behind it) this article just screams "someone paid me to write this".
I would have loved to see something much more focused on the topic at hand: large companies switching to non-GMO sugars to appease the current market forces and what this may mean as far as food production, etc could go. I mean the article touched on that a tiny bit here and there but not in any satisfying way in my opinion.
- smaddox 10y agoBill Nye had an interesting chapter on his change of view on GMO's in one of his recent books. Personally, I see genetic engineering as the path to apotheoses. The risk of it leading us the opposite direction is very real, though. The solution is not to avoid it all together, but rather to tread carefully.
- 7sigma 10y agothats why gmos are the most tested foods in history (despite what the naysaysers say) Mutagenic crops devised with stuff like cobalt 60 was never tested. Also you can breed a potato to be poisonous. In the end its a case by case basis Edit: spelling