3 ms·

> Why would "traditional" crops going through random mutations be any safer Time and scale. We just had more time to check it out. > highly tested mutations

> Why would "traditional" crops going through random mutations be any safer Time and scale. We just had more time to check it out. > highly tested mutations Highly tested for being economically sound. That's all. > It isn't a mysterious process - it's science Nobody said it was mysterious. Read the comment again. We are not against progress. Quoting Rabelais, "science without conscience is but the ruin of the soul". The testing process needs to be improved. > It's probably the only thing which has helped curtail world hunger in any meaningful capacity. We already produce more food than we need. We throw a lot of it and we are fat while others are hungry. Hunger, not more than war, has never been a technological problem. It's a human problem. And GMO sellers have no interest in solving human problems, they target economical problems. Again, it's a matter of agenda.

SquareWheel 8y ago
>Time and scale. We just had more time to check it out. Random mutations don't follow a pattern. They're random. You can't look at the past history and say "Yep look fine to me". >Highly tested for being economically sound. That's all. Complete nonsense. GMOs are studied extensively for their nutrition, allergens, toxicity, and virtually every other metric under the sun. This testing is a requirement of the FDA. "Economics" has nothing to do with it, and you're just throwing out Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt to try and discredit it. >The testing process needs to be improved. Where has it failed? There has not been a single allergen introduced in any GMO approved for human consumption. The same can not be said for non-GMOs. >We already produce more food than we need. So it's a solved problem and no new technology is needed, right? People are still dying. GMOs are the only method that have allowed us to keep up with the problem at all. >And GMO sellers have no interest in solving human problems Food shortages and malnourishment aren't "human problems"? GMOs like Golden Rice have been engineered specifically to solve this human problem. GMOs allow farmers to produce the same yields in less farmland, reducing the environmental impact of agriculturalization. >Again, it's a matter of agenda. Consider your own agenda. Are you arguing from a position of scientific evidence, or one based on a distrust of corporation?

SquareWheel 8y ago

>Time and scale. We just had more time to check it out. Random mutations don't follow a pattern. They're random. You can't look at the past history and say "Yep look fine to me". >Highly tested for being economically sound. That's all. Complete nonsense. GMOs are studied extensively for their nutrition, allergens, toxicity, and virtually every other metric under the sun. This testing is a requirement of the FDA. "Economics" has nothing to do with it, and you're just throwing out Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt to try and discredit it. >The testing process needs to be improved. Where has it failed? There has not been a single allergen introduced in any GMO approved for human consumption. The same can not be said for non-GMOs. >We already produce more food than we need. So it's a solved problem and no new technology is needed, right? People are still dying. GMOs are the only method that have allowed us to keep up with the problem at all. >And GMO sellers have no interest in solving human problems Food shortages and malnourishment aren't "human problems"? GMOs like Golden Rice have been engineered specifically to solve this human problem. GMOs allow farmers to produce the same yields in less farmland, reducing the environmental impact of agriculturalization. >Again, it's a matter of agenda. Consider your own agenda. Are you arguing from a position of scientific evidence, or one based on a distrust of corporation?