To all you chaps asking for "proof", just think about it from the precautionary principle perspective: it's incumbent on those introducing large change into a c

To all you chaps asking for "proof", just think about it from the precautionary principle perspective: it's incumbent on those introducing large change into a complex system to prove the lack of harm, instead of us proving that there definitely will be harm. A simple analogy: We don't know for a fact that climate change can result in catastrophic disaster for the earth. But from a precautionary perspective, we need to do what we can to minimize our impact on the environment. Similarly, the first few years of smoking a cigarette will show "no harm". However in the long run that is not the case. GMOs are frankly too new, and too risky a proposition to blindly accept, even given so-called "expert" opinions. I also don't buy the sensational title, that GMOs "provide health benefits". The article makes claim about reducing contaminants, but it's a bridge too far to go all the way into "health benefits" territory. I fully expect the down-voting from the Monsanto and GMO shills, but for the reasonable, independent readers, hopefully some of the above points make sense.