Because the science is questionable, in the case of GMOs. There really are highly unknowable dangers inherent in GMOs and generally in non-organic food producti

Because the science is questionable, in the case of GMOs. There really are highly unknowable dangers inherent in GMOs and generally in non-organic food production. For instance, they MIGHT be inherently dangerous on both a health and economic level because: 1. Inducing rapid genetic change (i.e. making GMOs) could alter the nutritional profile of foods in ways that are difficult to test. 2. Similarly, it could reduce the ability of the plants to fight diseases. 3. Combined with 2., producing crops with less and less biodiversity could very conceivably lead to massive crop death due to disease. This is very much a "black swan" scenario and just because it hasn't happened (much) already, doesn't mean it won't. In fact, you need only to look at bananas to see this in action. 4. The benefits of GMOs often require externalities to realise i.e. fertalisers, pesticides, mechanised agriculture. 5. Largely related to 4., the true (mid to long term) economic benefits of GMOs are hard to quantify. In my opinion, this comes down to the production process fundamentally requiring a bunch of energy and oil-derived products to work. These costs are massively subsidised and are largely hidden and unknown. There are some articles that address these issues. I've read some of them. All the articles I've read, like many scientific articles (outside the likes of maths/physics/chemistry etc.), were unconvincing because they had insufficient data and failed to account for obvious confounding factors in any way. It is also entirely obvious at this point that scientific articles are frequently produced with data that has been heavily manipulated or even fabricated. I use the term "scientific" here to refer to the style and place of publication, rather than any abstract principle of quality.