Comment Re:the problem is (Score 1, Insightful) 655
>that idiots will use this as an argument against gm food in general
But the smart people will use this as one of many arguments against GMO food.
>gm food promises to put vitamin A in rice, develop crops that grow in the desert, etc.: a benefit for mankind
The vitamin A in rice is widely touted (though it's relatively ineffective, you can't process vitamin A without other vitamins, so overloading on it doesn't really help), but isn't the real reason that GMO is being pushed. GMO is all about the patents and owning seeds. And hey, if those patented plants happen to naturally cross breed with your non-gmo plant, the way the law currently stands, you're seen as stealing patented seeds. That's the primary motivator for Monsanto, et al to develop GMO food. So that they can OWN it.
Desert crops are not the goals of GMO companies.
> of course, like any technology, it can be abused and treated neglectfully in a way that might make... hepatotoxic corn for example
> but this is an argument against IRRESPONSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION, not an argument against a scientitic concept
I'm not going to trust any GMO food until I see a responsible implementation of it. I agree that GMO may have some benefit to the world, however in it's current implementation, it's a total disaster. And to top it off, there's no way to know or differentiate between GMO, so you can't even pick and choose good from bad. So in my mind the only choice is to avoid it altogether.
I'm not anti-science at all, but at some point you need to see when a particular science has just become politicking/profiteering.
>but luddite idiots won't see it this way
>they think they live in the plot of a bad hollywood movie
Oops, gotta go. Bruce Willis just swung by my cube and told me there's a bomb in the building.
But the smart people will use this as one of many arguments against GMO food.
>gm food promises to put vitamin A in rice, develop crops that grow in the desert, etc.: a benefit for mankind
The vitamin A in rice is widely touted (though it's relatively ineffective, you can't process vitamin A without other vitamins, so overloading on it doesn't really help), but isn't the real reason that GMO is being pushed. GMO is all about the patents and owning seeds. And hey, if those patented plants happen to naturally cross breed with your non-gmo plant, the way the law currently stands, you're seen as stealing patented seeds. That's the primary motivator for Monsanto, et al to develop GMO food. So that they can OWN it.
Desert crops are not the goals of GMO companies.
> of course, like any technology, it can be abused and treated neglectfully in a way that might make... hepatotoxic corn for example
> but this is an argument against IRRESPONSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION, not an argument against a scientitic concept
I'm not going to trust any GMO food until I see a responsible implementation of it. I agree that GMO may have some benefit to the world, however in it's current implementation, it's a total disaster. And to top it off, there's no way to know or differentiate between GMO, so you can't even pick and choose good from bad. So in my mind the only choice is to avoid it altogether.
I'm not anti-science at all, but at some point you need to see when a particular science has just become politicking/profiteering.
>but luddite idiots won't see it this way
>they think they live in the plot of a bad hollywood movie
Oops, gotta go. Bruce Willis just swung by my cube and told me there's a bomb in the building.
