asked in Others+Miscelleneous by ELITE (3,054 points) 8 36 66
There are tons of peer reviewed scientific reseaches proving that these GMOs do not pose greater risk to the environment, human, and animal health but some people seem to remain skeptic about that. Yes, it is right to question a technology because criticisms not only serve as a tool for improvement but in this case--assurance of safety. However, I think it has been too much to the point where people get to impede the very technology that has saved millions of lives over the years.
replied by LEGEND (6,072 points) 7 22 49
I believe the reason people are still being skeptical about GMO is because of the fact that the main contents of their products has been significantly altered. And this alteration is seen as moving from natural stuff to unnatural. It shows that something must be wrong with their products since they have lost their originality.
replied by ELITE (3,054 points) 8 36 66
@Chrisking can you please elaborate on the "main contents" that you are referring to?
replied by LEGEND (6,072 points) 7 22 49

@greencrayon what i am saying is that GMO are not at their natural states. As the name implies, they are Genetically Modified Organisms. Meaning that there must have been unwholesome changes in the genes of these organisms.  


 In science, there is what is known as mutation of genes. Mutation here which is also similar to modification brings about alteration in the DNA molecules of organisms, which comes with so many dangers.  

 The changes in GMO poses several health risks such as accelerated aging,immune problems, infertility, faulty insulin regulation, the list goes on and on. 

 I hope the explanation helps.
replied by ELITE (3,054 points) 8 36 66
@Chrisking yes, I do understand the science behind GMOs. However, like I mentioned here there aren't any peer reviewed scientific articles that would verify whether there are really dangers with these GMOs. What you have mentioned are POTENTIAL risks or dangers. But then again, there really isn't such a thing as zero risk, right?

Please log in or register to answer this question.

3 Answers

0 thanks
answered by LEGEND (6,394 points) 6 14 36
Most people are against it because those organisms pose much danger to human life. Take an example of a chicken which has been injected with those chemicals. The chicken normally grows within a week and its ready to be consumed. Manufactures don't care about the effects of those chemicals to human body. Most of the cancers today are as a result of GMOs.
We cannot say that GMOs don't help. They help people so much especially when it comes to starvation. Its been several African countries but then we need to consider the limits. If GMO food can only be consumed when there's hunger, then the better, but using it often shouldn't be allowed. In as much as people are doing business with the GMOs they have to consider human life as well. It shouldn't always be about money.
replied by ELITE (3,054 points) 8 36 66

I do think all organisms pose danger to human life; hence, I used the qualifier greater. These GMOs, take for example corn, is almost entirely similar to the conventional corn except for the fact that there are added traits that enhanced either yield or resistance to insects. There are no scientific proof that GMOs are cancerous.


Moreover, there aren't any GMO chickens that are commercially available. Although there are on-going researches about them but not dealing about injection of some sort of chemicals.
0 thanks
answered by LEGEND (6,011 points) 6 13 26
I think that this is because of the fact that people are becoming more aware of what they put in their bodies. They now want to go back to organics and make healthier choices. This is not to say that genetically modified organisms are unhealthy.

Genetically modified organisms as plants are not only modified for desired traits and increased yield. Other times, they are modified to withstand increasing application of weed killers, pesticides, etc. These are all chemicals that when in excess can put health at risk.

Since genetic engineering involves splicing and merging of genes sometimes from different unrelated species, just like selective breeding is done, it is possible that some traits will be lost completely in the long run. We have seen this in modern day plant species looking considerably different from their original form. Example is banana. Due to generations of selective breeding, banana is now seedless as apposed to its original form with very visible amount of seeds.
replied by ELITE (3,054 points) 8 36 66
I do agree with you that some traits might get lost in the process but I think that also happens naturally through genetic drift and isolation prompting organisms to adapt to the environment that they are exposed to.

On the increased pesticide application, isn't it that those plants that aren't tolerant to herbicides will get likely to be sprayed more since they are more prone to damage--resulting to lower yield?
replied by LEGEND (6,011 points) 6 13 26
Yes that's how nature selects and you'll have organisms that are better suited for the environment. Nature has a way of balance variety and population. Now this selection and splicing is added human contribution to this process. Increasing the pace and altering the course of nature. 

Assume the goal of spraying pesticides and herbicides is to prevent damage and increase yield. It still doesn't take away the effect of these chemicals. The process of increasing yield comes with increased application. That's like a by product that will always accompany yield as long as there's inorganic application. This is not only limited to GMO but also mechanized farming too and other aspects of breeding. 
0 thanks
answered by ELITE (3,221 points) 5 12 23
I had no idea that genetically modified organs have become well known to a point that people have started to rally for and against it. But what I do know is that the process of genetically modified organs is still an idea, a theory to a large number of researchers and scientist, while others have been able to attain success in the process by developing only animal organs. It's still unknown to me if the recent level of success on the subject has record of any human organ development.
Personally, am not against genetically modified organs. Let's put morality aside and be factual on this subject. The process of reproducing geneticall modified organs will be a huge strive in man's quest for better health conditions. Think of all the people who are suffering from organ failures, and especially those who were born with either mutilated or weak organs. Think of how much lives can be saved with this process. And since the process includes modified organs which are genetically improved, it won't just save lives, it will better those lives.
Given all said above, I don't see why I should disagree with the process. The only reason I see why people might disagree with this process is because of human selfishness. Just like plastic surgeries, GMO will also have it's own share of abuse. And since the process is still in it's early stages, there's little or no control and regulations put in place by relevant authorities for monitoring purposes.

3,184 questions

9,847 answers

4,647 replies

2,528 users

Most active Members
October 2019:
  1. Leyley - 37 activities
  2. ochaya oscar james - 8 activities
  3. traiti - 7 activities
  4. LydiaC3006 - 6 activities
  5. Shiv Prakash - 6 activities
  6. Maxime - 5 activities
  7. merleneNMS - 4 activities
  8. DuncanLane91 - 4 activities
  9. lincy - 4 activities
  10. beachgirl011 - 3 activities
Most answered Members
September 2019:
  1. Leyley - 25 answers
  2. amnelso - 4 answers
  3. Leiah Watkins - 2 answers
  4. lincy - 1 answers
  5. carlclear - 1 answers
  6. Marvin James 1 - 1 answers
  7. greencrayon - 1 answers
  8. Jolejnik - 1 answers
  9. Jasmin - 1 answers
  10. scoopity - 1 answers