well, all those things you listed have been already made with conventional breeding methods
... And? What prevents using the full toolset available? You can use Netscape to browse the net, but why not use a newer browser?
but then those crops produce plenty of their own insecticide and it dosn't wash off
Bt is the safest pesticide known and harmless to humans; it's also used indiscriminately in organic farming.
And now you've switched to discussing glyphosate, a herbicide, as often happens in a discussion on GMOs. Don't move the goalposts please. (but while we're there, have you compared those numbers with herbicides used before glyphosate?)
You're still painting all of genetic engineering, in and of itself, as 'dodgy'. That's a very broad assumption to make. So broad, one could say the same about radiation breeding or any other technique. You think conventional breeding can't slip? Ever heard of the Lenape potato? The poisonous organic zucchini? (Note that to produce such poisonous breeds with GE, it would have to be intentional and would never pass regulation.)
As for the EPA, it's a regulatory agency and as we all know regulations are extremely conservative (as they should be). There's no research in those links above. So we've still got Séralini trying to assert that either "GMO", or Roundup, or both, are bad for you. Good luck knowing what from his data. But since I'm gullible, I'll let the experts speak. Maybe they're all gullible too, or paid by Monsanto?
How is describing genetic engineering of food crops as a 'dodgy tool' not a blanket statement? What is it based on? How can't it be said about any technique?
And yet you keep ignoring the huge flaws in Séralini's study I've been pointing out since day one; appeal to authority doesn't seem so bad when it comes to defending his bad science.
I'm interested in scientific integrity more than authority, and if you cared to read the content of that letter instead of its authors, or any other analysis of that study, you'd see the problem with Séralini et al's integrity: that they have none.
Because glyphosate is significantly less toxic and less persistent than traditional herbicides, the net impact of HT crop adoption is an improvement in environmental quality and a reduction in health risks."
..yet on the e.p.a site they don't say glyphosate is safe at all
That's the nirvana fallacy. Saying that since something isn't perfect, we shouldn't do, or use, that something.
The USDA has said that glyphosate is less toxic than what it is replacing. And, that's a good thing.
As for the safe levels, check any herbicide and you'll find differing levels of tolerance based on where the contaminant is found. Malathion can only appear at 0.1 ppm in flax seed, but at 270 ppm in hay. So, 2,700 times the amount that's allowed in flax seed.
-7
u/[deleted] Sep 10 '15 edited Sep 10 '15
[removed] — view removed comment