Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
First because we're not really sure about the outcome. You're messing with genes here, I'd rather be cautious.
Secondly, it's because it's not free. GMO products are owned. And that means proprietary. I'd rather have basic foodstuffs owned by the public, and not by a company.
So what is the difference between changing a crop at the gene level or doing the same thing via selective breeding?
I am not being sarcastic I just wonder what the difference is?
So what is the difference between changing a crop at the gene level or doing the same thing via selective breeding?
I am not being sarcastic I just wonder what the difference is?
When selective breeding, you weed out the apparent characteristics in a way that you can throw out all the unwanted ones. It's a slow process, but a thorough one.
When interfering directly with genetics, you are possibly risking fallout at long term. Genes are complicated and I would prefer to do it by selective breeding, which is an entirely natural and thousand years old process than to meddle with things we don't understand for 100%.
I'm not against genetic manipulation, but it's like trying to fix a spaceship when you know just the basics of bike repair. GM science is a lot of hit and miss, and I would prefer to avoid foods that have been changed without knowing exactly what the long term effects are.
Speaking of science, do you have links and data for your claims?
On my phone. Simply google anti-GMO activists killing children for an eye opener.
The fact is scientists in the field overwhelmingly are in favor of golden rice and other GMO foods. The fact is 1500-2000 mothers will bury their children today due to vitamin A deficiency.
A queen of France lost her head over a similar statement.
Of course! Those starving kids should just eat more cake.
This is one of those issues where popular opinion seems to run counter to expert opinion, and the arguments against these crops all seem to rely on emotion, fear, and slippery slopes ("If we allow golden rice, we'll have to allow other scaaaaaaary frankenfoods!"). And yeah, it's the left this time. As much as I agree with the left on many issues, I don't support them at all on this.
Note: I'm not claiming to be an expert on this, but it does appear to me that opposition is all politically motivated, and it doesn't seem any more grounded that anti-fluoride crusades. Hey, there's another example of the left opposing extremely useful science.
The fact is 1500-2000 mothers will bury their children today due to vitamin A deficiency.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OwlAndSparrow
This is one of those issues where popular opinion seems to run counter to expert opinion, and the arguments against these crops all seem to rely on emotion, fear, and slippery slopes ("If we allow golden rice, we'll have to allow other scaaaaaaary frankenfoods!"). And yeah, it's the left this time. As much as I agree with the left on many issues, I don't support them at all on this.
Well...
Given that beta carotene is not synthesized into retinol/retinal/retinoic acid in the under 5-6 year range, those 1500-2000 mothers would probably still be burying their children today due to vitamin A deficiency.
The problem is this.
When golden rice was created, it was not understood that infant metabolism could not convert beta carotene (or any carotene) into vitamin A. It was done in the best of intentions, to cut infant mortality in developing nations with low consumption of vitamin A bearing foods (both plant and animal products). However wind the clock forward 20 odd years and the solution (golden rice) does not solve the problem hypovitaminosis of vitamin A in infants. Furthermore diets that are low in actual or precursor vitamin A are also low in fats, Vitamin A is fat soluble, precursors require lipids for conversion to vitamin A. So even with golden rice it it recommended to supplement populations at risk with actual vitamin A. If, by necessity, you're going to supplement vitamin A, why waste your time converting your crop strains to a precursor generating crop strain that still requires supplementation? Why not just marginally increase the supplementation rate? Especially as local growing conditions may result in lower yields, or be more prone to local pests than locally grown strains (which are specifically developed to meet the environmental conditions). Starvation will kill people a lot faster and in more numbers than risk of vitamin A deficiencies.
"Anti-science" would be not incorporating more recent data into the argument to fulfill an agenda (and I'm not blaming the OP for this, they're not an expert in human digestion and metabolism). Fact is a lot of money was invested into the golden rice, and obviously those people want some return. I've not seen any study (and this is telling) that concludes that in the under 5 age range golden rice will have any appreciable benefit.
So I'm not opposed to Golden Rice because it's GM, I'm opposed to shoving Golden Rice on the developing world because it will not solve the problem, and may create additional problems that currently do not exist that are more significant.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
