>Do you believe that GMO crops are harmful to your body?
Two cases:
(1) GMO that's the result of selective breeding. (Yes, selective breeding does in fact modify genetics, which is what "GMO" literally means.) Humans have been doing GMO this way for thousands of years. Our species hasn't died out yet, so this kind of GMO must not be too bad.
(2) GMO that's the result of recombinant DNA genetic engineering techniques. I suspect (but I do not know for sure) that this has more potential to produce harmful food, so I recommend testing first before releasing into the food supply. But regardless of what I suspect, I would yield to the judgment of the scientists who are knowledgeable in this domain.
Landon Torres
Both are equally harmless.
Aiden Reyes
Not just monsanto shills, it's their subcontractor, the 'counter intelligence' teams
Michael Phillips
>Both are equally harmless.
I would support someone who said "SOME recombinant DNA engineering results in harmless changes to food".
But I would need a citation from a very reliable source before believing someone who said "ALL possible ways of performing recombinant DNA engineering results in food that is harmless". That statement implies that it is impossible to use recombinant DNA engineering techniques to introduce poisons into food.
Are you saying SOME? Or are you saying ALL? Because it's not clear from your statement which you mean.
Noah Ross
>consumers decide to buy Nice newspeak for "let poors eat it lol", goes together well with the new "socialized care system", or monopolized racketeering, same difference.
Nathaniel Hughes
>GMOs don't harm your body.
From that statement, I must infer that it is impossible for recombinant DNA engineering techniques to make harmful changes to food.
In other words: There is no possible series of mistakes that could be made (in the engineering, testing, production, evaluation, or any other aspects) that could result in the creation of GMO food that is harmful.
Is that true?
Or do you need to refine your statement to be more precise?
I get very wary of people who state things in absolute terms, especially when they concern systems where people can make mistakes.
Ayden Gomez
>countless I suppose you can't count zero things
Daniel Scott
You can always tell when someone knows absolutely fucking nothing about biology when they talk about 'virus DNA' or 'insect DNA' or 'fungus DNA' as if there's any difference whatsoever between a series of codons in one organism versus the same series of codons in another. Humans share about half their DNA with fucking bananas. All organisms share a vast amount of genetic code so the things you're worried about splicing 'insect DNA' into are already mostly insect DNA anyway.
Asher Smith
>My autism prevents me from using context clues to understand the post at hand I see, tell me more
Bentley James
Pretty much, no
A mistake in splicing in DNA will at best result in making an organism with one slightly mangled protein that doesn't really do anything and at worst makes the organism non-viable, which is a self-correcting problem
If you ate either case, the proteins and DNA would be rendered down into their constituent parts (amino acids and nucleic acids respectively) just like everything else you eat
