I find it hard reading articles like this. I agree with its main premise, but it fails to mention the valid points of the other side. And there are two:
1. Some GMO has a plant produce extra chemicals, specifically, pesticides
2. There is a unknown side to GMO, perhaps it can lead to super species that we can never get rid of in the future and will destroy bio diversity.
(1) are banned in the EU for human consumption, a reasonable choice I think until we have more data.
(2) is a much lower risk than most would thing. But it is one of those things where the naive/amateur answer is far from reality, and that naive answer is scary. (Like nuclear, or more rules vs more responsibility.)
When done responsibly, GMOs are fine. And even necessary if we want to feed 8 billion people and more in the future.
But an article that fails to mention valid (remember the eu) downsides, and discuss the tradeoff, will have a polarizing effect: Those pro GMO will think score and think anti GMO is stupid. But anti GMO will see their biggest concerns not mentioned, and will declare fail and conclude their position is well grounded.
1. Some GMO has a plant produce extra chemicals, specifically, pesticides
2. There is a unknown side to GMO, perhaps it can lead to super species that we can never get rid of in the future and will destroy bio diversity.
(1) are banned in the EU for human consumption, a reasonable choice I think until we have more data.
(2) is a much lower risk than most would thing. But it is one of those things where the naive/amateur answer is far from reality, and that naive answer is scary. (Like nuclear, or more rules vs more responsibility.)
When done responsibly, GMOs are fine. And even necessary if we want to feed 8 billion people and more in the future.
But an article that fails to mention valid (remember the eu) downsides, and discuss the tradeoff, will have a polarizing effect: Those pro GMO will think score and think anti GMO is stupid. But anti GMO will see their biggest concerns not mentioned, and will declare fail and conclude their position is well grounded.