[reporter]

As a plant scientist, like all plant scientists, we think GMOs are safe. There is just no credible science against this.

The point I want to bring up, which the article didn't, is wheat is an incredibly hard organism to deal with bioinformatically, since wheat has an incredibly complex genome owing to its polyploid nature. Therefore, making GMO wheat will be extremely hard. So even if there is a consensus on attempting to make GMO wheat. I pity the scientists who have to work on such a task and it will take a LONG time.

[runarberg]

I'm sorry for commenting around your main point, but I have a question regarding the safety of GMOs, since biologists are keen on declaring them "safe".

So there are ample evidence for the safety of their consumption. But is that the only criteria for safety? Is GMO safe for business? Are there social risks? Is there a risk of monopoly? Is it safe for the environment? Are butterfly spices at risk? Are less thorough plants loosing migration from escaped GMO plants?

I'm asking since there seems to be a really anthropocentric definition of "safety" at work here. In fact, there seems to be a really western centric definition. Is it really safe for the food production of this world to invest such time and money in an unsound production process, that is likely to leave the business of food production in few hands with minimum diversity for land use? Or is "safe to eat" enough to conclude the debate?

[reporter]

By safety, I am speaking of human health safety. You are absolutely right, this whole issue is very complex. Since it is not an easy topic, labeling something "safe" for everything is something I cannot say in full confidence.

That being said, I do think GMOs are as safer overall then most other technologies at the moment.

Environment: We do have research on the environmental effects of disposable of computers/electronics, plastics, cars, pesticides ect. Being scared of GMOs as a environmental factor seems reasonable, but this should be applied to everything. I am surprised people attack GMO for this reason, when there are obvious other technologies that are doing some real scientifically proven harm.

Business: Yes. I do think GMOs can be dangerous as a business, especially with the patenting issues of a large corporation. The patent issue is the same issue that most developers and small businesses have to battle with all the time. So I do not really see this as a GMO specific issue either. The problem is that the more GMOs are attacked, the harder it is for a small business to have enough power and credibility, as a small business to even have a chance.

Social Risks: Not sure what you mean by this.

The last bit about GMOs being the best way: I totally agree. I personally think it is not the best option. Monoculture, seems is causing some real problems. Not to mention GMO production has a low and slow success rate, considering how so much money and research goes into it. Land use practices, I believe is our best bet to solving some of our problems.

I still think GMOs have potential of being a really innovative technology, I just want science to have a fair shot.

[runarberg]

Thanks for this good and thorough answer. And sorry again I derailed your main point.