[Nadya]

I think it was a comparison of views.

Science says global warming is a problem, conservatives ignore that and say that science is wrong because {poor reasoning here}.

Science says GMO is fine, liberals ignore that and say that science is wrong because {poor reasoning here}.

[pbreit]

Except the science on GMOs is much further from settled. And science hasn't really addressed some of the theoretical concerns.

[Nadya]

In many cases it has been largely settled and we even have decades of data proving it. The article even provides several examples - cherry picked or not [0] - that provide evidence to the irrational fear bits.

The Bt example is a great example. Being produced by the fruit or sprayed on after being produced by bacteria has the same results and the "sing a different tune" to try and pass laws against it is telling that there is a larger (money-driven) agenda behind making people fear Bt-enhanced items compared to Bt-sprayed items.

The claim, in many (but possibly not all!) scenarios is very similar to tobacco companies saying "the science behind tobacco smoke being harmful to humans is far from being settled and science hasn't fully answered some of the so-called issues". I'll call bollocks on the tobacco companies and claim that they might have some other ulterior motive behind making scientific claims that tobacco isn't harmful and their cigarettes do not cause lung cancer.

I don't trust companies that would profit from a GMO ban on the harmful effects of GMO when unbiased results are opposing the findings of the anti-GMO groups. I also don't trust misleading claims used for fear-mongering because people don't really understand something but pretend to. [1].

[0] I don't follow the GMO issues super-duper closely so concede that there might be cases, many perhaps, that aren't as "case-closed" as the examples in the article. But whether these examples are cherry-picked or not they do show several GMO issues that should be "case closed" but aren't.

[1] http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html