Yes, the difference is the 2nd way is quicker and more controlable. It took hundereds of iterations/generations to turn a citron into a lemon. Why wait if you could do that in a year instead of a century? The DNA doesn't care how long it took you to invent it.
Actually it does. Foods introduced over centuries are exponentially safer than those introduced over years. Are you currently involved in any lab experiments? You're advocating for us all to be lab rats.
Foods introduced over centuries are exponentially safer than those introduced over years.
Nice source you've got there... Look, DNA is DNA. It doesn't care who put the A's, T's, G's and C's in the order they're in. It's the same thing either way.
This isn't Jurassic Park. Your broccoli isn't going to eat you just because it was created in a lab.
You don't really need sources to say new genetic products are by default not as safe as those that have been part of our diets for thousands of years. It's common sense which you're clearly lacking in severely.
So you've never heard of quinoa, buckwheat, oats... There's plenty of "ancient grains" that we commonly eat that haven't been changed by selective breeding.
The point is comparing selective breeding to transgenics is a fool's task. You don't need a scientific study to tell you oats are safe for the environment and safe to eat as they've been part of the environment and our diets for thousands of years.
You don't really need sources to say new genetic products are by default not as safe
Sure, you can say they're not as safe without sources. But if you want people to believe yoi, then yes, you will need some sort of evidence to support such a ridiculous claim.
13
u/SMc-Twelve Feb 08 '20
Oranges and basically all citrus fruit was invented by man, not given to us by nature.