I Used to Work as a Scientist with GMOs—Now I'm Having Serious Second Thoughts About The Risks

[blackspade]

122. Actually there seems to be quite a bit of middle ground on a variety of fronts.

This series from Grist does a very good job detailing them:
http://grist.org/food/the-genetically-modified-food-debate-where-do-we-begin/

Some other info that seems to undermine the benefits of GM crops for yield, drought tolerance, and nitrogen usage.
http://civileats.com/2014/10/10/plant-breeding-vs-gmos-conventional-methods-lead-the-way-in-responding-to-climate-change/

And discussions about GM crops are in no way comparable to climate change and vaccines. That is just a cynical way of shutting down discussion over legitimate concerns about the use of GM crops to solve food needs around the globe.
The pro and con-GM argument is not a zero sum game. GM crops can be a benefit or a hazard depending on their application in the real world.

I'll ask this question of you: If crop yields, drought tolerance, and other positive farming traits are not better with GM crops than conventional local varieties, then why are they so fiercely promoted?

And to answer your question: No, there is no evidence at this time that acute risks from the GM plants themselves are any greater than those from conventional breeding. There are however a couple of caveats to that statement. Primary among these is that GM crops have been on the market for a relatively short time, so it is possible that there are long term risks that may be present that will only be recognized sometime in the future. The second is the use of pesticides and fertilizers that have acute environmental and personal risks that are directly related to GM crops.

There are numerous other concerns, but they don't relate to safety per se, so I'll end this here.