[GRBLDeveloped]

'There is a scientific consensus[25][26][27][28][29] that currently available food derived from genetically modified crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food.[30][31][32][33][34][35][36]'

It'd be nice to see that remove from this list some day. Through education, not evidence to the contrary

[ZeroGravitas]

What about people who think that patents on food crops are a bad idea for reasons unrelated to immediate health problems?

I can think the world's IT running on Windows, or all social media belonging to Facebook, or all video paying rent to a cabal of patent holders is a bad thing without those having immediate, terminal effects (I do think they have long term ill effects, some of which we've already seen, but it would probably be hard to prove with science)

[mandmandam]

> What about people who think that patents on food crops are a bad idea for reasons unrelated to immediate health problems?

Unfortunately, those people don't have entire divisions of professional propagandists monitoring the internet for conversations like this.

They don't have a massive war chest which they use to corrupt systems; lobbying politicians, purchasing professors, burying and twisting and smearing anything that might hurt their next quarter's numbers.

Nor do they have the ability to do their own research to counter claims. Abuse of IP law, prohibitive costs, the capture of regulatory agencies - none of that is accidental.

Finally, let's not skip past the fact that the science on GMO's direct and indirect health effects is *not* as settled and final as the link claims. https://www.marksdailyapple.com/gmo-monsanto/ has a decent write-up with sourced examples, some of which are from Monsanto's own data.

There are many other examples of unintended side effects from genetic manipulation, which - and I cannot over-state this - we don't understand. It's wild hubris, absolutely bonkers dipshit crazy fuckery, to think that we understand the effects of genetic manipulation not possible through natural selection. We can't so much as predict with confidence the effect of a single molecule on a single person, much less a population, much less a biosphere. The belief that GMOs are safe because "science" is sheer scientism; it's stupid and it's dangerous.

[sbf501]

Depends what they mean by "genetic". Mixing genes by cross breeding is a lot different than adding genes from other species, or constructed genes that are patented.

There are two kneejerk reactions in this debate:

The first is from the anti-science crowd who shit on everything.

The second is from the wannabe scientist crowd who like shitting on anti-science people but usually aren't very savvy themselves.

Both are problematic as they crowd out experts and regulators.