General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Altered Genes, Twisted Truth: How the Venture to Genetically Engineer Our Food Has Subverted Science [View all]longship
(40,416 posts)Science is a bitch. Either one has the evidence on ones side or one doesn't. With regards to genetic modification, the basic science is clear -- there is no qualitative difference between cross-breeding and gene splicing. If one disagrees the burden is on you. Cite the research that falsifies that premise. If one cannot do that then one has no leg to stand on.
It really is that simple. Show folks the research that backs your position and people will willingly go along with that position. That is how this works. It is how one builds a scientific consensus. However, when one has no science (even a minority opinion) on ones side, one should be humble enough to give in to the overwhelming data that attests to genetic modification's safety.
The only minority opinion here publishes rubbish science (Seralini, Carman, et al) which universally fails peer review. Why the deniers keep trying with such shoddy research attests to the fact that their arguments are not so much scientific as they are ideological. Their science fails, so they argue on ideological grounds.
Well, that bullshit just does not work. In science one has to have the goods, or you're going to be torn to pieces, which all the so-called anti-GMO papers have been. Not one stands up to scrutiny.