Quote:
|
Originally Posted by boatin
May or may not be off topic, but you don't eat much that hasn't been genetically modified. Most anything grown and on our tables is the product of decades, if not centuries, of selective breeding programs.
My understanding is that if you looked at the genetic makeup of a modern carrot (for example), the genetic coding is huge and ungainly. As it's been tweaked by centuries of breeding.
There isn't much that's "natural" anymore. Breeding manipulates genes as much as a lab could do. One is deemed "ok", and one isn't. But I question the logic.
I refer everyone to the thread on peeing in the bathtub in the General Discussion forum. Same result as using the toilet, no demonstrable harm, yet many many are against it. Why?
I'm not saying there is no potential downside to possible research. But we have a lovely habit of drawing lines where they are easy to draw. Not where they should be drawn due to logic and belief.
I'm just saying...
|
boatin,
the main difference here is that in selective breeding programs, nature has a multitude of safety levers to ensure potentially destructive genes are not passed from generation to generation.
You can mate carrots to varieties of carrots, but you can't mate tomatoes to carrots. And if you were successful, as some breeding programs have done with some animals, they aren't able to produce viable offspring.
With genetic manipulation, one can force genetic sequences into organisms that would never otherwise obtain them. To my knowledge, it isn't possible to graft the genetic sequence of a pesticide or selective resistance to a predator into a plant, but it can be done in a lab.
I see no inconsistency between support of genetic manipulation in humans and non-support for foods given that I don't, on a regular basis, eat human beings.