3 ms·
I think they were referring to unintended risks. There's probably less chance modify a plant in an inadvertently bad way with GE as its more precise. But yes if
by 7sigma 10y ago
I think they were referring to unintended risks. There's probably less chance modify a plant in an inadvertently bad way with GE as its more precise. But yes if you want to weaponise an organism, it easier with GE.
However, from my understanding, the regulations of GMOs are much more stringent than for other types of breeding.
You can traditionally breed a potato to have high levels of solanine and i'm not sure whether regulations would stop it from going to market.
- strainer 10y agoModern GE may be achieving degrees of precision in certain biochemical contexts, but in other biological contexts essential to establishing GMO safety we still face confounding complexity and mystery. We should recognise life on Earth is vulnerable to human error (CFCs, Global warming ...) and respect the process and fruits of natural history.
- 7sigma 10y ago"and respect the process and fruits of natural history" sounds to me like an appeal to nature fallacy. The crops we grow have been modified beyond recognition from their wild counterparts. Add to that use of mutagenics to randomly mutate plant dna and that hasn't ushered any cataclysm. That doesn't mean that there aren't any danger and you can't prove beyond doubt that any food is safe, at the end of the day its a risk vs benefit decision. The evidence shows that GE crops lead to less land use via better efficiency and reduced pesticide use.