The medium article keeps jumping around explaining global vs local, blight and health risks. What exactly is it saying again? My summary is that there are "eco

The medium article keeps jumping around explaining global vs local, blight and health risks. What exactly is it saying again? My summary is that there are "economical" (farming failing due to blight, etc) and "health" (whatever the hell they talk about proteins in chemical pathways). I'm not particularly worried about the economical effects, in part because I am reasonably confident that we don't have to "solve gravity" because we can't grow wheat. Health concerns, of course, are legitimate. It's getting more and more clear that glyphosate is a carcinogen, and all deliberate efforts by big botany to suppress this research should be condemned. But to say the "proteins" in your diet are harmful to you is a stretch. There might be some effects, but that's not a given. Ingested proteins typically do not directly participate in any chemical pathways that don't involve their degradation (exceptions exist like prions). We are gaining more insight into how our immune systems can indeed be reprogrammed by some proteins in our diet but that's still a stretch that one new modification in one of ten thousand proteins in a plant you eat is gonna screw your body. Also remember mad cow disease? That was caused purely by shitty factory farming, no GMO needed. Most (not all) worries about GMO is just misplaced fear mongering, and it only serves to squash any legitimate conversation about it lest a sane individual gets grouped with insane posse. What do you think of this argument?