Hi Wonder
My problems w GMO are in foods that we eat everyday.
The very Chemicals that they are resistant to are incorporated into them. Plants have many natural defenses and have those same chemicals in their fruit and fiber, we have introduced new chemicals that we may or may not be able to process internally and yes Monsanto is the largest of the companies to do so.
Roundup may be harmless or it may be a real killer... I would choose to not be a guinea pig... IF I was given the choice
I'm sorry, but no they are not. Look up "golden rice".
"Plants have many natural defenses and have those same chemicals in their fruit and fiber, we have introduced new chemicals that we may or may not be able to process internally and yes Monsanto is the largest of the companies to do so.
And many plants already have chemicals "we can't process" that occur naturally. They're called "toxic", or "carcinogenic". There are no "new" chemicals (as in "unknown to science") that result from the GMO process.
And what, precisely, does the size of Monsanto have to do with anything??
"Roundup may be harmless or it may be a real killer... "
Roundup has nothing whatsoever to do with GMO. It isn't produced as a result of gene splicing. It's produced in a chemical plant by standard chemical engineering production processes.
"I would choose to not be a guinea pig... IF I was given the choice..."
At what point does the amount of scientific proof of harmlessness overcome your desire "not to be a guinea pig"??? There is simply no evidence of harmful effect, and much evidence of benefit to be gained. When does scientific proof finally outweigh propagandistic speculation??
The green fanatic propagandists have used the exact same "it might produce something toxic" ("unique radiolytic products) to largely prevent the use of food irradiation, yet the chemistry that happens as a result of irradiation is known to science, both in mechanism and end result.
In both cases, the actual evidence of harmful effect is zero.