Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Non-GMO foods aren't any safer or healthier
Replies
-
paulgads82 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »Also I want to add that every time you eat meat that's a GMO. The genes coming from both parents. Genes that haven't been together or eaten before. Brand new GMO.
That's not what is meant when people talk GMO food.
I know. I'm trying to draw attention to how common gene modification is in our diet already. Probably not as well as I'd like perhaps.....
Because you are mixing subjects
What? How on earth is the fact that we eat modified genes all the time a separate subject to eating genes that have been modified in a much simpler fashion? It couldn't be more relevant.
Because the fashion isn't at all similar.
As I've now stated 3 times. With GMOs the gene modification is much simpler and controlled. Yet apparently "not nature" seems to be the best attempt at refuting this point.
much simpler and controlled =/=same, correct?
I'm not playing this silly game.
Cool. You fold, I win.
1 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
But who told you any of them was safe?
In a sense, nature did, when people ate them and didn't die.
Nature didn't tell anyone to eat them.1 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »MarkusDarwath wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »MarkusDarwath wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I imagine some trust the mythical Mother Nature more because she hasn't told us things like were safe that later turned out to be harmful.
You don't know any mushroom hunters, do you? All kinds of people have been sickened and/or died thanks to mis-identification of poisonous mushrooms as safe. A big part of the reason for that is that Mother Nature often makes it very difficult to tell the difference.
Who told you they were safe?
Thought I covered that. Mother Nature makes certain poisonous mushrooms almost identical in appearance to other mushrooms that are safe to eat. She also neglects to put any taste cues into the bad ones.
In other words, nature indeed does sometimes lie about food safety.
I don't really care either way. If you disagree that people are wrong to be concerned about that, fine. But let's stop pretending that poisonous frogs and mushrooms and earthquakes have anything to do with GMO crops.
I never said they have anything to do with GMO. However, they do have to do with the fallacial claim made that we can trust mother nature because she never tries to trick or harm us.
In other words, it's an illustration of how natural =/= safe or better for you.
ETA and actually, that DOES have something to do with GMO.
That's fine. I wanted the conversation to move along and it seems to have done so. It was getting ridiculous.
ETA. @need2exerc1se can correct me, but I don't think her point was that natural=better. I thought she was trying to say that GMOs are too new in the grand scheme of things for us to really know the long term effects. Aaron_k123 made a good point about how they actually fit into the timeline of human history. (Again, I don't have any interest in participating in the debate but the subject is interesting.)1 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
I completely agree with this. It's the same reason that someone saying "GMOs are fine" makes me cringe.
They are fine. There is no GMO in the market now that isn't fine. If you want to stretch the point so far to include the possibility that GM technology could be used to create something that isn't fine......I guess you could have that.1 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »MarkusDarwath wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
But who told you any of them was safe?
In a sense, nature did, when people ate them and didn't die.
Nature didn't tell anyone to eat them.
Nature gave us hunger.2 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »MarkusDarwath wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »MarkusDarwath wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I imagine some trust the mythical Mother Nature more because she hasn't told us things like were safe that later turned out to be harmful.
You don't know any mushroom hunters, do you? All kinds of people have been sickened and/or died thanks to mis-identification of poisonous mushrooms as safe. A big part of the reason for that is that Mother Nature often makes it very difficult to tell the difference.
Who told you they were safe?
Thought I covered that. Mother Nature makes certain poisonous mushrooms almost identical in appearance to other mushrooms that are safe to eat. She also neglects to put any taste cues into the bad ones.
In other words, nature indeed does sometimes lie about food safety.
I don't really care either way. If you disagree that people are wrong to be concerned about that, fine. But let's stop pretending that poisonous frogs and mushrooms and earthquakes have anything to do with GMO crops.
I never said they have anything to do with GMO. However, they do have to do with the fallacial claim made that we can trust mother nature because she never tries to trick or harm us.
In other words, it's an illustration of how natural =/= safe or better for you.
ETA and actually, that DOES have something to do with GMO.
I'm curious. How is the poisonous frog tricking you?0 -
paulgads82 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »MarkusDarwath wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
But who told you any of them was safe?
