Fallen_Horse wrote:This is frustrating.
Has anyone here heard of selective breeding? We have been making 'GMO' foods for a long time, just not as advanced as at the genetic level. We have bred plants for specific properties for hundreds of years, and we are becoming better and better at it. The problem has always been the COMPANIES behind the PATENTS, and the MONEY behind the breeding, not the foods themselves.
Please, anyone here that is afraid of GMO foods should immediately run to their nearest chemist or biologist friend and ask them what they think. There is NO evidence that GMO's are any worse for us than traditional foods. The risk is that COMPANIES choose to breed only the plants that produce them the most MONEY, thus breeding out nutrients in the process.
"There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops pose no greater risk than conventional food. No reports of ill effects have been documented in the human population from GM food. In 2012, the American Association for the Advancement of Science stated "Foods containing ingredients from genetically modified (GM) crops pose no greater risk than the same foods made from crops modified by conventional plant breeding techniques." The American Medical Association, the National Academies of Sciences and the Royal Society of Medicine have stated that no adverse health effects on the human population related to GM food have been reported and/or substantiated in peer-reviewed literature to date. A 2004 report by Working Group 1 of the ENTRANSFOOD project, a group of scientists funded by the European Commission to identify prerequisites for introducing agricultural biotechnology products in a way that is largely acceptable to European society, concluded that "the combination of existing test methods provides a sound test-regime to assess the safety of GM crops." In 2010, the European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation reported that "The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.""
OK, I'm glad you brought up selective breeding. This is done frequently for show dogs. Have you ever seen the degradation of the blood lines of show dogs? It is sad really to see what is going on behind the scenes. Take a look at this and tell me if you still think selective breeding is a good idea. And please be careful putting a lot of stock into what you find on Wiki. Anyone...and I mean any idiot (although not always the case) can write or edit the entries there.