3 ms·
> Pardon the editorial, but God only knows what GMOs do, to the body and the gut, under these circumstances. I agree with most of what you said but the jury is
by jcoffland 9y ago
> Pardon the editorial, but God only knows what GMOs do, to the body and the gut, under these circumstances.
I agree with most of what you said but the jury is still out on GMOs. GMOs are not just one thing either. Some may prove to be bad for us and others beneficial. The biggest problem with the anti-GMO campaign is that it's driving force is a general distrust of science rather than facts.
- tonyedgecombe 9y agoI think it's more a distrust of the commercial entities involved rather than the science.
- chiefalchemist 9y agoI know someone in the GMO field. I've asked him about gut bacteria. The reply was, "Good question. Big issue right now..." That's from the (private) horse's mouth. Yet I haven't seen that in anything I've read. That concerns me.
- chiefalchemist 9y agoPerhaps. But the problem with the pro-GMO side is you can't say something is safe when you haven't fully tested it. Specifically, I'm speaking about gut bacteria - in humans and up and down the food chain. We are in the early days of knowledge about the gut, and how it effects the entire system. So it's just not possible to test for safety. Sure you can eat it. You don't die. That doesn't mean you should. GMOs are about yield and farming. They're not about humans, nutrition, and the gut. That's the context that can not be dismissed.
- jcoffland 9y agoIf you really think gut bacteria are important then maybe you should go get a stool transplant. We just don't know and the immediate assumption that GMOs are guilty until proven innocent is both uninformed and counterproductive.