In a sense, nature did, when people ate them and didn't die.
Nature didn't tell anyone to eat them.
Nature gave us hunger.
And lust.0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »MarkusDarwath wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »MarkusDarwath wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I imagine some trust the mythical Mother Nature more because she hasn't told us things like were safe that later turned out to be harmful.
You don't know any mushroom hunters, do you? All kinds of people have been sickened and/or died thanks to mis-identification of poisonous mushrooms as safe. A big part of the reason for that is that Mother Nature often makes it very difficult to tell the difference.
Who told you they were safe?
Thought I covered that. Mother Nature makes certain poisonous mushrooms almost identical in appearance to other mushrooms that are safe to eat. She also neglects to put any taste cues into the bad ones.
In other words, nature indeed does sometimes lie about food safety.
I don't really care either way. If you disagree that people are wrong to be concerned about that, fine. But let's stop pretending that poisonous frogs and mushrooms and earthquakes have anything to do with GMO crops.
I never said they have anything to do with GMO. However, they do have to do with the fallacial claim made that we can trust mother nature because she never tries to trick or harm us.
In other words, it's an illustration of how natural =/= safe or better for you.
ETA and actually, that DOES have something to do with GMO.
That's fine. I wanted the conversation to move along and it seems to have done so. It was getting ridiculous.
ETA. @need2exerc1se can correct me, but I don't think her point was that natural=better. I thought she was trying to say that GMOs are too new in the grand scheme of things for us to really know the long term effects. Aaron_k123 made a good point about how they actually fit into the timeline of human history. (Again, I don't have any interest in participating in the debate but the subject is interesting.)
Actually I was saying that many people don't want GMO because they believe natural = better. I never said anything about what I believe, except that GMO is a broad subject and I don't think everything GMO should be grouped together as good or bad any more than everything natural should.3 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »MarkusDarwath wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »MarkusDarwath wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I imagine some trust the mythical Mother Nature more because she hasn't told us things like were safe that later turned out to be harmful.
You don't know any mushroom hunters, do you? All kinds of people have been sickened and/or died thanks to mis-identification of poisonous mushrooms as safe. A big part of the reason for that is that Mother Nature often makes it very difficult to tell the difference.
Who told you they were safe?
Thought I covered that. Mother Nature makes certain poisonous mushrooms almost identical in appearance to other mushrooms that are safe to eat. She also neglects to put any taste cues into the bad ones.
In other words, nature indeed does sometimes lie about food safety.
I don't really care either way. If you disagree that people are wrong to be concerned about that, fine. But let's stop pretending that poisonous frogs and mushrooms and earthquakes have anything to do with GMO crops.
I never said they have anything to do with GMO. However, they do have to do with the fallacial claim made that we can trust mother nature because she never tries to trick or harm us.
In other words, it's an illustration of how natural =/= safe or better for you.
ETA and actually, that DOES have something to do with GMO.
That's fine. I wanted the conversation to move along and it seems to have done so. It was getting ridiculous.
ETA. @need2exerc1se can correct me, but I don't think her point was that natural=better. I thought she was trying to say that GMOs are too new in the grand scheme of things for us to really know the long term effects. Aaron_k123 made a good point about how they actually fit into the timeline of human history. (Again, I don't have any interest in participating in the debate but the subject is interesting.)
Actually I was saying that many people don't want GMO because they believe natural = better. I never said anything about what I believe, except that GMO is a broad subject and I don't think everything GMO should be grouped together as good or bad any more than everything natural should.
Thank you for clarifying!0 -
kaylajane11 wrote: »Shawshankcan wrote: »NaturalNancy wrote: »I'll take Organic foods over non organic foods Every. Single. Time.
But you also sell snake oil, so your opinion is irrelevant.
FIFYkaylajane11 wrote: »Shawshankcan wrote: »NaturalNancy wrote: »I'll take Organic foods over non organic foods Every. Single. Time.
But you also sell snake oil, so your opinion is irrelevant.
