PrincessPeach wrote:Monsanto's hold the patents to over 11,000 + seeds....
The patenting of living things, and the bad business practices associated with that, are the real worry.
We should oppose Monsanto on those grounds, and encourage them to improve their behavior.
We should support genetic engineering that seeks to make plants more nutritious, or use genetically modified organisms to clean up the environment.
We should support open source genetic projects, or even copyleft, because these have more potential to be used for good.
"Scientists warn that GMOS may:
"Scientists" also warn that Jesus will be returning soon and the apocalypse is coming, and that space aliens are real and they will destroy us if we don't worship them.
The question is, which "scientists". Scientists can be ignorant. Very ignorant- they're human.
Just saying that some scientist somewhere once said something doesn't carry much weight. Scientific consensus, and the consensus of scientific bodies, which have specialization in the field, however, do carry weight.
Most scientists have no idea how genetic engineering works, and journalists pull quotes from them anyway.
The FDA and the EPA both have oversight over these matters, and they're both staffed by very experienced scientists who have joined the organization for the public good (not on Monsanto's payroll).
Congressmen may be in the pockets of industry because they rely on being elected, but these governmental bodies are more removed from politics (and have to be), so are less biased.
See here, some of the regulations and cautions that the EPA takes:
http://www.epa.gov/oecaagct/tbio.html#Types
Genetically engineered plant biopesticides are such a good thing for the environment it's crazy that every environmentalist doesn't support it wholeheartedly. The gap there is because of ignorance.
"Harm beneficial insects" The EPA monitors this, and they ban things that might.
"increase toxic pesticide use" Genetic engineering decreases toxic pesticide use. Less insecticide is used. Sometimes more herbicide can be used- herbicide is harmless to humans (it affects plants).
"create super-pests" The EPA monitors this carefully. But they're not really "super", that just means they're immune to the insecticide. It's not a really big deal, it just means we have to switch to another insecticide.
"super weeds" That's not how DNA works. The weeds would have to be the same species as the plants that were engineered. "Super weeds" evolve just fine on their own. And again, "super" just means they're herbicide resistant.
"new plant viruses" That's just silly.
"increase cancer risks" More likely decrease cancer risk, through safer biological pesticides that target the pests more directly and are less harmful to humans.
"produce dangerous toxins" Dangerous toxins to certain kinds of pest insects, yes. Harmless to humans- and LESS dangerous than the alternatives.
"contaminate non-gmo crops" If farmers are not careful, yes. Does this really matter that much? Crops have been cross breeding since there was agriculture. The issue here is the evil corporations very vehemently asserting their patent rights.
"set of allergies" Any food can do this, but GE foods have not been shown to be particularly allergenic.
"produce antibiotic resistant patthogens." What? That's absurd. Of course not. Genetic engineering for plants has nothing to do with antibiotics in animals.
z