4 ms·
Because it worked for a lot longer than 20 years. In 100 years, without GMO problems, we can label them safe too. Plus evolution doesn't have an agenda that wo
by sametmax 7y ago
Because it worked for a lot longer than 20 years. In 100 years, without GMO problems, we can label them safe too.
Plus evolution doesn't have an agenda that would make it creates things like the terminator gene. We are in a very peculiar situation.
I'm open to see how it plays out, as long as we don't arrogantly pretend we know for sure everything will be ok. Because we heard this one before, and it was always stated by people that wanted to sound trustworthy or smart, never the ones that wanted to make sure we are all happy.
Besides, how asking for severe and regular audits is even a bad thing ? If one is against that, I trust their judgment even less.
- daeken 7y agoSeed irradiation hasn't yet been in use for 100 years -- the first commercial crop to use it was ~80 years ago -- but we consider it safe, despite that it consists of forcing completely random changes to occur. Why? Because we don't talk about the safety of the process; we talk about the safety of the result. There's no way we can ever say "GMOs are safe" because it's like saying "crops grown during the 14th week of the year are safe". It's a technique, not a product.
- sametmax 7y agoFood irradiation in general is yet another issue, that deserves a different threat.
- joshyeager 7y agoThe parent isn’t talking about food irradiation, they’re talking about atomic gardening: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_gardening https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_gardening