I know that GMOs get a bad rap, I also know that I hear scientists and others I respect dismiss those concerns.
I’ve never spent enough time looking into it to form a strong opinion, though I will defer to the science rather than the woo.
This is different as the editors note points out. This is about Genetically Engineered, that is splicing in DNA snips that would never occur in nature.
Potential damages aside it seems that these products don’t live up to the dreams and promises of their engineers.
Be interesting if anyone had any insight to add to the following?
We've Been Sold a Lie for Two Decades About Genetically Engineered Foods Monday, 05 December 2016 10:44 By Reynard LokiEditor's note from AlterNet: The terms GE (genetic engineering) and GMO (genetically modified organism) are often used interchangeably, but their meanings are different. GMOs, which are produced when plant breeders select genetic traits that may also occur naturally, have been around for centuries. Common examples are seedless watermelons and modern broccoli. The subject of much recent debate are GE foods, which have only been around in recent decades and are produced by transferring genes between organisms. The resulting GE organisms -- either plant-, or in the case of GE salmon, animal-based -- would not otherwise occur in nature. This article is about GE foods.http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/38615-we-ve-been-sold-a-lie-for-two-decades-about-genetically-engineered-foods It appears Europe has been right all along to renounce GE crops. An in-depth examination recently published by the New York Times found that GE crops have largely failed to achieve two of the technology's primary objectives: to increase crop yields and decrease pesticide use. Pesticides in particular have come under increasing fire in recent years, not only for their negative impact on human health and wildlife, but for decimating populations of key food crop pollinators; specifically bees, which we rely on to pollinate a third of food crops. While consumer awareness of the effects of pesticides has grown, the ongoing battle over GE crops has largely zeroed in on whether or not such foods are safe to consume. But as Times investigative reporter Danny Hakim points out in his article about the paper's analysis, "the debate has missed a more basic problem" -- that GE crops have "not accelerated increases in crop yields or led to an overall reduction in the use of chemical pesticides." Analyzing academic and industry research, as well as independent data, the Times compared results on the two continents and found that the "United States and Canada have gained no discernible advantage in yields -- food per acre -- when measured against Western Europe." The paper also cited a recent National Academy of Sciences report that found "little evidence that the introduction of GE crops were resulting in more rapid yearly increases in on-farm crop yields in the United States than had been seen prior to the use of GE crops." ...