gmos

Is the position that you mean to stake out perhaps that it's possible for GMOs to be inferior, rather than that they are necessarily so?

The argument that GMOs are OK because something similar happens in nature is a poor argument.

We discuss the implications for GMOs (compared to Nuclear energy) and show that GMOs represent a public risk of global harm (while harm from nuclear energy is comparatively limited and better characterized).

There's plenty of room for innovation in many other areas (GMOs, synthetic bio, methods, tools).

Journalist uses anecdotes to prove that GMOs are safe and science is difficult.

As I've said repeatedly, the problem GMOs solve isn't food supply, because we don't have a food supply problem.

This is a case of GMOs to preserve freshness, rather than nutrition.

I'm no cheerleader of organics and think it's foolish that GMOs are by definition non-organic.

The way I see it, liberals consider both GMOs and global warming large problems that must be dealt with or fixed.

I think the position I'm making is that it's likely that GMOs will be inferior for all the reasons already cited.

PP should be used to prescribe severe limits on GMOs.

Except the science on GMOs is much further from settled.

It's too bad, because underneath all of the "mathiness" is one of the strongest arguments against GMOs that I've heard (and I say that as a GMO-eater).