FIFY
Damn it, now I can't tell if people are agreeing with what I meant to say or agreeing with the error I made.2 -
paulgads82 wrote: »Also I want to add that every time you eat meat that's a GMO. The genes coming from both parents. Genes that haven't been together or eaten before. Brand new GMO.
am i a gmo? I'm just a widdle fwog2 -
Shawshankcan wrote: »kaylajane11 wrote: »Shawshankcan wrote: »NaturalNancy wrote: »I'll take Organic foods over non organic foods Every. Single. Time.
But you also sell snake oil, so your opinion is irrelevant.
FIFYkaylajane11 wrote: »Shawshankcan wrote: »NaturalNancy wrote: »I'll take Organic foods over non organic foods Every. Single. Time.
But you also sell snake oil, so your opinion is irrelevant.
FIFY
Damn it, now I can't tell if people are agreeing with what I meant to say or agreeing with the error I made.
Shhhh. Just sit back and enjoy the 'likes' from all the confused people.4 -
I tend to opt for organic items more out of an ethical standpoint than anything else. The patenting and without bar approach to GMOs via corporations, especially Monsanto, is something that in the long run I don't see as bringing any good. Immediate side effects for GMOs are mostly nill, but long-term is still unknown.
Exactly. Absolutely no one can prove GMOs (and all the other junk being put into our food) are safe or harmful in the long-term because we straight up - DO NOT KNOW. Personally, I'm going to opt for the organic food that has been proven safe for generations. The things our bodies were meant to ingest.2 -
I tend to opt for organic items more out of an ethical standpoint than anything else. The patenting and without bar approach to GMOs via corporations, especially Monsanto, is something that in the long run I don't see as bringing any good. Immediate side effects for GMOs are mostly nill, but long-term is still unknown.
Exactly. Absolutely no one can prove GMOs (and all the other junk being put into our food) are safe or harmful in the long-term because we straight up - DO NOT KNOW. Personally, I'm going to opt for the organic food that has been proven safe for generations. The things our bodies were meant to ingest.
20+ years of testing isn't long enough?6 -
I tend to opt for organic items more out of an ethical standpoint than anything else. The patenting and without bar approach to GMOs via corporations, especially Monsanto, is something that in the long run I don't see as bringing any good. Immediate side effects for GMOs are mostly nill, but long-term is still unknown.
Exactly. Absolutely no one can prove GMOs (and all the other junk being put into our food) are safe or harmful in the long-term because we straight up - DO NOT KNOW. Personally, I'm going to opt for the organic food that has been proven safe for generations. The things our bodies were meant to ingest.
Proving a negative?3 -
Shawshankcan wrote: »I tend to opt for organic items more out of an ethical standpoint than anything else. The patenting and without bar approach to GMOs via corporations, especially Monsanto, is something that in the long run I don't see as bringing any good. Immediate side effects for GMOs are mostly nill, but long-term is still unknown.
Exactly. Absolutely no one can prove GMOs (and all the other junk being put into our food) are safe or harmful in the long-term because we straight up - DO NOT KNOW. Personally, I'm going to opt for the organic food that has been proven safe for generations. The things our bodies were meant to ingest.
20+ years of testing isn't long enough?
Dude, clearly one generation is not enough! J/K
2 -
Well unless your getting your food from a farm I would question the " organic" label. Once "organic" hits Walmart, it ain't "organic"...7
-
I tend to opt for organic items more out of an ethical standpoint than anything else. The patenting and without bar approach to GMOs via corporations, especially Monsanto, is something that in the long run I don't see as bringing any good. Immediate side effects for GMOs are mostly nill, but long-term is still unknown.
Exactly. Absolutely no one can prove GMOs (and all the other junk being put into our food) are safe or harmful in the long-term because we straight up - DO NOT KNOW. Personally, I'm going to opt for the organic food that has been proven safe for generations. The things our bodies were meant to ingest.
Well that isn't true. For certain things we do know, it just doesn't make sense to overgeneralize. Calling "GMOS" "junk" is rather silly in my opinion. Its like being irritated that a product made with a hammer was poorly made so you refer to anything that has ever been made or will be made with a hammer "junk" as a result. Genetic engineering is just a tool, you can't lump together everything made in part utilizing genetic engineering all together as if you can evaluate them all with single statements.
