Select to expand quote
RideTheGlide said..
They often increase yield while lowering water requirements. The CDC, WHO, EFSA and pretty much every major health organization in the world supports the position that GMO crops are safe.
On the GMO topic, one should be very careful to avoid biased studies. For instance, Monsanto/Bayer GMOs are extremely bad, not because of the GMO seed themselves, but because of the way Monsanto/Bayer uses them: they make the seeds resistant to the Roundup herbicide, and then force farmers to use massive doses of Roundup, which is insanely dangerous. And they use dishonest tactices everywhere, such as never testing the Roundup but only one component (the Glyphosate) out of nearly a hundred who compose the Roundup, who seems the real culprits. And at doses much smaller than the ones needed in practice once resistant weeds quickly appear.
Plus nature finds a way(*). For the GMOs that produce built-in pesticides, you get better yield the first years, but quickly the pests evolve and become resistant, and the yields fall back again, and they then must use massive doses of Round up, that not only destroy our common environment, but cost more to the farmer than the productivity gained. In real life, after some years, GMO yields are worse than non-GMO yields, but farmers are locked in by shady business practices of most GMO companies.
In a nutshell, GMO is a scientific advance, that can be used for good or evil purposes, just like any scientific or technological advance. What we should focus on is the way they are used.
I recommend on this subject the documentary "Roundup facing its Judges"
m2rfilms.com/espace-membres/roundup-facing-its-judges-the-dvd where experts expose the nefarious tactics of Monsanto. It is a documentary on the mock Monsanto trial in La Hague:
www.monsanto-tribunal.org/(*) See for example:
sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/roundup-ready-crops/