Some valid points, but many which are immaterial in the context of GMOs. a viral vector containing the gene of choice is inserted into the organism, methods vary but it can be as simple by injecting the gene into plant tissue with a syringe. there are no chemical hazards regarding the process in and of itself. but one cannot ignore such factors you pointed out as they are almost guaranteed to go hand in hand with the procedure. artificial hormones, and pesticides (which supposedly we would use less of) are still employed by the companies that utilize GMO technology. So while the science behind GMOs is not necessarily bad- in the end i will concede and agree with you. you are probably right in that GMO crops aren't well regulated. there are other issues that need to be prioritized (like rotation, as you mentioned), and solved not in the laboratory but first on the actual fields. conventional crops > artificially modified crops. now to fix the massive global food distribution problem...
well, i was just trying to keep this comment short, but that's not going to happen as well as planned. 1.) It's silly to make a blanket statement about GMOs, either saying they are beneficial or harmful 2.) be careful about fear-mongering, make sure claims are somewhat scientifically founded...there is too much cherry picking and misinformation going around, from both sides...hell i may be guilty of that, by no intention
are you against vaccines too?
Doomroar
But inst it kind of irresponsible to leave all our mess to be solved by the planet itself?
VicariousE
When it comes to corporate animal and plant manufacturing, I don't see any alternative, other than to toss the dirt around and let the sun hit it for a few years....
Animal farms need to be dug up and composted for many years. Either way, it's nasty |: Maybe check the bacteria and chem levels every other year. We're talking about millions of acres that have been spoiled by chemical/petroleum spraying, and God knows what in and around chicken/pig/cattle pens.