Environment & Energy
In reply to the discussion: Hillary Clinton Cheerleads for Biotech and GMOs [View all]Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)I'm against the very notion of patenting any part of any DNA. I'm against GM designed specifically to be resistant to specific pesticides or herbicides, so that those can then be used to sterilize the earth around those crops. And I'm for open, long-term, longitudinal studies of GM that don't just look for the obvious sorts of detrimental effects, but also look for more subtle effects on metabolic pathways and biologic function. And I'm for labeling, so those who choose to do so can have the 'free market' information they need to avoid eating or drinking what they wish.
Studies on some of the pesticides found roundabout connections between minute amounts of them and colony collapse when exposed larvae developed incorrectly such that they were far more vulnerable to specific parasites in the midgut. So we need far more caution and 'measure twice, cut once' attitudes towards GM as well. (These were not pesticides linked to GM-resistance, btw, just using them as an example of how harmful effects aren't always the obvious ones for which you test.)
But we're still likely to want that technology as climate change worsens. We're going to need to develop far more drought-resistant crops, or ones that grow more quickly, or blight-resistant crops. And it's doubtful if we'll be able to do so simply with traditional breeding methods.
The problem with GM is not that it exists. As with every technology we develop, it's how we use it, and how we decide what 'safe' means in the long term.