Since all of them are the same.

Yeah, biodiversity is important here for sure.

Thats why I said, overreliance is the issue here.

Learn from the Irish

We don't want to replace every crop with one super-rice

You see people talking about cocoa possibly going extinct... There's probably a lot of money for whoever can figure out a way to make that grow in new environments

there is NO consensus about GMO health safety

Because they're NOT necessarily safe. You're changing the organism's DNA to make it a new one. So that means you COULD make something poisonous, but that doesn't mean changing corn to have bigger kernels is going to necessarily be unsafe if that's all that is changed.

DNA is a highly complex set of code, and sometimes things are linked in ways we previously didn't understand. That means we should be careful moving forward and not put all our eggs in one basket. It doesn't mean avoiding all change.

They're changing the genes in the corn to turn the freaking frogs gay!!

Isn't kermit gay?

Ok, but really on some level he was right. But the chemicals are actually turning frogs trans.

ya, its the atrazine and other indocrine disruptors and estrogen mimickers

Sargon did a hilarious video on the "Gay Frog Holocaust" or something liek that

"We've been genetically modifying our food for as long as we've been growing it." but this is just plain untrue and is a common talking point sowed by slick snake oil salesmen 😉

GMO are fundamentally different than natural plant hybridization

they are *trans*-genic

also, they are *patented* as well

so they are *novel* inventions

tell me..... how do you "breed" a pig with an elephant?

or a spider with a goat?

Impossibruu

or a jellyfish with a feline .... or a cow with a pig ..... or a mold with a plant ... *or a human with an animal*.... see this is fundamentally different science

welll.... trick question 😉

the answer is GMOs thru genetic engineering as it is properly known

Then that's not whatever it originally is

Well that's sort of the point

thats what it means now .... legally speaking, so all that really matters. they are not the same things as DOGS as is a common and erroneous talking point

dogs are not GMOs

Similar to replacing wood on a ship, at what point does a cow becomes non cow if you keep replacing it's DNA

there are two technical requirements as for as i understand for something to be considered a GMO *legally speaking* ..... 1) trans-genic 2) patented

I think people shouldn't be able to patent GMOs

Why shouldn't they?

and i dont even think both are required.... its all about the methodology especially splice and dicing among different animal kingdoms

It's a difficult situation because then there's very little incentive for them to create them.

In it's actual sense as long as there is a splicing and joining of the DNA it should be GMO

I think that first of all the patents should be very limited in length, and secondly there should be protections for those whose crops naturally gain crossover with the GMO

there are natural hybrids that can occur with even artifical selection..... and then there are GMOs .... they are fundamentally different

Only in their origin

The end result is the same?

the crossover thing is why I dislike GMO patents