Scientific American explains some of the populist appeal of his stance: Why People Oppose GMOs Even Though Science Says They Are Safe: Intuition can encourage opinions that are contrary to the facts.
Inattention to the food industry when building policy can be lethal. Remember the Ethanol Effect? Our push to get off Middle East oil led to skyrocketing prices on staples and literal malnutrition, starvation, and poverty reinforcement in poorer countries.
Developed nations have the luxury of attaching sentimentality to their food, circling toward a pioneer purism. The poor who literally subsist off cheap rice, wheat and corn do not. GMO and glyphosate are the most studied subjects in the history of science, and the consensus is that the technology can be safe if precautions are followed. When a country nevertheless votes to ban or even label GMO, customers of the world food markets suffer.
It is selfish, entitled, and immoral for us to deny the world all available tools for feeding its hungry.
Bernie Sanders would serve his country better by listening to input from a wider array of sources.
This post was read 656 times.