|
|
|
|
|
|
by JoeAltmaier
1081 days ago
|
|
|
Well, so far the 'natural' foods have a monopoly on invasiveness and superweed generation. So I'll just bat that ball back at you: doesn't doing it carefully and deliberately (instead of randomly and blindly) have a better chance at a better outcome? Yes, it does. |
|
|
The other way to view it, is as a genetic novelty in the ecosystem, a genetic novelty more akin to GM than selective breeding.
My issue is one of food safety primarily. Sure you can put fish DNA in a plant and it may well do what you want, but what are the side effects of that? Is there a novel compound that causes cancer?
Of course you could do tests and long term studies to confirm this isn't the case. But that isn't being done.
Of course the same risk is there with non GM, but A it moves slower, B you are limited to the species barrier. I if accidentally breed a carcinogenic tomato, at least it's only a tomato. If I genetically modify all staple crops and then discover it's carcinogenic, that's a harder problem to avoid if you actually want to not starve.