Oregon has a law up for vote here in November on GMO labeling and some of the commercials against the bill cite all the exceptions that wouldn't have to be labeled but that do count as GMO. That raises the question form me of: if a food product has been modified by humans tinkering with its genome or breeding for certain properties, does that all count as GMO?
Does the centuries or millennia of humans cultivating corn to become the product we know and think of as modern corn count? If not, why not? Selective breeding modifies the genome, it just happens over a longer period of time than the tinkering done in a lab.
One of the modifications often made in GMO produce is so that the plant is more "naturally" pest resistant (I.e. we wouldn't have to rely so heavily on chemical pesticides). Thus there can potentially be a huge overlap between organic produce and GMO which could send the nature nuts into a tizzy- they want to buy organic because it's "healthier" but that would push them into buying more GMO foods which they are against because GMO foods aren't natural.
Can anti-GMO people produce scientifically rigorous studies that conclude that GMO foods are more harmful than beneficial? All I've ever heard from them is, as already mentioned, naturalistic fallacies. If they can make their case with the fallacy I'm all ears but from what I know right now GMOs aren't anything to worry about in terms of health effects on those eating the food.
I could be wrong but that's what I know right now.
Does the centuries or millennia of humans cultivating corn to become the product we know and think of as modern corn count? If not, why not? Selective breeding modifies the genome, it just happens over a longer period of time than the tinkering done in a lab.
One of the modifications often made in GMO produce is so that the plant is more "naturally" pest resistant (I.e. we wouldn't have to rely so heavily on chemical pesticides). Thus there can potentially be a huge overlap between organic produce and GMO which could send the nature nuts into a tizzy- they want to buy organic because it's "healthier" but that would push them into buying more GMO foods which they are against because GMO foods aren't natural.
Can anti-GMO people produce scientifically rigorous studies that conclude that GMO foods are more harmful than beneficial? All I've ever heard from them is, as already mentioned, naturalistic fallacies. If they can make their case with the fallacy I'm all ears but from what I know right now GMOs aren't anything to worry about in terms of health effects on those eating the food.
I could be wrong but that's what I know right now.
Teenaged X-Files obsession + Bermuda Triangle episode + Self-led school research project = Atheist.
