• fossilesqueOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    I’m glad you responded. I was really curious to see, as this smells more political than health related.

    • SalamanderA
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Yeah. Claims about potential health effects can be very persuasive.

      It is a factual claim that something could go wrong, or that we have a gap in our understanding, and the outcome of that may be detrimental to our health. We can’t disprove this because it is true, and so what we need to do is to assess risks in a balanced manner. It is also a factual claim that a de-novo mutation could occur and produce a toxic strain, or maybe we do not understand something about a plant that we commonly eat and we later find out that it is carcinogenic. Our understanding evolves over time, and risks are everywhere.

      But most politicians are not so concerned with painting a balanced picture. The claim “a risk exists” is always factual and that is good enough to push an agenda.

      In my opinion this does not in itself mean that one political position is better than the other. Maybe the health claims are not a good argument, but there are many other valid reasons to want to stop GMO corn.

      • fossilesqueOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        8 months ago

        I’m more suspect about the companies involved than the concept of GMOs to be fair haha.

        • SalamanderA
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          Profit? What’s that? No no, that’s never a motive. We only want the world to be a better place thanks to our wonderful technology.