> Instead I find this as a shill article complete void of data or any other information whatsoever.
I don't see any data in your comment either. Shall we classify it as a shill as well?
It's pretty clear that the article has a single argument. We have been genetically modifying foods for thousands of years and there is no fundamental difference between what we're doing now and what we did before, other than the tools we're using to do it.
How can you provide data for that?
> You label your food as GMO ... In the US you can't choose
WholeFoods is advertising all over their paper bags that they will begin doing this. That said, everything consumed by human beings in the last few thousand years is GMO. Especially our livestock, which has been forced down an evolutionary path that is not sustainable in nature in the slightest. If we become extinct for whatever reason, you will not find chickens and cows roaming about. They will be gone and they will be gone very quickly.
I think that some breeds of cow, at least, would be able to survive a human extinction event. You would see rapid adaptation in the population, though, so maybe we could rephrase your observation to: "If we become extinct for whatever reason, you will not find recognizable chickens and cows roaming about."
> That said, everything consumed by human beings in the last few thousand years is GMO.
And most people in the anti/label-GMO movement know this an acknowledge that to be the case and love that. What they DON'T love is the intentional irradiation/gene gun/cross species GM techniques that have been employed in the last 30ish years. On an evolutionary scale there hasn't been enough time to determine if modern GM crops (specifically the cross species variety) are deleterious or not. That's where the concern lies.
> On an evolutionary scale there hasn't been enough time to determine if modern GM crops (specifically the cross species variety) are deleterious or not.
I agree and what we need is version control. If at a later time we do find that we went down the wrong path, we should be able to revert to a prior state with a click of a button.
I would be quite shocked if Monsanto and the others weren't sequencing all of their products, in all of their iterations. That will allow us to revert to a previous state if necessary.
I don't see any data in your comment either. Shall we classify it as a shill as well?
It's pretty clear that the article has a single argument. We have been genetically modifying foods for thousands of years and there is no fundamental difference between what we're doing now and what we did before, other than the tools we're using to do it.
How can you provide data for that?
> You label your food as GMO ... In the US you can't choose
WholeFoods is advertising all over their paper bags that they will begin doing this. That said, everything consumed by human beings in the last few thousand years is GMO. Especially our livestock, which has been forced down an evolutionary path that is not sustainable in nature in the slightest. If we become extinct for whatever reason, you will not find chickens and cows roaming about. They will be gone and they will be gone very quickly.