5 ms·
There is justification for GMOs regardless. The justifications are simply more or less strong depending on the market climate.
by ovao 8y ago
There is justification for GMOs regardless. The justifications are simply more or less strong depending on the market climate.
- chiefalchemist 8y agoPlease explain.
- ovao 8y agoThere's always justification for genetically-modified foods from a producer's perspective, in that improving yields by reducing time-to-ripen, improving disease resistance and other attributes by means of genetic modification is simply 'good business'. The justification to use genetic modification is of course always potentially counter-balanced by consumer backlash to GMOs. Eliminating the need for such modification -- for the sake of the argument -- does not negate the argument for genetic modification from a business perspective. It may weaken it to the point that it's not good practice, but never outright negates it. (Note that this isn't an argument for GMOs, just an argument that they can be justified from a producer's perspective as merely a business function.)
- chiefalchemist 8y agoAnd all that leads back to yield. The need to increase yield is a myth. A myth paid for and perpetuated by those who benefit from that myth. Let's not be naive. p.s. A couple years ago Bloomberg did a feature on farming and GMOs. Over the course of the entire article there was not a single mention about health, nutrition, etc. We're talking about food. Not widgets. We're talking about health. Not some scientist with a hard-on for fame and fortune. Again. Let's no be so naive.
- ovao 8y agoIt's not clear to me what a Bloomberg writer's omissions in an article have to do with my own so-called naivety about food production, so I really can't comment on...whatever it is you're insinuating.