Which group of people is worse?

[TNF]

Clearly the latter, given how utterly obnoxious and annoying they tend to be on the whole.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Just about anyone who talks about GMOs in any regard is an HP

[dead0man]

People that oppose GMOs are anti-science assholes that have caused many many thousands of people to starve to death.  "annoying" pales in comparison.

[TNF]

People that oppose GMOs are anti-science assholes that have caused many many thousands of people to starve to death.  "annoying" pales in comparison.

Yeah, a shared post on a Facebook page is responsible for the millions of people who die annually from starvation, not the control of the food supply by social parasites who are not interested in feeding anyone and are only interested in yielding larger and larger profits for themselves.

[Deus Naturae]

People that oppose GMOs are anti-science assholes that have caused many many thousands of people to starve to death.  "annoying" pales in comparison.

Yeah, a shared post on a Facebook page is responsible for the millions of people who die annually from starvation, not the control of the food supply by social parasites who are not interested in feeding anyone and are only interested in yielding larger and larger profits for themselves.

That makes little sense. The more food that is produced and sold relative to one's competitors, the greater the profit yielded by the food producer. The natural market incentive is to produce more, not less, but unfortunately we have subsidy programs and regulations that reward producers for producing less/prohibit them from producing more.

[dead0man]

People that hate GMOs preaching to other people about how bad they are (despite there not be one single WELL DONE study that shows they are bad) are influencing other, less informed people to pass laws that have lead to the deaths of millions.  These same people love to make fun of creationists for being anti-science.  It would be a good joke if there wasn't millions of corpses left in their wake.

[© tweed]

can it really be demonstrated that anti-GMO activism is directly correlated to world starvation?  as far as I can tell this is more or less an argument put out there by the industry about what could happen should GMO activists get their way.

and most of the focus of the activism is about labeling, not restrictions on 'planting'/agromanufacture, least of all in Africa.  people starve because agribusiness doesn't think it's profitable to sell food to Africans/Indians/whomever, and I doubt that's because said people would be against buying a product labelled GMO.

[Goldwater]

Option 1

[dead0man]

can it really be demonstrated that anti-GMO activism is directly correlated to world starvation?  as far as I can tell this is more or less an argument put out there by the industry about what could happen should GMO activists get their way.

and most of the focus of the activism is about labeling, not restrictions on 'planting'/agromanufacture, least of all in Africa.  people starve because agribusiness doesn't think it's profitable to sell food to Africans/Indians/whomever, and I doubt that's because said people would be against buying a product labelled GMO.

Zambia turned away free food to feed their starving because it was GM crops.    Both WHO and Greenpeace are against things like Golden Rice, which could go a long way towards ending Vitamin A deficiency.  Something that causes the death of 1-2 million people a year, the blindness of another half million and many millions of cases of Xerophthalmia (dry eye)...every freaking year.  Why?  Not necessarily because it's bad or harmful, but because they are afraid of what would happen if GMO activists get their way.

It's sh**t like this that make me think many people on a certain corner of the political world don't really want to help, they want to push an agenda.  An inconsistent, anti-science when it's convenient agenda.

[Mechaman]

Option 3: People are still talking about this sh*?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Both people who hysterically whip-up nonsense about "Frankenfoods" and  people who pigeonhole anybody remotely critical of the spread of GMO's as "anti-science" are the problem. (Moderate Hero).

If GMO's are necessary to solve the agricultural issues the world faces, so be it; but not in a way that destroys the livelihood of poor farmers. In a similar manner to nuclear/thorium utopians, GMO's ardent proponents dismiss everybody else as naive morons, for having the outrageous demands to use tried and tested, cheaper methods of reducing famine - better land use, the banning of grain-fed cattle, the reduction of subsidies to Western farmers to allow developing countries to have viable, cheap food sources and the abolition of the stupider forms of biofuels; before exploring other strategies.

Of course, panickers should be aware that farmers have been tampering with genes since the agricultural revolution. Also, of a long long list of environmental crises resulting from agriculture, GMOs wouldn't even break top twenty.

[H. Ross Peron]

The former obviously. Saying the latter is worse is like saying the critics of young earth creationism are worse than its propnents since a good proportion are "Atheismblob"-type obnoxious Internet atheist trolls.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Is it possible to have a favorable view of genetic modification of food while also opposing many of the practices of Monsanto and other major food corporations? Because that view seems to be disappointingly rare.