[throwaway423447]

... and two minutes later the name of the brave person will be manure. Not because one's egregiously wrong, not because of lack of ethics, but because it'll be affecting many powerful people and their emissaries in the academia. Common story in the GMO industry. Oh, and it doesn't hurt to be prepared for all the ad hominem hit pieces: "Left loony" "commie" "anti-science" ...

The conquering grounds for the corporatocracy is also the developing world, a place which naively swallows whatever any of the reigning superpowers throw at it (hint: India is not/never will be a superpower). Very sad this.

[civilian]

So I mean, if you're trying to take a stand against pesticides, you should _be in favor_ of the Bt-toxin GMOs. The GMOs that produce their own pesticide are great, because there ends up being _less_ pesticide in the field in general. (The alternative to having a plant producing their own GMOs is that, obviously, they'll just dump the field with pesticides.) Bt-toxin is also fairly specific to which insects it effects: https://gmoanswers.com/ask/how-can-adding-lot-toxic-poison-p... (this is a pro-gmo site, but the guy answering is still an Associate Professor, which has to count for something.)

Please note that organic foods still use pesticides, even though the pesticides come from "natural sources". Keep in mind that "natural sources" doesn't mean anything-- arsenic is naturally occurring. :) https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/httpblogs...