I think generally speaking we haven't done anywhere near enough studying to have it be mass implemented the way we have. Sure, if it's between starvation and GMO's, I'd prefer the modified food, however, I think messing with the biological integrity of the food has to have some effects. Now, I know there are certainly harmless ways of modifying food, such as cross breeding watermelons to have seedless brethren, however, I think a majority of what GM food is is not this.

I think organic food is best. I won't lie and say it is the lifestyle for all, as purely organic food is harder to grow and thus more expensive. There needs to be a balance, but at the moment, I feel we are swinging way to far into trusting Gm's inherently (especially when there are secretive acts happening, like in the US, GM manufacturers have the right to not label which food is GMO)

One can say that that the selection done year after year, generation after generation by farmers  that allowed us to obtain the gene to what we call basmati rice is a manipulation of genetics , or , another example, grafting one tree onto another to obtain certain characteristics not naturally occurring is also genetic manipulation or, yet another example, selective breeding and cross-breeding of animals is also genetic manipulation. I have no problem with any of these GMO's in general.

I'm not even a dog person but isn't it cute? 

It's a labradoodle (labrador + poodle) , therefore a GMO

The definition of GMO can be pretty wide and varied so your question is .... simplistic ( to say the least )

exactly this. more examples are corn and lemons, neither of which are natural products. norman borlaug, won the noble peace prize, is credited with starting the green revolution, credited with saving one billion people from starvation "GM crops are as natural and safe as today's bread wheat, opined Dr. Borlaug, who also reminded agricultural scientists of their moral obligation to stand up to the antiscience crowd and warn policy makers that global food insecurity will not disappear without this new technology and ignoring this reality global food insecurity would make future solutions all the more difficult to achieve." theres nothing inherintly wrong with gmo crops, just like theres nothing wrong with owning a chefs knife. what matters is how its used. 

There is a stark difference between cross breeding and genetically altering foods on a molecular scale, though. But yes, the demand for food will certainly not be met without crops that are genetically more resistant disease. I'm not worried about foods modified to have more plentiful harvests, but I am more concerned about the amount of genetic alteration required to create a "perfect" crop. ie. A crop that is both disease resistant (to whichever extent) and grows extremely large and quickly.


Unfortunately, the demand for GMO's itself isn't the inherent cause of GMO's being a thing, but rather the demand of food. GMO is simply a solution to the shortage of foods. Another less obvious factor, I believe, is dining culture. In certain places like in America and the UK, food waste is a massive problem, both on a household and industrial level. People take more than they can bite, and stores throw foods out like nobody's business that aren't donate-able because of FDA laws. There's so much waste, and to compensate for that, GMO needs to be continuously be churned out to keep up with how much waste is being produced to ensure shelves are stocked and people (who can afford it) won't go hungry. Growing population = growing waste = growing use of GMO. 


It's true that GMO hasn't been around long enough to prove its adverse effects if any, however I think the argument that people getting sick over GMO is more so about how its used. I think raw GMO crops aren't a problem, but when refined and processed into packaged, "quick and easy" foods, that's where the problem begins. Eating GMO vegetables and meats aren't going to kill you, eating excessive amounts of processed foods (which are made of GMO's for cost efficiency) is the problem.

"There is a stark difference between cross breeding and genetically altering foods on a molecular scale"

Gigantic difference !!

"Eating GMO vegetables and meats aren't going to kill you, eating excessive amounts of processed foods (which are made of GMO's for cost efficiency) is the problem." 

Hence the requirement by many countries that GM foods be labelled  (i believe lawmakers in the US are still pandering to industry donors and dragging their feet) so that consumers are free to chose whatever they prefer. 

"It's true that GMO hasn't been around long enough to prove its adverse effects if any"

Not directly but there have been examples of GM crops cross breeding with naturally occurring relatives and giving the resulting plant (not always an edible or desirable plant) an advantage that tips the environmental balance so i'd say that's an unwanted adverse effect

Expensive mongrel, thats what i call these new "fashionable" crossbreeds..