Being against the implementation of specific crop products because you believe they weren't adequately tested, or because there is evidence that they are harmfu

Being against the implementation of specific crop products because you believe they weren't adequately tested, or because there is evidence that they are harmful in some way - that is not anti-science. Here's what is anti-science: being against using a range of methods available to modern biological science to engineer crops and demanding that we continue to use the less precise and inherently less safe methods that we used throughout the 20th century. This position is inherently anti-science because it is opposed to scientific understanding itself- when you realize that traditional techniques modified dozens or hundreds of genes in unpredictable ways, and now we can target specific genes that we understand the functions of, but you are opposed to doing so on some strange principle, you must realize the anti-GMO movement is anti-science itself. It is exactly like being anti-programming because you heard about hackers stealing money from banks in the news. It's just too much of a risk, computers are complex systems that we can't always predict! It's just being safe! I hope that this analogy feels like a ridiculous stretch to you- that's how your position feels to me!