• i dont know, i only ever eat grass
  • isnt all food genetically modified. in nature the strongest seeds survive and go on to produce plants and reporduce where as the week ones fail to grow. it called natural selection
  • It's no better or worse to eat than any other food. In order to be sold it has to pass all the same requirements as any other food, and the fact that its DNA has been modified won't change much as the digestive system destroys it. Good for us as a society, though, is a different angle. We've been genetically modifying food for thousands of years. Selective breeding is exactly that, it just doesn't require understanding of biochemistry. Cauliflowers and sprouts, for example, are mutated versions of cabbages. Cabbages themselves have become more dense as people selectively plant the ones that produce the most food. Carrots never used to be orange - the surface part used to be bright, like turnips currently are, and they were bred to be orange all over. It's unnatural selection, but because we like the end product and because we can all get our head around how it works, we accept it. So why do people view things differently when the same end result is produced by an understanding of DNA? I think it's a mistrust of science, possibly related to the horror stories you see in movies. You see people who refuse to eat things with artificial flavourings in them, and only eat natural flavourings; the only difference between these flavourings is that one was produced by chemically destroying food to produce the flavour enhancer ("natural" flavouring) and one produced the flavour enhancer through other means. It's the same end result, chemically. The distinction to the consumer is meaningless, but people still use it to differentiate products. People are right to insist on controls for genetically modified crops; just as we've seen with things that have been selectively bred, the new variants can replace the old ones, instead of existing side by side. This may not be desirable. Changes, in many areas not just this one, are best introduced slowly and carefully, with a measured response and feedback. One thing I have read, that I'm not 100% sure on, is that many GM crops are not capable of reproducing by themselves, so they're unlikely to spread too far.
  • It could be very bad for us. DId you know that when offered feed from both GMO grains and natural grains, cows, pigs, horses and sheep always prefer the natural and won't touch the GMO unless they get very hungry. Even though to us they look the same, somehow the animals can tell the difference. But the worst thing about GMO foods are the seeds and the genetic material that literally invades all over crops and you cant' keep it in bounds. PLus there is something evil and just plain wrong with a company that turns seeds into doomsday plants. Unless they get certain chemicals or pesticides developed and sold by the same company, the plants won't produce and will just die. And you can't save the seed. It's dead seed from the parent plants. SO people can't save their seed and grow it next year. And once you plant it, since it leaves it's genetic material in the soil, if you try to replant with the old fashioned natural seed, they will come after you the next year and prove that you have their patented genetic material in your crop and force you to play them or lose your farm. It's just plain evil!!!!! Monsanto is the worst company on the planet.
  • It's not too good for us go organic.
  • if you like a little ground up scorpion in your tomatoe go for it.
  • It's no worse. The specific chromosomes in an organism's DNA that we digest has no effect whatsoever on our health or safety. As long as an organism has the nutrients and proteins that we need, has no poisons in it (as various berries and whatnot do), and carries no harmful viruses or bacteria, it's safe to eat. Most genetically modified food is to enhance resistance to disease and pests. This doesn't benefit the consumer at all--it increases yeild, and thus the profit, for the grower. This also has a beneficial environmental benefit--agriculture is one of the worst offenders as far as environmental destruction goes, so increasing the yeld of cropland has an indirect benefit for the environment and reducing global warming. Of course, that's not to say that some evil mad scientist could use genetic engineering to make a poisonous potato plant for example, but such a scheme would quickly be exposed by James Bond when he breaks into the mad scientist's secret undergound base and steals all his bikini-clad female assistants...
  • Biotech companies have been aggressively promoting the use of genetically modified food. It's a financial goldmine for them. Unfortunately, there are several problems with genetically modified food. Even the scientists at the FDA resisted them till political pressure from the top approved it. Every independent study has shown problems with the eating of genetically modified food. Abnormal cell growth being high on the list.
  • I don't think they are good for us at all , we are what we eat and this might have an effect on us on a genetic DNA level possibly. But I guess it couldn't be any worse than preservatives, chemicals, pesticides and other junk they stick in and on our foods.
  • You are not doing bloody research - You're looking at ill-informed opinions and propaganda. You're doing the equivalent of looking at the PETA website to find out if you should take your Kids to KFC for a Saturday night treat. You're doing the equivalent of Searching The national enquirer for serious news reports. . To long, and didn't read? You're not doing research - you're blindly trusting whatever Google gives you, instead of thinking critically and researching both sides of the issue. If you are researching this way for your family's safety, in my opinion you are doing them a very great insult.

Copyright 2020, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy