GMOs are like any technology. They can be good or bad. Saying they are not intrinsically bad is meaningless. It is relatively easy to create a GM food crop which is poisonous.
What is bad about them is ownership of living things. Patenting GMOs creates huge motivations for companies which taint the science, just like our current pharmaceutical regimes. When a lot of money is at stake you can't trust the testing any more. When huge companies lobby governments to remove them of the burden of testing safety properly or applying pressure to allow them, we can't trust them any more.
GMOs are like any technology. They can be good or bad. Saying they are not intrinsically bad is meaningless.
Exactly. Look at a list of recalled pharmaceuticals. They were all once considered "safe and effective". The list of not-so-safe-anymore artificial sweeteners is another symptom of the same type of "R&D" process. "But the only thing we changed was..." doesn't replace thorough testing. I'm not interested in a public Beta with things that I put in my body.
GMOs are like any technology. They can be good or bad. Saying they are not intrinsically bad is meaningless. It is relatively easy to create a GM food crop which is poisonous.
What is bad about them is ownership of living things. Patenting GMOs creates huge motivations for companies which taint the science, just like our current pharmaceutical regimes. When a lot of money is at stake you can't trust the testing any more. When huge companies lobby governments to remove them of the burden of testing safety properly or applying pressure to allow them, we can't trust them any more.
Exactly. Look at a list of recalled pharmaceuticals. They were all once considered "safe and effective". The list of not-so-safe-anymore artificial sweeteners is another symptom of the same type of "R&D" process. "But the only thing we changed was..." doesn't replace thorough testing. I'm not interested in a public Beta with things that I put in my body.