[Edit: I want to thank everyone who has taken the time to read this piece and especially to those who have shared their opinions. I forgot to mention, like I usually do, that I live in Finland. I am 6 hours ahead of EST at the moment (soon to be 7 again) and after replying to a few more comments, I will have to sign off for a while to attend to other matters. Enjoy your Sunday!]
[Edit 2: Just wanted to say thank you to everyone for sharing their opinions, I'll do one last run through the comments and see which ones I want to address. Then that will be that.]
[Edit 3: So I've scrolled through the comments this morning just to see how things went overnight. I won't be engaging with any more comments besides the small handful I just left. What a way to * all over my diary comment thread you all.]The same way that livestock do not automatically degrade the environment, opposing GMOs does not automatically equate to an antiscience position. Quite frankly, the sheer number of absolutist positions on this website is beginning to drive me away.
I will admit that in the past, I was opposed to GMOs entirely, without equivocation. I even peddled my fair share of fear mongering anti-GMO memes. In the past year or so, I have moderated my position.
I no longer oppose all GMOs. I would rather see that each proposed genetically modified organism be properly assessed for its impact on our health and the environment. That said, I still oppose almost every GMO in food production or forestry.
Because GMOs address symptoms of at best poor, but oftentimes destructive, land use practices. GMOs do not target the root causes of the symptoms. Instead, they are marketed to the general public as a wonder-tech that will somehow overcome the failures of poor management. Hundreds of millions of dollars flow into the industry, dollars that we are constantly reminded are limited in number...