- Joined
- Nov 12, 2012
- Messages
- 81,806
- Reaction score
- 19,663
- Location
- Houston, in the great state of Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
I think you're missing my point. I'm agreeing with you that GMOs are not harmful in of themselves. If you splice "X" gene from "Y" edible plant into "Z" edible plant...there's no harm since you can eat both Y and Z plants. The only difference is that now you have a plant that is a rapidly developed hybrid. That GMo is a shortcut to the years of hybridization trials to get the same result.
You can cross-breed over generations and have to wait for each generation to mature for testing...or you can just cut and paste the bits you need and have a higher chance of getting the result you want at a vastly accelerated rate.
The harm that I mentioned was merely an example of how one can take a GMO to an unsafe point. Forgive me if I'm misreading this...but it seems as if you're feeling argumentative and are using an example of how the safe process of genetic modification can be used less safely and are trying to get me into an argument about it...even though I'm in agreement with your main point of...
That may or may not be what you're shooting for, but that's how it appears to me.
I believe in GMO since it's a shortcut in an otherwise very lengthy process. I believe that GMO (like anything else on this planet) can be used in unhealthy and unsafe ways. It's neither good or evil...It's all in how it's used.
Cut! Print! Check the gate! Moving on.
I just don't know that first if a GMO meant to be resistant to herbicides will then pick up the herbicides from the soil or if herbicides are toxic to humans.