By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
the2real4mafol said:
JoeTheBro said:

It's as real as you and me and has been confirmed to have zero acute health effects. On the opposite side GM crops have the potential to save billions of lives in developing countries and increase health in the US. Anyway like 90% of corn and soy beans in the US are GM and corn and soy beans are in like 90% of products so it makes more sense to label non GM foods.

Interestingly enough I live in Boulder, Colorado. 99% of the populous are hippies and only eat locally grown organic all natural small business food.

I still don't want to touch the stuff though, i just think GM is a bad idea. And it may help the developing world, if the food was wasted so much in America or Europe. The world has enough food for 11 billion (huge surplus) and yet at least 1 billion are starving. Seems fair! With such a huge surplus, why do we need to modify it in the first place? It's fine as it is.  

Are you OK with direct breeding? Like if you have a high yield plant and a low yield one and you only take seeds from the high yield one?

If not, then why did we ever adopt any technique to improve farming? Why do we need fertiliser? Why do we need irrigation? Are you seriously saying crop yields are good enough and shouldn't improve?

Your argument is still coming from, "UGH GM IS UNNATURAL". If it's bad please link the data.