Study: People against GMOs know the least about GMOs but think they know the most

[ellieg]

Anti GMOs are on the same level as antivaccers. They just dont trust it cause they have a gut feeling it's bad and that's good enough for them, evidence won't change their mind.

[Techno-Druid]

No, genetically modified is different from selective breeding.

Not really, both involve the manipulation of genetics. The former simply speeds up the process. It took thousands of years to get maize to where it is from the wild grass it was, scientists were able to domesticate groundcherries in two.

[Katie N]

Not really, both involve the manipulation of genetics. The former simply speeds up the process. It took thousands of years to get maize to where it is from the wild grass it was, scientists were able to domesticate groundcherries in two.

Yes it is, selective breeding is not the same as deleting/inserting genes through gene engineering.

[Calfredd]

I think those claims are largely exaggerated due to what we see with golden rice. They said it will help.

Reality? At a normal diet you only get 8% of required intake from it. To get 100% of required intake you need to eat 9 kg per day. That's insane.

You know you are admitting that gold rice does help? 8% DV of Vitamin A is better than before when they weren't getting it.

[Katie N]

It is viable, it simply needs more beta-carotene, which golden rice 2 has plenty of, at least 23 times more beta-carotene than the original strain of golden rice.

It's viable? Will you eat 9 kg rice per day then? That's what you need to eat for 100% of required intake.

[Coolthulhu]

So the same with anti-vaxxers and generally speaking every single time the great unwashed try and speak about things they did not receive an education about? Not exactly surprising.

[Forgettable]

No, genetically modified is different from selective breeding.

It's exactly the same effect, with a faster timeline.

[Katie N]

You know you are admitting that gold rice does help? 8% DV of Vitamin A is better than before when they weren't getting it.

You will still be deficit.

[Techno-Druid]

It's viable? Will you eat 9 kg rice per day then? That's what you need to eat for 100% of required intake.

I implore you to re-read my post. They're increasing the amount of beta-carotenes in newer strains of the rice.

[unbound]

(Source)

Sadly not surprising, while there are arguably justifiable criticisms with companies like Monsanto, most people who hold anti-GMO views are seemingly doing it out of a naturalistic fallacy or because it's “new” (despite GMO research going back to the 1970s).

It's called Dunning-Kruger. The majority of people overestimate their ability with any given subject (or general intelligence). With low skill / low intelligence people, they unfortunately lack the ability to understand how little they understand.



Although funny, the following is actually an accurate description of Dunning-Kruger:

[Katie N]

It's exactly the same effect, with a faster timeline.

No, it isn't. You can't just insert genes when selective breeding, you can with GMO.

- - - Updated - - -

I implore you to re-read my post. They're increasing the amount of beta-carotenes in newer strains of the rice.

So? Doesn't matter if people can't afford it due to the companies wanting to make profit. It would be cheaper with traditional interventions to provide vitamin A to people than doing so through GMO but why do that? Doesn't make companies as much profit.

[Techno-Druid]

No, it isn't. You can't just insert genes when selective breeding, you can with GMO.

No, but you modify them, just like you can modify genes using CRISPR.

[kail]

Yes it is, selective breeding is not the same as deleting/inserting genes through gene engineering.

If we can selectively breed to achieve the same result, what's the difference? Selective breeding and Gene manipulation is still altering the DNA of an organism, one is more efficient and faster than the other and both stray from what would be naturally occurring.

[Ehrenpanzer]

No, they aren't. xD

Go try and eat a plantain and get back to us.....

[PosPosPos]

It's viable? Will you eat 9 kg rice per day then? That's what you need to eat for 100% of required intake.

Why are you pushing dumb narratives like "it's either all or nothing"?

It's an improvement over the status quo, so just take it and iterate further improvements, like reasonable non-contrarians do.

[Katie N]

Go try and eat a plantain and get back to us.....

I am eating non-gmo banana right now. It's edible.

- - - Updated - - -

Why are you pushing dumb narratives like "it's either all or nothing"?

It's an improvement over the status quo, so just take it and iterate further improvements, like reasonable non-contrarians do.

Golden rice was portrayed as a solution to vitamin A deficiency but it's not. It's also more expensive than traditional interventions for it. That's because companies want to make profit. If they wanted to provide help for the deficiency then they would go for traditional interventions but that doesn't give them the same profits so they won't do it.

[kasuke06]

Dumb people think they're smart. More "shocking" news at 11.

[Ehrenpanzer]

I am eating non-gmo banana right now. It's edible.

Congrats on being a living example of Dunning-Krueger

[Katie N]

Congrats on being a living example of Dunning-Krueger

You think this banana was put in a lab and modified? No.

[PosPosPos]

Golden rice was portrayed as a solution to vitamin A deficiency but it's not.

And it is. If it continues without insufferable "perfect solutions or nothing at all" contrarians like you being obstructionist about it.

It's also more expensive than traditional interventions for it.

It doesn't have to, like most inventions and innovations, they start off expensive and they get cheaper in the long run, until they are indistinguishable in price or even cheaper than their predecessors.

That's because companies want to make profit. If they wanted to provide help for the deficiency then they would go for traditional interventions but that doesn't give them the same profits so they won't do it.

And? Capitalism drives innovation. Who's going to do it without a profit? As long as it's still a net boon to society, it's ok for people to profit off their work.