I think the danger of GMO isn't what it is now. It is what it will be in the future and the current trend now does not bode well for the future. The resistance to transparency, the patenting and the litigious nature of its most powerful proponent - these all indicate this the "humanitarian" side of GMO is nothing but an afterthought or a marketing gimmick.
That's not a problem with GMOs themselves, though. That's a problem with the regulatory and legal system. Unfortunately, patent reform and such is too esoteric for most people. It's much easier to whip up fear about "poisoned frankenfood". Back in the 80s-90s, it was preservatives, food dyes, and MSG. Now, it's GMOs and gluten. In a decade or two, it'll be something else equally stupid.
Yes, GMO themselves are not inherently bad, that's a given. Technology and innovation is neither bad nor good. But you cannot separate those issues from GMOs right now given that most of the groups involved the development of GMOs are deeply invested in these issues.
I think the danger of GMO isn't what it is now. It is what it will be in the future and the current trend now does not bode well for the future. The resistance to transparency, the patenting and the litigious nature of its most powerful proponent - these all indicate this the "humanitarian" side of GMO is nothing but an afterthought or a marketing gimmick.
That's not a problem with GMOs themselves, though. That's a problem with the regulatory and legal system. Unfortunately, patent reform and such is too esoteric for most people. It's much easier to whip up fear about "poisoned frankenfood". Back in the 80s-90s, it was preservatives, food dyes, and MSG. Now, it's GMOs and gluten. In a decade or two, it'll be something else equally stupid.
Yes, GMO themselves are not inherently bad, that's a given. Technology and innovation is neither bad nor good. But you cannot separate those issues from GMOs right now given that most of the groups involved the development of GMOs are deeply invested in these issues.