| > What is a "real" strawberry? Is a generically modified strawberry "real" to you? What about a strawberry grown in a greenhouse? This seems like a shift of the goalposts. Setting that aside, I have no inherent issue with GMO foods, but that ultimately depends on the nature of the modification. There could certainly be cases where something is modified to a degree that it no longer resembles the original plants and it'd be fair to question whether the new creation carries the same benefits/harms as the original. The use of pesticides and fertilizers may also change the outcome. To your point, at the end it's all just particles. But that doesn't remove the need to evaluate the properties of the resulting concoction. > Sure, it's a hypothetical that we can't yet technologically replicate in its entirely. And that was really the point. > That still isn't the point, though. Sure "chemicals" is a bogeyman for many (see also dihydrogen monoxide). But why is "dihydrogen monoxide" bad but water good? You're describing a scenario in which people are afraid of big words. I'm describing a scenario in which people are concerned about the effects of specific substances added to the dihydrogen monoxide they drink. To demonstrate the inverse, I know people who only drink sugared soda, which is clearly going to impact their bodies differently than drinking plain water. This is not speculation or hypothetical. The health conscious person who prefers pure drinking water over Mountain Dew is not afraid of big words, they're concerned about the sugar, caffeine, and other additives that make the liquid less healthy. |