Originally Posted by Josef K

I think the way to go about attacking GMOs is not safety. There have been thousands upon thousands of studies of GMOs - all reputable ones conclude that they're entirely safe, and in fact many would argue that the regulatory structure surrounding GMFs, while not perfect, is better than for traditionally-bred foods. Additionally, GMOs do have the potential to help millions of people, and already are in America, where they massively drive down food prices. They also probably do help the environment through saving land (along with reducing tillage costs and fuel emissions).

The real issue comes down to usage. GMOs reduce biodiversity because they're planted in monoculture (because otherwise farmers in developing countries can't afford to import them) and because there are basically only four or five GM crops grown (half of Argentina's arable land, I believe, is now used to grow GM soy, which makes it extremely susceptible to disaster), and although they do increase the income of farmers who grow them, they also send many others out of business. There's also the issue of what crops they grow - as small-scale subsistence models in developing countries become large-scale industrial models, a change spurred on by adoption of GM crops, farms start growing cash crops to feed American consumers. Staple crop production actually decreases, which actively hurts access to food in the developing world. Finally (and of course all these issues are related), the GM industry is more concentrated than traditional agriculture, so increased reliance on GM crops puts more of our food supply in the hands of a couple corporations.

tl;dr: GMOs are safe and have the potential to help millions, but they're used to hurt the poor in developing countries. For me this is primarily an economic issues, and although GMOs could be great, they need people who are less evil designing and distributing them.