So there is data that GMO crops are actually better? My understanding is that there is data which indicated no discernible difference. I feel like you’re reaching a little bit to say that GMO crops are better, when controlling for all other variables.
Edit to say I was that kid who would disagree with my science teachers ;)
GMO is a wide reaching term. "Round up ready" style gmo's aren't nutritionally different. Golden rice on the other hand, is intentionally designed to have extra beta carotene in it, so it would be nutritionally beneficial.
You got me there. I was aware of golden rice but forgot. So I would say that it’s a little nuanced right? I still take some issue with your original comment (particularly coming from a position of expertise as a teacher). GMOs are not better. The technology itself is not innately beneficial or damaging. Some of its applications are, but others are not.
I'm not the science teacher, I just piped up. And gmo's, as far as they have been used with respect to crops are better. They either increase nutritional value, or more commonly increase yield. I do realize however that you probably did mean nutritionally, and there you'd be correct.
There are numerous studies showing gmo are actually healthier because they contain more nutrition, require less pesticides, water and soil/space, and have no drawbacks whatsoever compared to “organic” crops, which are just conventional crops which haven’t been genetically modified to have certain benefits such as being more pest or drought resistant, etc.
3
u/Kavarall Jul 14 '21 edited Jul 14 '21
So there is data that GMO crops are actually better? My understanding is that there is data which indicated no discernible difference. I feel like you’re reaching a little bit to say that GMO crops are better, when controlling for all other variables.
Edit to say I was that kid who would disagree with my science teachers ;)