General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: The Problem with G.M.O. Labels [View all]Zorra
(27,670 posts)"Conventional techniques, often simply a random mixing of genomes, are not necessarily safer than engineering."
When propagandists use statements like this, that are intended to mislead, it's "Game Over". All dude is really saying here is, paraphrased,
"GMO's might be safe, we simply don't know if they are yet. But that doesn't meant that they aren't safe! We've put them into general use, and now all living things are our test subjects, and this general environmental testing will determine at some future date if GMO's are safe or not."
We already know that conventional techniques, such as hybridization within species using Mendel's same species natural inheritance process, have been tested over a long period of time, and proven to a very large degree to be safe. And there is no reason to believe they would not be safe. Mixing genomes within species is a heck of a lot different than altering the genome of a species by inserting genes of a different species into it's genome.
In contrast, GMO's are not time tested, and have not been proven to be safe.
snip--
Modifying one segment of DNA does not have a single direct result; instead it can cause a spiraling effect of unintended consequences
snip---
Genetic engineering is an experiment in the proposition that human institutions can perform adequate risk assessments on lab-created living organisms
(more)
http://gmo-awareness.com/all-about-gmos/gmo-risks/