...

[antigone382]

113. The science on the cost-to-benefit ratio of GMOs is not nearly as sound as that on CC or evolution.

GMO's may not cause cancer (though they've only been around since the mid eighties, not a lot of time for potential problems to occur at a rate that can really be scientifically studied). But they are expensive, and through patenting they fundamentally change the economics of agriculture--to the advantage of corporations and the disadvantage of farmers around the world. They are also developed to depend on resource and fossil fuel intensive methods that are both expensive for farmers and environmentally destructive.

GMO's are NOT synonymous with the Green Revolution, which did prevent massive global die-offs, although not without significant economic and environmental tradeoffs that are coming home to roost at present. GMO's have not delivered nearly as much on their promises to bring about a "second" green revolution to save us from the consequences of the first.

And my data comes from a variety of UN documents and articles published in peer-reviewed journals that I have read and studied on my own, not fringe websites.