General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: MoJo: What Did Monsanto Show Bill Nye to Make Him Fall "in Love" With GMOs? [View all]booley
(3,855 posts)"Yet, the people who are anti-GMO don't have concerns about other seed development technologies."
Sure about that? Because I have seen similar concern over say , coating seeds in neonicotinoids which is not genetic engineering.
Or maybe you meant something else.. which is hard to say since you don't' really provide many specifics to argue for or against.
So it just seems you just assumed that.
"because there isn't any big debate in science circles, except over pros and cons of specifics with figuring out the best way to move forward."
Ok vastly increased herbicide use, that seems like a debate about a very important con. Sure it's a specific organism.. but an organism that is the largest crop in the united states. Which makes it not trivial. Especially since the effects are already fanning out to other organisms. Weeds that ever more herbicide resistant is a HUGE deal since so far our only means to deal with it is to add even MORE herbicides (which has all sorts of negative effects that go far outside any particular corn field)
I mean Saying "the best way forward" just seems like a meaningless statement. It not only tries to cast anyone who disagrees as luddites, but it assumes that the path we are on is necessarily good or that we can't change it. We either blindly accept that all GMOS are good without question or else we go back to horse and buggy says when famines were common, as if there is no middle ground.
"Those risks have been assessed over and over and over again. "
All the risks? Ok. Don't' remember any scientific study ever being absolute or definitive. But ok. Though I would point out even if what your said was true, we already have real world examples where even when the risks were known and a plan was formulated it didn't matter because the technology wasn't' used responsibly. And it only took a few people to ruin for everyone forever.
For the record I am not against GMOs in principle. But the fact is we had only a hazy understanding of how all the links in an ecosystem worked without adding new organisms. So how did our understanding suddenly become absolute with GMOs? Because that is what is required to say that we know there is "no risk".
It just boggles the mind to claim that GMOs are unlike every other kind of technology and won't have unintended consequences. And by and large the people who control GMOs (and lots of other agricultural technologies) aren't' caring about those consequences until after they have already appeared.
if we are going to follow the evidence, that means ALL the evidence. Not just the good parts we want to believe.