GMO opponents often react reflixively without looking at specifics, but I think their fears are rooted in something real. Setting aside bad behavior from Monsan

GMO opponents often react reflixively without looking at specifics, but I think their fears are rooted in something real. Setting aside bad behavior from Monsanto specifically (suing farmers, patents, sterile seeds), there is both promise and peril to GMOs, even in the simple act of selective breeding that comprises most of the activity in that space. My primary concern is the lack of long-term thinking in the drive for high production yield, and accompanying side effects to health and ecosystems. For instance, some claim that the high-yield "dwarf wheat" pioneered in the 60s is responsible for exacerbating gluten sensitivity: http://marksdailyapple.com/the-problems-with-modern-wheat/ http://marksdailyapple.com/the-problems-with-modern-wheat/ There is also an overlapping concern with the broken patent system, and whether it is acceptable to "own" the genetic results of evolution, whether human-guided or otherwise. It's not hard to conceive of some scary slippery slopes there. Each individual advancement is probably, on average, not a big deal, and probably a win for both providers and consumers. But if you aggregrate the accelerating advances over decades and centuries, I think there are real consequences for human health and the biosphere. I'm not advocating the elimination of GMOs (as if we could), but at minimum they deserve scrutiny, honest labeling, and long-term follow-up studies.