I'm one of those people you're trying to strawman.
I don't disagree with the science as it regards the safety of GMO crops. I'm sure that I could eat concentrated amounts of whatever protein the added/modified DNA codes for without ever noticing.
I, and many other people, are lightly uneasy about the general trend of over-engineering our food supply. The trend points at fewer and fewer varieties of each species being farmed. That results in monocultures and all the inherent risks, such as susceptibility to pests etc. Both selective breeding as well as gene editing also optimise for only those traits with immediate commercial reward: The one or two varieties of Apples you'd end up will be huge, extremely colourful, and have 18 month shelf life. Already we've seen that the market doesn't usually care about taste, and there's a recent paper showing a widespread loss in nutritional value over the last decades.
In regards to nutrition, it has been shown again and again that there's more to it that the day's science has firmly established. The discovery of the major categories (protein/fat/carbohydrates) was immediately used to optimise diets in, for example, the newly industrialised cities, or the military. The result was a widespread decline in health among these populations, with fun new pathologies such as beriberi or scurvy.
Those mistakes were corrected with the discovery of Vitamins (beriberi: B1 deficiency, scurvy: C deficiency), and, once again, science thought it knew enough to reduce nutrition to its parts, and create healthy foods from scratch. Only they continue to fail, because the are myriads of molecules working in a complex network with gut bacteria etc that all have effects on your health. And the only winning strategy has always been: variety.
Note that none of this is really controversial within nutritional science today. But what scientists say is good for you is not always the same as other scientists' new crops. One is human physiology, the other is crop science.
I'm also hesitant to embrace such technology because it turns an industry traditionally organised around small, family-owned businesses into the purvey of three or four incredibly large multinationals and their patent portfolio. And while I think today's democracies have established a working regulatory regime for these behemoth, there are just to many stories about rather shady conduct by such companies in countries with weak governments and institutions.
I also question the need for further increases in ag yields. Much of the discussion is infused by the fear of exponential population growth that was all the rage in the 80s (Club of Rome etc.), but we're actually seeing a gradual flattening of growth, and aren't too far of from "peak humanity". Hunger is no longer the #1 problem of humanity, and where it still exists, it is caused not by a lack of production, but by organisational deficiencies (see North Korea vs South Korea, or Venezuela today vs Venezuela 1995).
>Already we've seen that the market doesn't usually care about taste, and there's a recent paper showing a widespread loss in nutritional value over the last decades.
Citation showing this has anything to do with GMOs?
Sorry, what I mean is does OP have citations for anything? For being someone who claims to support science, he/she didn't provide any links backing up the big pile of claims.
I don't disagree with the science as it regards the safety of GMO crops. I'm sure that I could eat concentrated amounts of whatever protein the added/modified DNA codes for without ever noticing.
I, and many other people, are lightly uneasy about the general trend of over-engineering our food supply. The trend points at fewer and fewer varieties of each species being farmed. That results in monocultures and all the inherent risks, such as susceptibility to pests etc. Both selective breeding as well as gene editing also optimise for only those traits with immediate commercial reward: The one or two varieties of Apples you'd end up will be huge, extremely colourful, and have 18 month shelf life. Already we've seen that the market doesn't usually care about taste, and there's a recent paper showing a widespread loss in nutritional value over the last decades.
In regards to nutrition, it has been shown again and again that there's more to it that the day's science has firmly established. The discovery of the major categories (protein/fat/carbohydrates) was immediately used to optimise diets in, for example, the newly industrialised cities, or the military. The result was a widespread decline in health among these populations, with fun new pathologies such as beriberi or scurvy.
Those mistakes were corrected with the discovery of Vitamins (beriberi: B1 deficiency, scurvy: C deficiency), and, once again, science thought it knew enough to reduce nutrition to its parts, and create healthy foods from scratch. Only they continue to fail, because the are myriads of molecules working in a complex network with gut bacteria etc that all have effects on your health. And the only winning strategy has always been: variety.
Note that none of this is really controversial within nutritional science today. But what scientists say is good for you is not always the same as other scientists' new crops. One is human physiology, the other is crop science.
I'm also hesitant to embrace such technology because it turns an industry traditionally organised around small, family-owned businesses into the purvey of three or four incredibly large multinationals and their patent portfolio. And while I think today's democracies have established a working regulatory regime for these behemoth, there are just to many stories about rather shady conduct by such companies in countries with weak governments and institutions.
I also question the need for further increases in ag yields. Much of the discussion is infused by the fear of exponential population growth that was all the rage in the 80s (Club of Rome etc.), but we're actually seeing a gradual flattening of growth, and aren't too far of from "peak humanity". Hunger is no longer the #1 problem of humanity, and where it still exists, it is caused not by a lack of production, but by organisational deficiencies (see North Korea vs South Korea, or Venezuela today vs Venezuela 1995).