ChapmansThe Saviour said:However, organic and free range foos will always tastbetter than anything that has been messed with.
Duncan H said:I thought the problem would come in food companies start to copyright the plants and animals they've designed. It isn't so much the environmental damage that the GM crops can do, as the economic if organisations gain control over farming methods.
From a scientific point of view I'd say GM is neutral. It can be good or bad, but isn't either in itself.
Dandyman said:Agree - US companies have already started to claim patents on rice stopping farmers in developing countries from growing their own without paying punitive fees. IMHO it is the patenting of food stuffs that is a far bigger worry than GM food as such.
Brixtaan said:The yanks have been eating it for years.
The Large One said:If we could have some neutral fact-based information, I am sure that arguments could be clarified, and hence finished, and we can argue about something else.
JEM said:Though not actually genetically modified, I bet the GM brigade don't protest about altering our food with vitamins, ie breakfast cereals and the like. If a food is good for you, why add stuff to it? The answer is because it isn't.
Sunny D is a prime example of this. A totally artificial drink, yet boasts "with loads of vitamins." What's next? Sausages? Dripping?
Safeway said:Hmm, that's probably more an argument for the 'No' camp.
Personally I say carry on meddling. IMHO organic stuff generally tastes really bland. Maybe it is how God intended but all that says to me is that God has boring taste.
Humans rule.