Re:We’re Scientists, Moms, And We Avoid Non-GMO Products
by weberc2 on Monday November 07, 2016 @02:20PM
(#12894045)
I doubt the general public is qualified to decide which practices are better than others. For example, I grew up on a farm, but I couldn't tell you if free-range eggs are safer or healthier than eggs from caged birds. Nor could I tell you if chemical-free produce is safer than organic. Nor could I tell you if antibiotic-free meat is safer or healthier than "regular" meat. I can tell you what I've heard from my pro-GMO family and my anti-GMO friends, but without diving deeply into the studies and counter studies, it would be hard to draw an informed conclusion.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:We’re Scientists, Moms, And We Avoid Non-GMO Products
by chefkoch on Monday November 07, 2016 @02:32PM
(#12894172)
Isn't there a moral aspect of this?
Shouldn't you treat the animal you are "consuming" as good as possible?
Re:We’re Scientists, Moms, And We Avoid Non-GMO Products
by weberc2 on Monday November 07, 2016 @06:36PM
(#12896295)
Probably, but even here I doubt the public is qualified to make this call. The canonical example is a sow pen which has just enough room for a sow to lay down while she nurses her piglets; this is actually better for the animals because it prevents the sow (~800 lbs) from crushing her piglets (~5 lbs); however, laypeople see an animal rights violation.
Re:We’re Scientists, Moms, And We Avoid Non-GMO Products
by Dylan16807 on Tuesday November 08, 2016 @01:37AM
(#12898177)
Sure. But remember the main topic here is plants, and there are no moral considerations there.
Re:We’re Scientists, Moms, And We Avoid Non-GMO Products
by akvadrako on Tuesday November 08, 2016 @04:07AM
(#12898728)
What, you don't think plants have feelings?
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/sep/12/peter-wo...
I can imagine you have more sympathy for animals than plants since they are more like us, but I suspect bias if you use that as a basis for morality.