Nas invalidating pack
In any case, even when people do focus on the business end of GMO as their “real” objection, they still, in my experience, rely mostly on myths and misinformation.
This is where anti-GMO ideologues have been the most successful, for various reasons.
One persistent theme in my writing about scientific topics is that, to optimally serve our own interests, public discourse and decision-making on issues that are highly scientific should be informed by the best evidence and scientific analysis available, not on lies, myths, misconceptions, or raw ideology.
The environmental issues are more complex, and each GMO has to be evaluated on its own merits, including how it is used and incorporated into an overall strategy.This comment is typical: “To some extend, gene splicing is OK for things like transferring the best genes of a species into one organism, but taking genes from entirely different organisms and stuffing them into different species has a likelihood of unintended consequences as the system won’t necessarily react in the same way to the gene as the original species.If these were just house plants I wouldn’t mind, but we’re eating this stuff.I’d recommend long term effect studies for GMOs before I’d eat any tomatoes with pig genes.” Recently Neil De Grasse Tyson got into the game with a brief answer to this question.His response was to “Chill out.” He made the point that we have been genetically modifying our food for thousands of years.