[acheron]

Being anti-"GMO" is as ludicrously anti-scientific as saying that evolution is a lie, except that not believing in evolution doesn't affect anyone else, whereas opposing "GMO" food leads to starving children.

You can start here if you'd like to educate yourself: http://www.marklynas.org/2013/01/lecture-to-oxford-farming-c...

[Beekon]

No thanks, I have done my homework. And I, unlike you it seems, know that it is not black and white. It's not all good or all bad and only a fool would try to write it off as such.

I know there are side effects when it comes to GMO, I don't need to be a chemist for that. What I also realise is that there really is no shortage of food on this planet, evidenced by the tons and tons that are discarded daily. There is however a logistics problem, but it will not be solved by GMO. Even IF such a thing was possible by creating crops that fare better in extreme climates, these companies who are behind GMO products have absolutely no interest in helping out poor African kids who are unable to pay for what Monsanto & Co have to offer.

[specialist]

So. I read your link.

http://www.alternet.org/food/uncovering-real-story-behind-co...

I'd never heard of Lynas before. He strikes me as Bjørn Lomborg character.

I think all criticism should be seriously (honestly) addressed. No worldview is above reproach. I'd eagerly watch/read a debate between Lynas and the people he criticizes. In answering his criticisms, it'd help them to refine their arguments.

But before any of that happens, I'd want Lynas to address his apparent conflict of interest.

[specialist]

And what do you call someone who ignores all negative evidence?

I'd be okay with GMO apologists making an intellectually honest argument, listing the pros and cons, arguing that on the balance such and such makes sense.

Basically, the greatest good for the most people.

Alas, that takes some effort. It's easier to mock critics.