Drought resistance: Areas that previously yielded low food supplies can grow more food.
Pest resistance: Crops can be grown that do NOT require the use of pesticides if they are designed to be unpalatable to their common insect pests
PH soil adaptation: Crops that usually only thrive in more acidic soil can be modified to grow in more PH neutral or basic soil, increasing the potential yield
These are just three that come to mind immediately.
A rice that can be grown in less wet areas could save BILLIONS. One is in the works and close to being perfected, I hear, but is being held back by nonsense of the type illustrated in this thread. So, thank you for contributing to the death of real human beings while you entertain yourself with unfounded conspiracy theories.
I suspect this is a a bit of misinformation that conspiracy theorists bandy about without ever questioning.
That's fine. But then it is misleading to write articles and make posts claiming that it is the genetically modified food. It also is completely disregarding the fact that people wash their fruits and vegetables. And if corn is not washed of the roundup before cattle eat it, and we eat the cattle, that's two digestion cycles that the chemicals have been through by the time we get it. Hardly the equivalent of feeding rats roundup in their water.
There has been no evidence to support that.
I would not be surprised if there was some evidence to support that idea, but to date, there is none.
Ah, a voice of reason.
I find it amusing how, not only does the data show LESS cancer, but everyone that chooses to ignore that has their own pet theory about what causes cancer. Depending on your brand of irrationality, you could pick:
genetically modified foods
I do not doubt that one or more of the above might be, or are known to be, carcinogens. But, as pointed out, correlation does not equate to causation.