untitled
forum
Of Genetically Modified Foods.
posted
Total Posts
3
Personally, I make the effort not to purchase anything that (to my knowledge) contains GM origins.
I don't know a lot about the stance on this for my country, as for the population I'd safely assume not a whole lot really care enough about the subject.
Food is food, etc.
I don't know a lot about the stance on this for my country, as for the population I'd safely assume not a whole lot really care enough about the subject.
Food is food, etc.
Healthwise, foods derived from GMO do not pose any risk compared to non GMO. You are probably eating food every day that is "genetically modified" without even knowing it, and there's really no reason to worry about it. Generally speaking, food derived from GMOs are cheaper to produce and sell, with equal or better quality than "all-natural" foods.
In fact, farmers have been producing "genetically modified" crops for thousands of years. Imagine some dude in ancient egypt that tried to grow a whole bunch of wheat. Now, he found that most of the plants generally grew like shit, except for a few that thrived in the hot climate. So naturally he trashes the seeds from the other plants and grows next season's crop from solely the good plants. So basically he changed the allele frequency in the wheat population to better suit the environment. Essentially human catalysis on natural selection, or "genetic modification."
Modern "genetic modification" works differently in the sense that you take a gene for a particular trait from one species and transfer it to another species. Put simply, you take a useful gene from one organism and give it to the plant you want to grow. For example, taking a gene for pesticide resistance from, say, a protist, and adding it to a corn plant's genome. The result being that the corn can be grown safely with pesticide use, with no risk of adverse effect when the pesticide is used. Now compare that to your regular, run-of-the-mill corn crop which might die when exposed to pesticide, or eaten by bugs when not exposed to pesticide. The GMO is clearly the better option in this circumstance.
Please try to read some actual reputable scientific literature instead of random statistics and propaganda when making such claims in the future.
It really pisses me off when people fight the use of scientific advances to make our lives easier, when people smarter than them have dedicated years of their lives studying these areas to make sure that they work and pose no harms to us.
In fact, farmers have been producing "genetically modified" crops for thousands of years. Imagine some dude in ancient egypt that tried to grow a whole bunch of wheat. Now, he found that most of the plants generally grew like shit, except for a few that thrived in the hot climate. So naturally he trashes the seeds from the other plants and grows next season's crop from solely the good plants. So basically he changed the allele frequency in the wheat population to better suit the environment. Essentially human catalysis on natural selection, or "genetic modification."
Modern "genetic modification" works differently in the sense that you take a gene for a particular trait from one species and transfer it to another species. Put simply, you take a useful gene from one organism and give it to the plant you want to grow. For example, taking a gene for pesticide resistance from, say, a protist, and adding it to a corn plant's genome. The result being that the corn can be grown safely with pesticide use, with no risk of adverse effect when the pesticide is used. Now compare that to your regular, run-of-the-mill corn crop which might die when exposed to pesticide, or eaten by bugs when not exposed to pesticide. The GMO is clearly the better option in this circumstance.
Yeah, maybe one farmer? And maybe this was just a random circumstance. The sample size was only one, which leads to a large standard of error and we cannot discount the null hypothesis. Find me a randomized, double-blinded trial or systematic review for this hypothesis you stated, which has been published in a reputed, peer-reviewed journal and then maybe your argument will have some credibility. In fact, there have been many journal articles published regarding the safety and effects of GMO's on humans and animals and they have found that there has been no adverse effects or health risks in utilizing these organisms.Apex wrote:
Due to a firsthand account with a farmer, the amount of milk produced by cows fed with GM'd foods is 2kgs lower than average, and the amount of eggs produced by chickens fed with GM'd foods is 10% lower than average. Some animals even have the instinct to turn away from the pile of GM'd foods to eat natural foods.
Please try to read some actual reputable scientific literature instead of random statistics and propaganda when making such claims in the future.
It really pisses me off when people fight the use of scientific advances to make our lives easier, when people smarter than them have dedicated years of their lives studying these areas to make sure that they work and pose no harms to us.