GMOs are bad!

>immune to a herbicide.

>Higher yield over time


If you are actually this stupid, you deserve whats coming.

Do you think that in time you couldn't breed or just have natural selection create a plant that's resistant to herbicides?

>Sup Forums intellectuals

because the term genetic modification implies genetic engineering and specifically excludes selective breeding. it would be completely incorrect to call your heirloom chicken brood "genetically modified". your definition of "genetic modification" would include all forms of natural evolution and degeneration of DNA, including aging and getting a sunburn. you better put on your sunblock or you'll get genetically modified!

If you oppose GMOs, then you're literally greenpeace-tier.

Of course, eventually just like the weeds roaming around that we cannot kill anymore.

Nature finds a way. The entire concept is fucking retarded and is causing cancer. So keep eating your peasant food Goyim enjoy your bowel cancer.

>the concept of 1 year terminal death seeds
What's that?

GMO and trans-genic are different things
People against gmo's without knowing basic biology is why we can't have nice things

>because the term genetic modification implies genetic engineering and specifically excludes selective breeding

Selective breeding is genetic engineering.
I see no reason why the term genetic modification excludes the first successful means of genetic engineering; selective breeding.

>Of course, eventually just like the weeds roaming around that we cannot kill anymore.
So in other worlds you are 100% correct but I'm still going to be a bitch about it?

These semantics are retarded. You're truly falseflagging if you're seriously trying to argue that selective breeding is anywhere close to what jewsanto does