First of all, my parents aren't related.
Second, I don't support GMOs, I support the truth. It's been well-established it's impossible to prove a negative (except in a few, specific circumstances). I can't prove there are no green penguins living on the North Pole, for example, so the person making the claim has to present evidence. So, I'm happy to change my mind if you present real evidence.
What kinds of evidence would I accept?
1. This newspaper article.
2. This scientific paper.
Or anything along those lines. What won't I accept?
- Monsanto is eeeeeevil.In the 20s, alcohol came from gangsters; they used their profits to kill people. Does that make alcohol evil? No. If you want to attack a science, attack the science itself. Don't tell me wine is bad because gangsters make it; tell me wine is bad because of its demonstrated health or environmental effects.
- Monsanto is repressing science.Would you convict someone of murder if there was no evidence but the prosecutor insisted all the evidence was suppressed? No evidence is no evidence.
- The science isn't in yet!That's what the last president said about global warming.
- Look at this article/paper.If it's from a place called "Natural News" or "Monsanto Truth" or "GMOs Suck Ass" I won't believe it. I also won't believe anything that's already been debunked like that study with the pig stomachs or the rat tumors.
- The bees are dying/Autism rates/Etc.
There are lots of possible causes for (for example) Taylor Swift being unable to find a boyfriend. Blaming her failings on GMOs makes just as much sense as blaming bee deaths or autism rates on GMOs. Again, unless you have actual evidence? Something every major world newspaper and scientific journal missed? Hmmmm?
Until then, let's try to be civil and logical.