Well, surly this technology is used to improve the crops to be resistant to weed pressure and not just to sell more herbicides. Let’s ask the internet.
The post says that targeted mutagenesis is safer than non targeted. The criticism you mentioned - very one sided btw - holds true for both cases. You are right with your criticism on GMO’s but radioactivity Is a worse option than Crispr.
I admit, my arguments were cherry picked. I just wanted to provide a few counter examples to show that there are reasons for being skeptical of GMO crops. My biggest concern actually isn’t food safety or environmental impacts but the previously mentioned intellectual property implications. I don’t want Bayer to own certain genes making it illegal to plant seeds from apples I bought at the store.
No, unfortunately it does. GMO crops could make this even worse because they may pass their genes to wild plants through gene flow. The ‘owner’ of that gene could then require a licensing deal for the use of these plants as well.
Almost all of these criticisms are basically “GMOs are somehow considered tainted or something, so we need to prevent them from mixing with non-GMOs” which an ideological premise, not based on facts.
Regarding herbicides/pedicures: actually GMO eggplants in Bangladesh save lives because they need less spraying.
So all that’s left is policy issues and FUD. And political problems have political solutions.
I wonder if there are any good reasons for that. Let’s ask the internet.
Oh no.
Well, surly this technology is used to improve the crops to be resistant to weed pressure and not just to sell more herbicides. Let’s ask the internet.
Oh no.
Ok, but at least farmers can reuse the resistant crops and don’t have to buy hybrid seeds every year because these new plants are genetically stable.
Oh no.
The post says that targeted mutagenesis is safer than non targeted. The criticism you mentioned - very one sided btw - holds true for both cases. You are right with your criticism on GMO’s but radioactivity Is a worse option than Crispr.
I admit, my arguments were cherry picked. I just wanted to provide a few counter examples to show that there are reasons for being skeptical of GMO crops. My biggest concern actually isn’t food safety or environmental impacts but the previously mentioned intellectual property implications. I don’t want Bayer to own certain genes making it illegal to plant seeds from apples I bought at the store.
Wait, do you think non-gmo variants don’t have IP laws applied to them?
No, unfortunately it does. GMO crops could make this even worse because they may pass their genes to wild plants through gene flow. The ‘owner’ of that gene could then require a licensing deal for the use of these plants as well.
Almost all of these criticisms are basically “GMOs are somehow considered tainted or something, so we need to prevent them from mixing with non-GMOs” which an ideological premise, not based on facts.
Regarding herbicides/pedicures: actually GMO eggplants in Bangladesh save lives because they need less spraying.
So all that’s left is policy issues and FUD. And political problems have political solutions.