Bernie Sanders in 2020? Here is his long history with pseudoscience

[Jhhnn]

I'm sure. But that's not relevant to what I said. My point is simply that the mere fact of farmers choosing to grow it doesn't, in itself, say anything about the pro-s and con-s of GMO. Farmers do all sorts of things to increase raw yeild and hence profits (in a rigged market, incidentally, where those profits are somwhat arbitrary in any case due to all the subsidies and price-supports). That on it's own doesn't prove anything either way. That's the sum total of my point, the rest of your comment is addressing points I didn't make.

Increased yields help reduce hunger world wide. More productive seed varieties promote that goal.

 

[Amused]

I'm sure. But that's not relevant to what I said. My point is simply that the mere fact of farmers choosing to grow it doesn't, in itself, say anything about the pro-s and con-s of GMO. Farmers do all sorts of things to increase raw yeild and hence profits (in a rigged market, incidentally, where those profits are somwhat arbitrary in any case due to all the subsidies and price-supports). That on it's own doesn't prove anything either way. That's the sum total of my point, the rest of your comment is addressing points I didn't make.

Wel, my post includes a link to two meta studies (the very meaning of scientific consensus) that debunk the bullshit article that started this thread of the conversation, and your implication that there is some conspiracy of farmers that relates to ANYTHING other than higher yields and lower overhead on chemicals.

Lots of bullshit in there of things other than the obvious: Farmers prefer GMOs because they bring in demonstrably better yields and lower overhead cost resulting in higher profits.

And cheaper more plentiful food for the world.

But yeah, conspiracy, amirite?