>>1458034Not really an issue, the majority of all plants we have even the heirlooms varieties are already GMO. The main difference is, is that the breeding aspect for cultivation took a long period over successive generations in order to exhibit a desired trait. In the case of most of our own heirloom crops this was increased flavor, or production in most food crops or color in terms of ornamental plants.
All a GMO is, is the same idea but it's removing the breeding process over a long period of time to get the exact same results, it's merely skipping the generational steps towards production in order to maximize food output, and with it's own inbuilt genetic resistances will help increase over all food yields all over the world as it can be employed in most growing situations.
The major downsides of GMO's IMHO is that one they promote monocultural farming which has shown consistently to be destructive in terms of large scale crop production, since nature is not meant to consistently produce only one form of crop, even where dominant crop species exist there is at least some form of balances in order to keep a natural order in check, where as these crops can be used to ignore that and cause soil destruction and erosion as a result.
They also are being patented and the patents are being legally pursued by the holder. IE Monsanto ruthlessly.
They know they can go after most farmers as they won't have the money to bare the law suit of a large mega corporation like Monsanto.
They've even gone after people, who have had cross pollination or accidental seeding from Monsanto using neighbors.
So the patent behind GMO's is in itself dangerous because it gives the patent holder the ability to stomp anyone into the ground who tries to propagate Monsanto seeds or even doesn't but has it growing on their property through volunteerism.
As for people's refusal to eat GMO crops, most of them already do and they don't realize it, typical low info nimbys.
