General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Neil DeGrasse Tyson Tells Bill Maher That Anti-Science Liberals Are Full of Shit Too [View all]Major Nikon
(36,829 posts)As I stated, transgenesis most certainly is something that happens in nature. So the claim that GMO is somehow less natural than any other breeding method most certainly is a diversion that simply feeds on paranoia and ignorance, which is the underlying strategy of the anti-GMO movement.
The idea of blind acceptance just doesn't have any merit. GMO is more heavily tested and regulated than any other breeding method and is continuously expected to comply with an ever increasing higher standard that comes when the goalposts are constantly being moved. So what makes all of this anti-science is why. Why is this one method of breeding far more heavily scrutinized than any other? When you ask this question, you are faced with completely nonsensical answers like fish and tomatoes and other assorted appeal to nature fallacies. The reality is that anytime you employ almost any breeding method, you wind up with attributes and genes not found in the parent organisms. The reason I say almost is because the one exception is transgenesis employed by GMO biotechnology. With that method you are only changing one gene at a time instead of thousands and the results are far more predictable.
Certainly anytime you produce a new varietal by any method, there is a possibility of introducing unintended consequences. GMO is a technology that's been around now for over 30 years and has not once introduced any human safety issues. Nobody is dying and nobody is getting sick. You can't say that about the other methods you mentioned.
Round-up really isn't all that complicated. It's already been tested more than pretty much any other pesticide in history, and the result is it's safer and far less toxic and than everything it's replaced. No amount of testing is ever going to appease the anti-GMO movement which is agenda driven. You can't fix an anti-science mindset with more science. Your idea that round-up is somehow fundamental different is nonsensical. There are all sorts of selective herbicides which kill target pest weeds and not the beneficial plant. Describing something as "poison" without any consideration of dosage or target control is also nonsensical. Just because something is "poison" to one type of organism, doesn't mean it's "poison" to a completely different organism. Most plants have inherent pesticidal properties and most of the pesticide load you get comes from the plants themselves, not from pesticides used during production.