you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] 13 points 2 years ago (1 child)

The post says that targeted mutagenesis is safer than non targeted. The criticism you mentioned - very one sided btw - holds true for both cases. You are right with your criticism on GMO's but radioactivity Is a worse option than Crispr.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [โ€“] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I admit, my arguments were cherry picked. I just wanted to provide a few counter examples to show that there are reasons for being skeptical of GMO crops. My biggest concern actually isn't food safety or environmental impacts but the previously mentioned intellectual property implications. I don't want Bayer to own certain genes making it illegal to plant seeds from apples I bought at the store.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [โ€“] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Wait, do you think non-gmo variants don't have IP laws applied to them?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [โ€“] 2 points 2 years ago

    No, unfortunately it does. GMO crops could make this even worse because they may pass their genes to wild plants through gene flow. The 'owner' of that gene could then require a licensing deal for the use of these plants as well.

  • source
  • parent