Comments
Follow Comments Sorted by time
silvermyth
· 6 years ago
· FIRST
A little different
▼
barbaragordon
· 6 years ago
Only difference is that the dog's genetic modifications are harmful, while the plants have literally no negative aspects.
14
silvermyth
· 6 years ago
That’s debatable. They’re different issues. On the dog’s end, it’s harmful to the dog. On the plant’s end, it’s not harmful to that plant (or consumer) but it does create bugs immune to the harmless pesticides. Forcing us to use the more harsh ones. Of course, this can be solved by ringing GMO crops with non GMO crops. Unfortunately, most farmers don’t do that. Because the way of modifying organisms is new (not selective breeding as with dogs), we don’t know the long term affects. We don’t think it hurts the consumer (so keep eating your gmo corn) but it may harm wild plants. And then there’s just that monsanto is an ass.
8
johnadams
· 6 years ago
And then ate a bowl of orange carrots and freakishly huge corn that are both nothing like their ancestors from 600 years ago.
8
rachee
· 6 years ago
I can breed the best pig to the best pig for several generation to produce a big superior pig or I can just pump it full of chemicals and change its DNA in one generation. Which pig do you want to eat? Plants and animals at Chernobyl are genetically modified who want s a nice gmo steak from Chernobyl? gmo has been turned in to a buzz word to give a false sense of security. There are a lot of different ways to gmo organisms some safe some not. But if you believe the big companies are doing it for the good of the people or care about you then you're just stupid. Its about profit if it gives you cancer in your 60's they wont care just like the tobacco company's. Personally I don't have the equipment to test this stuff so I stick to heritage breed animals and heirloom seeds in my garden.
▼
stream_42
· 6 years ago
Boy, you really don't know anything about genetics
4
