GMO opponents in the United States and worldwide are not concerned with rationally managing risks to minimize potential concerns and enhance benefits. Activists rely instead on the precautionary principle, presuming that GMOs are intrinsically dangerous. In the process, they are pushing misinformation to muddy the discussion about these organisms and what they do.

When anti-GMO activists move beyond their desire to preserve what they believe to be the sanctity of nature, they often shift their arguments to a seemingly scientific realm, focusing on perceived or potential unknown risks. However, there is even less room for debate here. GMOs have undergone decades of rigorous and consistent study.

Activists have little interest in that research. “Decisions on the future of our food and agriculture should not be based on misleading and misrepresentative claims that a ‘scientific consensus’ exists on GMO safety,” argues the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility.

The romantic allure of an idealized world unspoiled by human activity and the bucolic notion of traditional farming inform the rhetoric of anti-GMO activists. … This vivid portrayal grabs headlines but ignores the environmental and economic benefits of GMO technologies, especially for those peasant farmers in the developing world.

This is an excerpt. Read the original post here