/sci/ - Science & Math

You know what time it is?
It's HITLER TIME!


On a more serious note, I have yet to see a convincing argument that says GMO food is any worse for you than regular food.

I would think the 1 billion lives saved from starvation would agree with me on that.

But it's not about them. It's actually about whether or not the food is, in fact, somehow worse for you.

From a purely metabolic standpoint, once the food hits your digestive system it is reduced to amino acids, sugars, and whatever else (I'm a geologist not an organic biologist damnit).

As for the "Roundup" claims, if you engineer a food which does well to act as a natural herbicide, or even a natural insecticide, that, after testing, only targets pest type species, then I have to ask: What's the big fucking deal? I mean, you just saved crops, reduced pesticide loads, and have deprived an invasive species food that would be wasted.

I'm just not seeing how that makes GMO food any worse than any food you selectively breed over a few seasons for the same purpose.

Ok you don't like Monsanto, that is a valid argument if its an ethical one. However, if you start filtering in talking points without examining without bias business practices, research and development, and much else, you are little better than the ones you purport to be "Paid shills" Or whatever conspiracy theory talk is popular this week.

That's all I got. I just wanted to be the unfortunate soul who invoked godwins law.