Another GMO shoe drops

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by iceaura, Sep 27, 2018.

  1. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Btw: The photosynthesis modification that boosts biomass production in tobacco looks like one of the better GMs, genuinely promising: it involves code already present in plants of the same general kind (the safety of long experience), it produces essentially nothing not already present in these plants, it is probably self-limiting in the wild, and it is possibly the first likely GM that would actually fulfill the common promise of greater intrinsic yield per acre in some crops (it pays for itself, a net gain in production).

    It is intrinsically safer and more promising than most GMs, especially in a crop plant. Even so, whether it is "safe" or not in any given O would need to be checked. Any GMO incorporating it would need to be checked.

    GMOs are not safe.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,365
    Neither are vaccines. But they do more good than harm.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    1) So the next time somebody posts "GMOs are safe", they are the ones dismissed and mocked as anti-science. OK?

    2) See above: vaccines are competently regulated and monitored, they are not a new field, they are nobody's golden goose.
    The safety of vaccines is taken seriously. The risks are acknowledged. And the risks are much more limited, in scope and kind.

    3) Whether they have done more good than harm, so far, remains to be evaluated. Whether the next one out of the gate also does more good than harm will be unknown until evaluated. The one after that will also need its own evaluation.

    Ignorance is not evidence of safety.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.

Share This Page