It’s because they were trying to sound authoritative while presenting an evidence-free narrative which is by some strange coincidence the one favored by a well-funded corporate PR movement. Trying to paint it as anti-science ignores all of the scientists urging caution & regulation, not to mention the other arguments. The antivax and birth control complaints are similarly unfounded - you can find people with any combination of views but that one is not even remotely representative.
As a simple example of an argument which the poster omitted, I know multiple scientists - people who use genetic modification techniques for their work – who are in favor of GMOs conceptually but opposed to Monsanto’s sweeping ownership views (hybridization of GMOs with other crops), broader ecological impacts from increased pesticide usage, or want stricter regulation before things are released into the wild. None of those positions are honestly characterized as anti-science.
Just to be clear I'm opposed to Monsanto as well. I think that Monsanto is likely the company that plans to do some actual evil with GMO. But Monsanto shouldn't be the only face and implementation of GMO. We need way more GMO research right now from a larger number of organizations.
GMO's should be regulated to outlaw things like "plant DRM", but part of that governmental regulation should be active financial encouragement of more GMO research to develop and propagate hardier, more drought and heat tolerant crops so that we still have food as the world faces global warming.
This is why it is a moral issue: the longer we delay and argue about widespread GMO research and propagation the more likely we end up in a world where global warming causes dramatically reduced food availability and variety. The rich will be able to eat food that was grown in climate controlled environments, the poor will either outright starve or adopt a massively simplified and less nutritious diet.
I draw the parallels between anti GMO and anti-vaxxers because in both cases there is a hyper-focus on a few potentially bad outcomes while ignoring the massive upside. Just like anti-vaxxers worry about their kid getting autism or getting a microchip injected into them or getting injected with something harmful, I find a lot of GMO discussions devolve into excessive worry about a few edge cases that either have not happened, rarely happen, or can and should be outlawed.
I didn't downvote, but I'm assuming that suggesting an equivalence between concerns with GMO and being antimask/antivaxx comes off as hyperbolic.
I sometimes have a difficult time separating legit benefits of GMO with shilling or astroturfing, which is unfortunate when trying to have a reasoned discussion.
acdha|5 years ago
As a simple example of an argument which the poster omitted, I know multiple scientists - people who use genetic modification techniques for their work – who are in favor of GMOs conceptually but opposed to Monsanto’s sweeping ownership views (hybridization of GMOs with other crops), broader ecological impacts from increased pesticide usage, or want stricter regulation before things are released into the wild. None of those positions are honestly characterized as anti-science.
NathanKP|5 years ago
GMO's should be regulated to outlaw things like "plant DRM", but part of that governmental regulation should be active financial encouragement of more GMO research to develop and propagate hardier, more drought and heat tolerant crops so that we still have food as the world faces global warming.
This is why it is a moral issue: the longer we delay and argue about widespread GMO research and propagation the more likely we end up in a world where global warming causes dramatically reduced food availability and variety. The rich will be able to eat food that was grown in climate controlled environments, the poor will either outright starve or adopt a massively simplified and less nutritious diet.
I draw the parallels between anti GMO and anti-vaxxers because in both cases there is a hyper-focus on a few potentially bad outcomes while ignoring the massive upside. Just like anti-vaxxers worry about their kid getting autism or getting a microchip injected into them or getting injected with something harmful, I find a lot of GMO discussions devolve into excessive worry about a few edge cases that either have not happened, rarely happen, or can and should be outlawed.
lllr_finger|5 years ago
I sometimes have a difficult time separating legit benefits of GMO with shilling or astroturfing, which is unfortunate when trying to have a reasoned discussion.