5 ms·
Meh. GMOs has a specific commonly-understood meaning. Pretending that it means something else is just silly
by circlefavshape 10y ago
Meh. GMOs has a specific commonly-understood meaning. Pretending that it means something else is just silly
- okket 10y agoSo GMOs are good if their mutations are random and bad if they are on purpose? One could also argue that directed mutation GMOs are safer. Because unlike random mutations, on purpose mutations are thoroughly checked afterwards.
- nikolay 10y agoWell, mutations on purpose did not pass thousands of years of testing in the environment, also, pairing with pesticides is a problem, too, specifically, glyphosate.
- dragonwriter 10y agoGlyphosate is an herbicide, not a pesticide. And mutations that are random but rapidly through modern non-"GMO" breeding techniques are no more proven by thousands of years than GMOs are, and those developing and deploying them have a lot less knowledge of what changes are induced and what health impacts they may have. But since they aren't GMOs their apparently okay with the anti-GMO crowd. There is no rational or scientific reason for this.
- nikolay 10y agoAccording to EPA, a herbicide is a pesticide.
- nikolay 10y agoThe anti-GMO crowd is simply the conservative reasoning crowd, not necessarily the unscientific one. Why? Well, nutrition science still advocates for low-fat, low-sodium, low-cholesterol diets. Doctors still prescribe Lipitor; Tylenol is still OTC; prostate cancer is still "cured" with unnecessary invasive surgeries, mammograms although questioned as a self-fulfilling prophecy are still widely used, CAT scans with their huge amounts of radiation are still performed for benign symptoms, and so on. Just because there's a (poor!) study about something, it's not a good enough reason for people to change their reasoning - so the heuristic is that everything new is too risky for the slightly better yield. I might be pro-science and pro-technology, but when it comes to what I ingest and how I live, I'm more than conservative, and it's been working well for me. Most science is bad science, unfortunately. Until AI starts dominating science, I can't trust scientists 100%, sorry! Especially about super complex stuff like nutrition and metabolism! Our bodies are the most complex system in the visible universe, and I don't think we can predict the outcomes of each intervention. What we know for a fact is that we're best adapted to our tradition diets and foods!
- Oletros 10y agoWhat has to do nutrition science with GMO? > Most science is bad science, unfortunately. Until AI starts dominating science, I can't trust scientists 100%, sorry! Yes, let's distrust Gravity Laws, don't trust physicists > What we know for a fact is that we're best adapted to our tradition diets and foods! What are those tradition diets and foods?
- nikolay 10y agoBy "bad science" I meant bad health science and I apologize for not being clear. That also happens to be the department of science most obviously linked to commercial interest! A lot of studies have sponsored outcomes! "Traditional" varies from population to population and that's a subject for Epigenetics and the fact that it takes 4-6 generations to fully adapt to a new diet.
- dragonwriter 10y agoCoherent conservative reasoning would treat modern mutagenic breeding with at least as much suspicion as GMOs. So, no, conservative reasoning is not an adequate explanation of the anti-GMO crowd.
- nikolay 10y agoYou can cross-breed a tomato with a fish though as done in some GMOs - you can only do small incremental and closer to nature changes.