User _fs makes the excellent point that<p><i>The only fear of GMOs that I have is knowing that certain crops have been genetically modified to not die when they are caked in pesticide. Good for plants, bad for me, as I have not been genetically modified to eat crops with layers of pesticide on them.</i><p>Strangely, this post was downvoted. Even more strangely a response to _fs's post by goodreter, that simply provided support in the form of a link for _fs's point about secondary negative effects was quickly downvoted.<p>As _fs alludes to, even if GMO crops have no negative effects on organisms that eat them, there are a lot of potential negative externalities that need to be considered, monocultures in food production, the unprecedented control of a food supply that patented genomes give to individual corporations, unforeseen interaction between a gmo and the surrounding ecological systems, etc. etc.<p>With _fs's and goodreter's posts, both of which are perfectly reasonable, being downvoted as well as the other posts downvoted in this thread(which all seem to share the characteristic of being somewhat skeptical of gmo) I'm not entirely sure there aren't monsanto shills hovering on this thread.
First of all, I don't think anyone has a serious objections to GMOs that are modified to increase output or resist natural predators<p>The only fear of GMOs that I have is knowing that certain crops have been genetically modified to not die when they are caked in pesticide. Good for plants, bad for me, as I have not been genetically modified to eat crops with layers of pesticide on them.
From my perspective it's not that all GMO foods are bad. I think the problem is that a lot of staff is being engineered into food that is not good for us. And we don't know which is which. It's a much finer-grained point than GMO vs non-GMO. However, if we can't even LABEL the GMO food "GMO", what do you think will be in it? When corporations are fighting the GMO label so furiously, this can't be a good sign.