[tzs]

There are reasons to be concerned with GMOs that are not at odds with science. Let me quote something from a comment from a few weeks ago:

---- begin quote ----

GMOs aren't inherently dangerous to human health or inherently environmentally destructive. But they do let producers do things faster and more extreme than they could do via conventional breeding techniques.

They've used those conventional techniques to reduce crop diversity, and select for things like uniform time to grow and uniform size/shape to make mechanical processing easy, over selecting for things like nutrition and flavor.

Is there any good reason to believe that the increased power GMO techniques give them won't be used to go even farther in those directions?

With great power comes great responsibility. I'm skeptical that the big food companies are responsible enough for GMO, and with government food regulation more determined by industry lobbying than by actual science I have little faith that the government will do anything to make sure GMO techniques are only used for good.

---- end quote ----

[tptacek]

If we're going to regulate food production in ways that require producers to make commercial sacrifices to promote crop diversity, we should do that directly, rather than indirectly through regulations on GMOs. Because, obviously, producers have a variety of other ways besides GMOs to profit from reduced diversity.

[TeMPOraL]

Those, I agree, are legitimate concerns worth discussing. But 'bpodgursky is right that it's harder to discuss those when people are mostly vocal about some invented fear-inducing non-issues. This also holds for discussions about nuclear power.

About your concerns - it's worth noting that they're political/economical in nature and have nothing to do with genetic modifications itself. I agree with most of them, but personally believe that it's not enough to shut down the entire branch of science, as some of the opponents seem to want. But those issues definitely need to be addressed.

[saiya-jin]

still waiting for that scientific backing, I don't see any outright proven threat. on the other hand, if this extra "power" allows us to create plants to feed hungry ie in Africa where usual crops wouldn't survive, that sounds like a real added value. or you want to explain a starving child that it should rather die because you don't like how the results are obtained?

[BuckRogers]

>still waiting for that scientific backing, I don't see any outright proven threat.

We don't need scientific backing: it should be proven safe before using. Not proven a threat then removed from the market. Some of these things can be difficult to reverse.

The issue in Africa isn't a lack of food worldwide, it's distribution.