2007-12-30 12:56:07 · 4 answers · asked by Z 1 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Botany
We have no way of knowing what the long-term effects of GM crops will be on people and on the ecosystems in general. So we are split between those who want to forge ahead and those who want to be more cautious. This is how we divide up on most all subjects.
2007-12-30 17:08:52 · answer #1 · answered by ecolink 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
i tend to agree with ecolink ... the long term effects arent that obvious. Ive worked and created some GMO's that I think carry some risks. the only intelligetnt argument that ive seen in GMO's is that in order to create some of them, you have to use a vector, the vecore in many cases carries the penicillinase gene which may confer resistance to antibiotics. some of these vecors also carry others markers that are based on some sort of reisstance to antibiotics. apart from that the only other one is that GMO's dont so well in the wild. the havent the same hardiness needed to survive and if they pass that triat on it could be a problem. I dont think it wuold beause nature through natural selection would probably weed out the lack of hardiness, or fitness of you would. Hope this helps.
2007-12-31 05:33:56 · answer #2 · answered by El Geeko 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because most people don't know diddly-squat about the subject and tend to follow along with any hysterical outburst they hear.
2007-12-30 21:03:38 · answer #3 · answered by old lady 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because the benefits are easy to detect and obvious, but the risks are so major that even if they are highly unlikely many will find them not worth it.
2007-12-30 21:01:03 · answer #4 · answered by Vultureman 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