People think of GMOs as either:
1) Nothing to worry about, it’s science-based.
2) Something people should have a choice whether to consume
3) A product of untrustworthy companies and their marketing techniques.
There’s the tricky tightrope of discussing Genetic Engineering and GMOs. The terms are somewhat fluid.
The two latest pro and con articles that try a reasonable approach are:
Slate’s William Saletan writing, “Unhealthy Fixation“
A writer at Huffington Post counter-replies, “How to Cover Up the Pesticide Industry’s GMO Scheme and New 2,4 D ‘Agent Orange’ Crops”
Other than Slatetan winning the comprehensible headline award, take a look at those two articles, read a decent amount of the comments, check a few more links and you’ll have the debate encapsulated.
I’m a mix of 2) and 3) … I find it hard to want to give companies the chance to keep on lying. Though I appreciate that people think others are too afraid of what GMOs might do, it is ALWAYS a good idea to keep an air of healthy skepticism. Now when that broadens out to public policy or action, then people get further divided.