5 ms·

Anti - GMO crowd is definetly very similar to anti vaxxers and other science deniers spreading dangerous propaganda while eating oranges and bananas.

imwillofficial 5y ago
“science deniers” Like, say, Galileo?
sdze 5y ago
Don't forget the 5G radiation...
- rdtwo 5y ago
  If you remove 5g it’s actually a common technique to bombard seeds with radiation and look for useful mutations
- mandmandam 5y ago
  I bet you two are the type who smugly told everyone off for believing the "completely disproven" lab leak theory for a year, before never mentioning it again.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
hutzlibu 5y ago
Are you implying oranges and bananas were made with modern GMO methods? I agree that the anti gmo/vaxx etc. crowd is quite irrational in many regards, but I can see a difference between traditional breeding plants - and directly editing DNA.
- Dma54rhs 5y ago
  I don't but we've been doing generical modification by trying to put two random things plants together since dawn of times.
  - hutzlibu 5y ago
    Yes - and this is also what happens in nature all the time. Only slower and random. And surprise: many plants are poisenous. And even with the slow method of natural breeding, poisenous traits can creep back in. The potential and speed of GMO methods is just way higher. For good and also bad results. So it is not the same.
    - Dma54rhs 5y ago
      Right, and GMOs are much more targeted engineering. It's the same bs of "we don't know the future side effects in 30 years" scaremongering of anti vaxxers. Just like with vaccines having plenty of resistant food so people don't starve far overvalue whatever little side effects you might get.
      - hutzlibu 5y ago
        "GMOs are much more targeted engineering." It is, but with a technology, that is not fully understood. Or is it fully known for example, why cloned animals live far shorter, than the original? Not as far, as I am aware. Also, GMO is mainly criticized for its combination with pesticides. The people who believe it damages their souls, are not many.
drran 5y ago
Nature produces both edible products, inedible products, and toxic or partially edible (tomatoes, potatoes, etc.) products. AFAIK, there is almost no risk in transferring genes from one edible non-toxic product to another edible non-toxic product. For all other gene transfers, testing is required.
- hutzlibu 5y ago
  "AFAIK, there is almost no risk in transferring genes from one edible non-toxic product to another edible non-toxic product. " And where is your knowledge coming from? I am certainly not a biologist, but as far as I know, there are quite some plants that are edible in the breed we eat - but a different wild form is toxic (carrots for example). How are you sure, the wrong (dormant) genes do not get transfered and activated, without testing? Or even with the same plant, potatoes. The root is good for us, but the flower is toxic. In other words, you always have to do extensive testing, when you play around with genes. Genes are not computer modules you just swap around and turn on and off. It is way more complicated.

imwillofficial 5y ago

“science deniers” Like, say, Galileo?

sdze 5y ago

Don't forget the 5G radiation...

rdtwo 5y ago
If you remove 5g it’s actually a common technique to bombard seeds with radiation and look for useful mutations
mandmandam 5y ago
I bet you two are the type who smugly told everyone off for believing the "completely disproven" lab leak theory for a year, before never mentioning it again.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

hutzlibu 5y ago

Are you implying oranges and bananas were made with modern GMO methods? I agree that the anti gmo/vaxx etc. crowd is quite irrational in many regards, but I can see a difference between traditional breeding plants - and directly editing DNA.

Dma54rhs 5y ago
I don't but we've been doing generical modification by trying to put two random things plants together since dawn of times.
- hutzlibu 5y ago
  Yes - and this is also what happens in nature all the time. Only slower and random. And surprise: many plants are poisenous. And even with the slow method of natural breeding, poisenous traits can creep back in. The potential and speed of GMO methods is just way higher. For good and also bad results. So it is not the same.
  - Dma54rhs 5y ago
    Right, and GMOs are much more targeted engineering. It's the same bs of "we don't know the future side effects in 30 years" scaremongering of anti vaxxers. Just like with vaccines having plenty of resistant food so people don't starve far overvalue whatever little side effects you might get.
    - hutzlibu 5y ago
      "GMOs are much more targeted engineering." It is, but with a technology, that is not fully understood. Or is it fully known for example, why cloned animals live far shorter, than the original? Not as far, as I am aware. Also, GMO is mainly criticized for its combination with pesticides. The people who believe it damages their souls, are not many.

drran 5y ago

Nature produces both edible products, inedible products, and toxic or partially edible (tomatoes, potatoes, etc.) products. AFAIK, there is almost no risk in transferring genes from one edible non-toxic product to another edible non-toxic product. For all other gene transfers, testing is required.

hutzlibu 5y ago
"AFAIK, there is almost no risk in transferring genes from one edible non-toxic product to another edible non-toxic product. " And where is your knowledge coming from? I am certainly not a biologist, but as far as I know, there are quite some plants that are edible in the breed we eat - but a different wild form is toxic (carrots for example). How are you sure, the wrong (dormant) genes do not get transfered and activated, without testing? Or even with the same plant, potatoes. The root is good for us, but the flower is toxic. In other words, you always have to do extensive testing, when you play around with genes. Genes are not computer modules you just swap around and turn on and off. It is way more complicated.