GMOs are in an entirely different category. Genes deemed beneficial are implanted into the DNA of a some seed. For example the gene that triggers production of say nicotine is introduced into say corn as a natural insecticide. Sounds good, but whoever eats the corn is also eating nicotine. Since nobody knows exactly what genes are being introduced into the DNA of our foods I used nicotine as an fictional example to illustrate the process.
What we do know is mass die offs are occurring, bees, birds, etc. And there seems to be good evidence that GMOs are at least part of the reason.
I think a bit of caution might be justified here. Certainly I have a right to know what I am easting and GMO foods should be labeled as such.
If rhey were putting nicotine into corn well then, yeah, but that’s not what they’re doing. In any case if the genes are beneficial then that should be a good thing, no?
One thing we all learn on Free Republic is that there is a study for EVERYTHING. And any one study showing some position can and is countered with a study showing the opposite.
I find 90% of the studies against GMOs are hysterically and emotionally based, sorry. I prefer calm, rational tests with positive proof that x really leads to y.