Not all "GMOs" are corporate. Not all "GMOs" are Monsanto. Not all "GMOs" are patented. and on top of that not all Monsanto corporate patented products are "GMOs". These things are not some how synonyms and yet you are treating them as such. If your issue is with morally questionable corporate tactics and patent abuses that can be wholly separate from genetic engineering, they are not somehow married to one another.
For example insulin, the treatment for diabetes, is a "GMO" product produced in e.coli that is been in use worldwide in billions of cases for almost 40 years. Is it junk? Do we not know about its safety somehow?10 -
I'm tired of hearing about how GMO's are completely safe.
But I guess it does make sense, I mean why would the people making a huge profit off of them lie to us?
Why should they have to prove they are safe, I mean it's only FOOD and the environment.
you know what I am really tired of? This whole 'wash your hands to prevent disease' trend.
Literally every food you put in your mouth is genetically modified, either intentionally or naturally. I don't care if you're growing vegetables in your garden and that is all you eat. The seeds you use to grow them have been genetically modified for generations to be what they are today. Fast-forwarding the GM process from one harvest to the next doesn't make them any more or less unhealthy than they already are.
You know what I'm sick of? People using GMO like it's some disease or chemical because it's an acronym. Call them what they are - genetically modified organisms - and understand what that means before you start acting like the human race is out to slowly poison you to death.4 -
Can we all join hands and agree to get over the semantic argument about how everything is genetically modified please?
The anti "GMO" movement picked a poor way of describing what they meant, they decided to call it genetically modified which is far too vague and is a term that scientifically used basically covers all life on the planet. That said even understanding that we KNOW what they mean, they mean products that utilize the genetic engineering tecnhiques developed by biotechnology over the last 50 years. That is what they are referring to. Focusing on this semantic argument is not going to change any minds and its a waste of time.
We know what they mean, pointing out that their chosen terminology is overly vague is not really worth while.
I just put "GMO" in quote marks so I am at least acknowledging that I am referring to what they mean by the term not what the term actually means.7 -
@aaron_k123
Would you mind answering a question?
How much potential is there for "GMOs" to act as invasive species, crowd out native species, or otherwise interfere with delicate ecosystems? Is any of that even a legitimate concern?0 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Can we all join hands and agree to get over the semantic argument about how everything is genetically modified please?
The anti "GMO" movement picked a poor way of describing what they meant, they decided to call it genetically modified which is far too vague and is a term that scientifically used basically covers all life on the planet. That said even understanding that we KNOW what they mean, they mean products that utilize the genetic engineering tecnhiques developed by biotechnology over the last 50 years. That is what they are referring to. Focusing on this semantic argument is not going to change any minds and its a waste of time.
We know what they mean, pointing out that their chosen terminology is overly vague is not really worth while.
I just put "GMO" in quote marks so I am at least acknowledging that I am referring to what they mean by the term not what the term actually means.
We shouldn't give up the point about foods that are genetically modified by conventional means, like mutation breeding, which uses chemicals or radiation to induce changes in a target crop; selective breeding, which could produce a product that is toxic; and hybridization, which can <gasp> combine different species in one product.0 -
@aaron_k123
Would you mind answering a question?
How much potential is there for "GMOs" to act as invasive species, crowd out native species, or otherwise interfere with delicate ecosystems? Is any of that even a legitimate concern?
That's why the EPA is involved in the approval process. Generally speaking, the plants grown in agriculture need a lot of special treatment, and aren't that likely to thrive on their own. Except blackberries, which are not GMO, which grow all over where I live. You'd have to look at each plant individually. There's a hypothetical possibility of GMOs cross-pollinating with outside plants, in which case you might get Roundup resistant weeds, or non-crop plants that are toxic to corn borers. And, of course, weeds and corn borers evolve to be resistant to Roundup and to the BT toxin.2 -
I'm tired of hearing about how GMO's are completely safe.
But I guess it does make sense, I mean why would the people making a huge profit off of them lie to us?
Why should they have to prove they are safe, I mean it's only FOOD and the environment.
you know what I am really tired of? This whole 'wash your hands to prevent disease' trend.
