3 ms·

Organic matter is composed of molecular compounds. Things like oxygen, glucose, cellulose, etc. When scientists at Monsanto change the genome of an organism, th

Organic matter is composed of molecular compounds. Things like oxygen, glucose, cellulose, etc. When scientists at Monsanto change the genome of an organism, they do it so that it grows larger, or is resistant to a weedkiller, or resistant to a virus. When these GMO plants are then harvested, they can be tested for any toxic compounds such as formaldehyde or arsenic. Since there is no evidence of toxic compounds above what you might find in ordinary food, you can conclude that GMOs are safe. It is impossible that there "could" be something in there that is toxic, or something we don't know about, because we know exactly what compounds are in the plant and we know that those compounds are not dangerous.

tunesmith 8y ago
That's fine, but that limits the parameters to what is healthy for the person eating it. There's also the aspect to consider of changing the genome affecting the larger environment. I understand the argument that this has been done throughout history via selective breeding of plants, but it's more extreme and in a more compressed timeframe with genetic modification - meaning, less ability to anticipate and deal with the side effects.
- Nasrudith 8y ago
  Well another thing is that the genes aren't created completely novel. They try for selected traits when they transfer it and incidental mutations happen to everything. The odds of something of major significance occurring are extremely low low - given natural carcinogens and such that can and have mutated plants including viruses past practices had potential to be way worse for producing 'unexpected' results. There are technically risks to everything but they start to fall into the category of 'technically possible but downright absurd'. Before targeted genetic modification there was atomic gardening. That was literally irradiating seeds and choosing what they liked of the mutant survivors - and a lot of seeds didn't germinate. Even doing something that 'randomizing' didn't cause those effects. As for health of food for people eating it I think we're technically already centuries if not millennia too late after repeatably breeding fruit for increased sweetness and lower fiber content.

tunesmith 8y ago

That's fine, but that limits the parameters to what is healthy for the person eating it. There's also the aspect to consider of changing the genome affecting the larger environment. I understand the argument that this has been done throughout history via selective breeding of plants, but it's more extreme and in a more compressed timeframe with genetic modification - meaning, less ability to anticipate and deal with the side effects.

Nasrudith 8y ago
Well another thing is that the genes aren't created completely novel. They try for selected traits when they transfer it and incidental mutations happen to everything. The odds of something of major significance occurring are extremely low low - given natural carcinogens and such that can and have mutated plants including viruses past practices had potential to be way worse for producing 'unexpected' results. There are technically risks to everything but they start to fall into the category of 'technically possible but downright absurd'. Before targeted genetic modification there was atomic gardening. That was literally irradiating seeds and choosing what they liked of the mutant survivors - and a lot of seeds didn't germinate. Even doing something that 'randomizing' didn't cause those effects. As for health of food for people eating it I think we're technically already centuries if not millennia too late after repeatably breeding fruit for increased sweetness and lower fiber content.