Not a question for some, but for me I like to look at both sides of an issue. I contemplate pro & cons of GMO’s only to be faced with even more questions & few answers.

Many agencies & nutrition professionals contend there is nothing wrong with GMO foods & that they are safe for humans because:

1. They won’t make you sick (not toxic);  


2. Allergic reaction risk is low (if no allergenic foods are involved in their production).

“OK, awesome. Eat away, then?” Safety, a perfectly necessary and important determination, is just one point of evaluation. This view-finder seems short-sighted.

What about longer-term effects (beyond our lifetimes)? I have yet to read much of nod in that direction. Have we thought about that?

What about effects on our agricultural system and environmental health, which will then have secondary effects on human health?

What about the fact that pesticides use is increasing with GMO crops rather than decreasing? I thought it was suppose to be the other way around.

We still have no idea how to contain these GMO crops or how to keep them separate from other crops... both questions are being contemplated by federal committees. That alone seems reason enough to slo-o-o-w-w-w-w down! The long-term effects on human health as a result of changing the health of our agricultural & environmental landscape is bound to be big deal.

Yes, GMO foods could help reduce nutrient deficiencies, but some GMO soy has proven to be less nutritious than non-GMO soy! Are we artificially adding nutrients at the cost of biodiversity only to adopt a mono-nutrient crop that decreases the amounts of other beneficial compounds found in plant foods (phytonutrients)?

Even worse, in decreasing varietals could we be losing valuable nutrients we haven't even discovered yet?

These are not questions even wise, old Shakespeare would have contemplated.