Literally every food you put in your mouth is genetically modified, either intentionally or naturally. I don't care if you're growing vegetables in your garden and that is all you eat. The seeds you use to grow them have been genetically modified for generations to be what they are today. Fast-forwarding the GM process from one harvest to the next doesn't make them any more or less unhealthy than they already are.
You know what I'm sick of? People using GMO like it's some disease or chemical because it's an acronym. Call them what they are - genetically modified organisms - and understand what that means before you start acting like the human race is out to slowly poison you to death.
Yup. I love corn, live in a corn-producing state, get lots of corn during the season from my (organic) CSA. Obviously that corn is absolutely nothing like pre human intervention corn -- we have messed with corn to an extreme extent. So what?
0 -
@aaron_k123
Would you mind answering a question?
How much potential is there for "GMOs" to act as invasive species, crowd out native species, or otherwise interfere with delicate ecosystems? Is any of that even a legitimate concern?
The same amount as any other natural product. Giving a plant say resistance to a specific herbicide such as roundup is not going to provide it with a meaningful selective advantage. Meanwhile there are plenty of crops that are grown in massive quantities in countries where that crop is not a native species and can end up being invasively spread throughout that ecosystem.
Could you use genetic engineering to generate a crop that would have a selective advantage within a given ecosystem and potentially take over to some degree? Yeah I suppose you could. It wouldn't stay dominant because other things would adapt to it over time but yeah in theory you could give something a temporary advantage if that is what you were designing it to do for some reason. We are utilizing what nature utilizes to make changes to adapt. So sure you could introduce a temporary advantage but for the most part that advantage wouldn't last for all that long as other things adapted to retake that temporary niche you created. You could also go around spraying roundup everywhere to kill all the plants. But why would you?
I'm not saying that genetic engineering couldn't possibly do a bad thing...it could, just like any tool could if used in a way that was dangerous. What I'm saying is we need to evaluate each product not just assume that because there is a potential danger that an entire technology needs to be avoided. I think it IS a legitimate concern for each new product as part of its evaluation but I don't think it is somehow a legitimate concern for anything that was made using genetic engineering.
To carry on with my hammer analogy it would be like asking if you could make something sharp using a hammer that could potentially injure people. The answer would be that well yes, I suppose you could, but you probably wouldn't unless you were intending on doing that in the first place. If you did then that product should be evaluated for safety and if it is deemed unsafe then sure it shouldn't be used...but that doesn't somehow invalidate or cast concern about the use of hammers in general somehow.
2 -
@aaron_k123
Would you mind answering a question?
How much potential is there for "GMOs" to act as invasive species, crowd out native species, or otherwise interfere with delicate ecosystems? Is any of that even a legitimate concern?
It is a legitimate concern. But the same goes for any other species4 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »MarkusDarwath wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »MarkusDarwath wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I imagine some trust the mythical Mother Nature more because she hasn't told us things like were safe that later turned out to be harmful.
You don't know any mushroom hunters, do you? All kinds of people have been sickened and/or died thanks to mis-identification of poisonous mushrooms as safe. A big part of the reason for that is that Mother Nature often makes it very difficult to tell the difference.
Who told you they were safe?
Thought I covered that. Mother Nature makes certain poisonous mushrooms almost identical in appearance to other mushrooms that are safe to eat. She also neglects to put any taste cues into the bad ones.
In other words, nature indeed does sometimes lie about food safety.
I don't really care either way. If you disagree that people are wrong to be concerned about that, fine. But let's stop pretending that poisonous frogs and mushrooms and earthquakes have anything to do with GMO crops.
I never said they have anything to do with GMO. However, they do have to do with the fallacial claim made that we can trust mother nature because she never tries to trick or harm us.
In other words, it's an illustration of how natural =/= safe or better for you.
ETA and actually, that DOES have something to do with GMO.
I'm curious. How is the poisonous frog tricking you?
Mushrooms. We've moved on.3 -
I am too lazy to grow all my own food and raise animals to eat. If I weren't too lazy, ineptitude comes in. I do have a small garden and go to local farmer stands in the summer. The seeds or plants I use have probably been modified.
