|
southern MN | This stuff comes down to beliefs, not science, and its difficult to discuss religious beliefs in a calm, scientific way.
Each side ends up frustrated to the point, to ridicule the other, and no one really listens.
We have a pretty good system right now.
Good basic grains that ecconomically supply nutrition to most of the world.
A system of several specialty products labeled both by govt and privately to meet special needs or desires of folks who want something special. Mostly 'organic' or various 'natural' andy 'gmo-free' labels.
Gmo gives us cheaper food, moe stable food supply, less erosion, safer environment for farmers to work in.
It give more nutritious food in a few cases, the potential for this has not scratched the surface, but there just is little demand for such at this time.
Everything in life comes with trade offs and a bit of the unknown. Its good if people have choices, and good if they are concerned about their food.
We've had a long period, a generation or a bit more, of processed, high sugar, foods combined with less exersize and a whole lot of science changing the food, the food processing, and the food packaging in that time.
We probably have some things wrong along that path, even if the path is heading in a general good direction.
Personally I think gmo is a better part of the path, and the high sugar, high processed, low exersize parts might be most of the problems.
I find the non-gmo deal puzzling, personally.
I can grasp the organic movement, if I agree with it or not, I can see the defined differences.
But non-gmo, that seems like a bit of a hokey in between setup. Not willing to accept gmo, but fine with the more dangerous insecticides and herbicides that non-gmo can use..... I'm always puzzled by that.
Paul | |
|
What benefits for the consumer does production ag's GMO are there
