re: #6 calochortus

re: #7 Obdicut (Now with 2% less brain)

You’re both wrong.

re: #7 Obdicut (Now with 2% less brain)

By putting it in the crops, it actually lowers the amount used, not raises it. So in this case, the GMO is addressing a problem that you see: weeds will evolve slower to combat round-up if it’s used in lower quantities.

What? How? They’re not putting Round-Up itself into crop DNA. These crops aren’t killing surrounding weeds by themselves. What Monsanto did was splice a gene granting resistance to Round-Up into the crops. And the obvious point of doing that is to encourage farmers to use said herbicide more frequently, or to reassure those who otherwise wouldn’t use Round-Up that it won’t harm said crops. Either way, how does that lead to using less Round-Up?

re: #6 calochortus

I don’t think GMO food is dangerous in and of itself. What concerns me is things like “Round Up Ready” crops. It results in crops being doused repeatedly in glyphosate, which was not intended to be used in that sort of quantity-especially not on food plants. And, of course, in time evolution will bring us “Round Up Ready” weeds and a reasonably safe herbicide will become useless.

In time? It already happened! Did you think Monsanto got the Round-Up resistant gene from the ether?