Noneof Yourbusiness's picture
GMOs are bad. Why do you want people to think they are safe? Why does the government keep this from the people? What are you trying to gain?

A:Expert Answer

I'm a scientist and educator, so it is really important for me that our public understands science and technology. It is hard to see a good technology that has been used with an amazing safety and efficacy record get trashed.
So that's why I dip my toe into the discussion. We don't "think they are safe"; when we look at the data, there is no evidence to the contrary after 17 years on the market.
I can't speak for others, but I see this technology as a great way to solve problems for people. We can design crops to grow in floods, drought and heat. We can make plants with higher nutrition. We can make plants that last longer. These are huge gains for the farmer, the environment and the needy.
What I am trying to gain is your support to move these technologies forward, and fast. We all agree that we need solutions. Biotech crops are part of that solution.


WheatLover's picture

I believe GMOs are safe because there is more evidence that supports it.

I believe that governments and corporations have shared everything and that it is only a matter of people doing the research from credible sources. This is what Environmental activist Mark Lynas did, which switched his position from anti-GMO to pro-GMO.

So turn the question on its head, Why do you think GMOs are bad? Why would you think there is some sort of conspiracy from the government to hide things?

Adam Filipp's picture

Dear Mr. Folta and Noneof Your Business.

A scientific and unbiased discussion of GMOs should avoid general terms like "GMOs are bad" or "good technology", because these terms are unscientific and too relative. I first noticed Kevin's initial statement of being a "scientist and educator", which contradicts statements like "amazing safety and efficacy record." when referring to quantitative characteristics of food production. Also, how are you measuring "safe"?. and who is "we"?, these blanket terms allow for the discussion to be unfocused and based on your judgments and not scientific data. Even if you disregard what you think is safe or not, when you say "there is no evidence to the contrary after 17 years on the market.", you are making the assumption that this is enough time to determine "safety", when the only human trials are being uncontrolled in our current food system. If I were you NoneofYourBusiness, I would look to more scientific based research rather than general statements given in a GMO industry-funded forum.