If you are in California, please vote YES on 37. -Updated

[mike_c]

144. my case is simple....

Most of the arguments put forth by GMO opponents are anti-science, anti-intellectual, and fear-based rather than fact based. Now, one can argue that everyone is entitled to believe whatever nonsense they want to believe as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, but there's the rub. I have not seen ANYTHING that even comes close to convincing me that genetic engineering is an inherently bad or harmful technology, or that GMO foods are necessarily any worse than non GMO foods-- they're often better from a variety of different perspectives-- but it is clear to me that the motives of GMO opponents, notwithstanding the disingenuous argument that they simply want "truth in labeling," include doing economic harm to farmers and retailers who produce and sell GMO foods, and to the people who might otherwise consume those foods.

I think a very good argument can be made that corporations like Monsanto do much harm in the world, but let's get our targets straight. It isn't genetic engineering that does that harm-- it's the business models of companies that put profits before the best interests of their customers and the world at large. If their production processes are not themselves responsible for the evil they do-- and again, I've heard lots of accusations and downright hysteria about that, but seen no real data-- then attacking those processes is completely misdirected.