4 ms·
Again this is not about millions of lives saved, but about potential millions of lives saved. Where is the _actual_ evidence of GMO’s salvation of millions?
by SlowBro 9y ago
Again this is not about millions of lives saved, but about potential millions of lives saved.
Where is the _actual_ evidence of GMO’s salvation of millions?
- AstralStorm 9y agoThe problem is lack of control group. The control group is heavily pesticide laden non-GMO... (Green Revolution. Heh.) Those practices were invented some 60 years ago. It is not just artificial fertilizers. So unless you somehow solve the problem of mass producing food in pesticide free agriculture, please do not ask for impossible studies.
- SlowBro 9y agoIf evidence cannot be provided, then I kindly ask that impossible-to-prove assertions not be made. But the control group — wouldn’t it be non-GMO crops of any kind, organic or non? The assertion, yet to be provided evidence for, is that with gene editing many more millions are no longer suffering malnutrition. That seems to me to be easy evidence to provide if it’s true. If it’s true, evidence should be able to be shown that nutrition content has increased by X percent leading to X thousand lives not perishing. “Since the introduction of high vitamin C rice in Zambezia, the rates of scurvy have dropped by 32%. Vitamin C is difficult to obtain in Zambezia by any other means.” I don’t see how a discussion of pesticides enters into it. By the way, Nobel laureates can be wrong. The prize was awarded in 1948 for the invention of DDT.[1] [1] https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1948/ https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1...
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]