GMO Advocates, Inc. are closely akin to Snake-Handling Fundies

[True Blue Door]

47. Uh, no. Most GMO opposition arguments are puritanical superstition.

The legitimate arguments boil down to concerns about biodiversity, and worries about the toxicity of pesticide-producing genes - i.e., concerns about specific applications of the technology. But hamhanded broadsides against the entire concept of genetically modifying foods are ignorant and medieval, relying on people's superstitions about what they put into their bodies.

Even labeling, while relatively harmless, is still entirely in service to superstition: There is no more rational justification to provide that information than to label what race the people who picked the food were and what astrological sign was in the ascendent when it was picked. Some people just have an intense emotional aversion to the idea that human beings have "defiled" their precious and magical Nature with conscious engineering.

And people with that feeling are welcome to reward companies that specifically avoid GMO, but any policy that would prevent technologically feasible methods of addressing global hunger and malnutrition just to serve this superstition is grossly immoral, and cedes yet more social ground to Dark Age thinking.

Science is not merely the best tool humankind has to find the truth, it's the only tool. Please, stop acting like Climate Change deniers, Creationists, and anti-vaxxers, and just listen to people who know what they're talking about. Exclude all the industry-funded science you want, and you still hear the same conclusion: There is no basis whatsoever for viewing GMO as having fundamentally different or greater safety concerns than any other agricultural technique.