>I believe the point is, don't believe every unsubstantiated claim by default. Some plausible evidence is required. Let's make a bet. I'm going to mix a vat of

>I believe the point is, don't believe every unsubstantiated claim by default. Some plausible evidence is required. Let's make a bet. I'm going to mix a vat of chemicals. Then, I'm going to tell you that it's safe and "prove" it to you by feeding it to a mouse and, together, observing it go "unaffected" for 15 minutes. Next, I will challenge you to prove that it is unsafe. If you cannot provide some "plausible evidence" that it is unsafe, then you will drink a gallon of my concoction every day for a year. Do we have a bet? Simplification? Yes. But, the line of reasoning is the same. Of course I don't believe every unsubstantiated claim. That's a straw-man. And, I won't contest your point about whatever vested interests GMO-haters may have in "hanging some crime on GMOs". Instead, I'll object to your implicit characterization that the issue is binary. The world is not just comprised of GMO-lovers and GMO-haters. Some simply hold reasonable concerns. In fact, I don't recall even stating in my comments that GMOs are unsafe. I've only said that we don't know that they are safe; yet we often behave as if we do. We then challenge others to prove otherwise as a condition of constraining their use, even when we've seen this approach end in disaster time-and-again. That's my point.