...

[antigone382]

139. I think the relative merit of our two discussion styles speaks for itself.

I did discuss specifics in a manner that you did not, and I made reference to the types of sources from which I got my information. I don't have time to dig them all up at the moment, but here is a link to one, a chapter in a publication of the United Nations Environmental Programme:

http://www.unep.org/dewa/africa/docs/en/aeo-2/chapters/aeo-2_ch09_GENETICALLY_MODIFIED_CROPS.pdf

Again, my core reservations with regard to GMO's are not about health. They are about economics and ecology, particularly in the context of Africa and other parts of the global South. I do not pretend that it is a black and white issue, but there are valid reasons for concern. The reality is that you are dealing with very powerful corporations, with very powerful governments behind them, as opposed to less powerful governments and farmers that do not necessarily have the strength of a thriving scientific community to evaluate the costs and benefits of GM crops for their own peoples' livelihoods.

To be honest, I'm not interested in who can sling the most cute and snappy one-liners with strangers. If that's your MO, then I formally forfeit, granting you unquestioned victory and ownership of this internet subthread (with congratulations in advance).

What I am interested in is a mature dialog that fully addresses the concerns of all stakeholders as well as the potential flaws and limitations in their arguments. That seems to be what the OP wants as well. I don't know what you want, but as yet it seems that you see fit to reduce any questioning of the benefits of GMOs to anti-scientific woo perpetuated by the nasty anti-vaxxer-911-truther-echinacea-eating-numerology-gremlins. That is quite simply a misrepresentation of the reality.