What anti-GMOist often dont get: They think that if they are able to prove that /a/ GMO crop variant is bad that it somehow means that /all/ GMOs are bad. This is a massive error in logic and and evidence of a lack of scientific literacy about genetic engineering. Otherwise, you would need to conclude that all non-GMOs are bad for human health. Why? Because of non-GMO crops like the Lenape Potato. Traditionally bred. Turned out to be toxic for consumption. So, should we condemn all non-GMOs? Or should we take the actually logical and scientifically literate conclusion that the specific genetic traits in the Lenape Potato is what caused the problem and /not/ how the Lenape Potato was formed that caused the problem? The same goes for GMOs. Example: Lenape Potato - the Case of the Poison Potato boingboing.net/2013/03/25/the-case-of-the-poison-potato.html In order to prove that /all/ GMOs and not just /a/ GMO is bad for human consumption, you need a plausible, evidence-based, scientific and biological explanation how exactly /all/ GMOs, no matter what their genetic traits, are /all/ bad for human health. Without such an evidence-based, plausible, scientific and biological explanation, you can only argue about whether a specific genetic trait in question is bad or not.
Posted on: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 03:20:10 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015