Us too. Non-GMO means lower yields. Lower yields mean someone somewhere is going hungry unnecessarily. Lower yield also puts more stress on our limited arable land. Fuck that.

My significant other and I go out of our way to NOT buy GMO free/organic foods. I’d almost be willing to spend more money on food that isn’t anti GMO. It’s 98% nonsense used to drive sales at higher margins, and poses a long term risk to the countries confidence in ACTUAL science and medicine.

I understand how a representative government works. I’m disagreeing with the choices Vermont made and articulating my reasons. The point is, scientifically, GMO is not information. It is not unsafe, it is not unhealthy and there are no environmental contexts in which GMO is useful information. GMO free is pure and…

Yes, and organic tomatoes that drain aquifers drain aquifers. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/31/sci…

Exactly—they are “political instruments”. And we should not have the government choosing political instruments on a matter that is science-based.

“Extra pesticides” = most people have limited understanding of genetically modified crops and equate the term GMO with roundup ready corn/soy. Most people have no idea that some crops are modified to not need or need less pesticides. Fun fact, most of the initial backlash against GMO crops was funded by the people…

Humans have been modifying the genetics of our food through selective breeding for forever. Just because it’s now done with precise intention and not mostly by accident, that’s supposed to make it more dangerous?

There are things to be concerned about with GMOs, but those things have to do with business practices, not…

I tend to avoid foods labelled “NO GMO’s” because I feel like they are scamming me.