The food you eat has a lot more intimate interaction with your body than the cellphone that you are using. While we know a great deal about human physiology, it

The food you eat has a lot more intimate interaction with your body than the cellphone that you are using. While we know a great deal about human physiology, it's still an equation that we have yet to solve. The systems of a cellphone (and the battery) are probably better understood, with less variables to account for. Also, when the food at your local grocery store is completely replaced with GMO foods, you don't really end up with a choice in the matter. On the other hand, you still have a choice to get a cellphone or not (even in today's world). | Bananas didn't evolve with "being good for you 20 or | 30 years from now" ethos. That doesn't help the spread | of their seeds. They just needed to taste sweet, so you | would eat them now and spit out their seed somewhere else. Yes, but people have been eating them for a long time, and thus far we haven't found any correlations between them and negative outcomes. | Is there even a plant out there that has harmful side-effects | two decades after you eat it? If we make one, that would be one | hell of an achievement. Are you saying that it's impossible for plants to end up having a cumulative effect on your body? For example, checkout this thread: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4494083 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4494083. Summary: Broccoli has mutagenic and anti-mutagenic properties, and in one study of fruit flies the mutagenic properties won out. What happens when GMO broccoli ends up further tipping this balance towards mutagenic? What happens when another food is engineered and tips the balance from the anti-mutagenic side (to the mutagenic side)?