I do worry about food that has been modified. I don't know how scientists can know the long-term effects. By long-term I mean several generations after us.
May not be harmful to us but what about the kids we produce? What about their kids and their kids and their kids? We will all be gone by then so won't know.
I do eat and serve GMO foods to my family and hope for the best. However, there is nothing wrong with healthy skepticism. Keeps people honest. Money makes people do things that may not be best or right.3 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »MarkusDarwath wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »MarkusDarwath wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I imagine some trust the mythical Mother Nature more because she hasn't told us things like were safe that later turned out to be harmful.
You don't know any mushroom hunters, do you? All kinds of people have been sickened and/or died thanks to mis-identification of poisonous mushrooms as safe. A big part of the reason for that is that Mother Nature often makes it very difficult to tell the difference.
Who told you they were safe?
Thought I covered that. Mother Nature makes certain poisonous mushrooms almost identical in appearance to other mushrooms that are safe to eat. She also neglects to put any taste cues into the bad ones.
In other words, nature indeed does sometimes lie about food safety.
I don't really care either way. If you disagree that people are wrong to be concerned about that, fine. But let's stop pretending that poisonous frogs and mushrooms and earthquakes have anything to do with GMO crops.
I never said they have anything to do with GMO. However, they do have to do with the fallacial claim made that we can trust mother nature because she never tries to trick or harm us.
In other words, it's an illustration of how natural =/= safe or better for you.
ETA and actually, that DOES have something to do with GMO.
I'm curious. How is the poisonous frog tricking you?
Mushrooms. We've moved on.
At least poisonous frogs have bright warning colors. Many mushrooms are virtually indistinguishable from edible ones.4 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »@aaron_k123
Would you mind answering a question?
How much potential is there for "GMOs" to act as invasive species, crowd out native species, or otherwise interfere with delicate ecosystems? Is any of that even a legitimate concern?
The same amount as any other natural product. Giving a plant say resistance to a specific herbicide such as roundup is not going to provide it with a meaningful selective advantage. Meanwhile there are plenty of crops that are grown in massive quantities in countries where that crop is not a native species and can end up being invasively spread throughout that ecosystem.
Could you use genetic engineering to generate a crop that would have a selective advantage within a given ecosystem and potentially take over to some degree? Yeah I suppose you could. It wouldn't stay dominant because other things would adapt to it over time but yeah in theory you could give something a temporary advantage if that is what you were designing it to do for some reason. We are utilizing what nature utilizes to make changes to adapt. So sure you could introduce a temporary advantage but for the most part that advantage wouldn't last for all that long as other things adapted to retake that temporary niche you created. You could also go around spraying roundup everywhere to kill all the plants. But why would you?
I'm not saying that genetic engineering couldn't possibly do a bad thing...it could, just like any tool could if used in a way that was dangerous. What I'm saying is we need to evaluate each product not just assume that because there is a potential danger that an entire technology needs to be avoided. I think it IS a legitimate concern for each new product as part of its evaluation but I don't think it is somehow a legitimate concern for anything that was made using genetic engineering.
To carry on with my hammer analogy it would be like asking if you could make something sharp using a hammer that could potentially injure people. The answer would be that well yes, I suppose you could, but you probably wouldn't unless you were intending on doing that in the first place. If you did then that product should be evaluated for safety and if it is deemed unsafe then sure it shouldn't be used...but that doesn't somehow invalidate or cast concern about the use of hammers in general somehow.lithezebra wrote: »@aaron_k123
Would you mind answering a question?
How much potential is there for "GMOs" to act as invasive species, crowd out native species, or otherwise interfere with delicate ecosystems? Is any of that even a legitimate concern?
That's why the EPA is involved in the approval process. Generally speaking, the plants grown in agriculture need a lot of special treatment, and aren't that likely to thrive on their own. Except blackberries, which are not GMO, which grow all over where I live. You'd have to look at each plant individually. There's a hypothetical possibility of GMOs cross-pollinating with outside plants, in which case you might get Roundup resistant weeds, or non-crop plants that are toxic to corn borers. And, of course, weeds and corn borers evolve to be resistant to Roundup and to the BT toxin.
Thank you both!1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions