>I have a degree in Molecular Biology and the utmost respect for good science.
OK.
>They're absolutely more likely to be harmful to the environment based on the general behavior of the companies that make them (Syngenta, Monstanto, etc.). There shouldn't really be any debate on this.
Guilt by association is bad science. Saying "shouldn't really be any debate" is not an attitude a good scientist has.
Also, "absolutely more likely" doesn't make sense.
>In science, the burden of proof is on the new thing to unequivocally prove itself true...not 'harmless until proven harmful.'
Actually, science is not on either side. Science is science. Putting the burden on one side or the other is purely a human policy decision. It has nothing to do with scientific principles.
> Most of the studies declaring them safe have industry funding at their root. ... Careerism and loose morals in this field give me plenty of reason to at least be skeptical of a Pro-GMO general consensus...and of overly enthusiastic new science in general.
Do you avoid pharmaceutical products as well? They suffer from the same problems.
>I'm morally opposed to supporting products that support mucking with an already perfect product, namely real, clean, unadulterated food
Again, this has nothing to do with science. And, I can assure you: Many, many people disagree with the characterization of "already perfect product"
You're right; "GMO producers generally don't respect the environment, and that behavior may extend to their products" is an opinion, not science. It's up for debate. As is "near-perfect food already exists and doesn't benefit from messing with it." Also an opinion.
Science and Industry exist in a tight, codependent feedback loop. Industry gets many of its most important new breakthroughs by funding new science; science gets to happen exponentially faster than it would otherwise through industry funding. This is inevitable; I'm simply arguing for 1) not checking our skepticism at the door, and 2) allowing for consumers to make their own choices in the matter.
> >In science, the burden of proof is on the new thing to unequivocally prove itself true...not 'harmless until proven harmful.'
> Actually, science is not on either side. Science is science. Putting the burden on one side or the other is purely a human policy decision. It has nothing to do with scientific principles.
I think you are actually wrong about this. In order for a hypothesis to be scientific, it must be falsifiable. This is reflective of the principle in reason that the burden of proof falls of the claimant of the positive claim.
The real question here is, "which is actually the negative claim?" Is claiming something safe a negative claim, or is claiming something is harmful a negative claim?
This is where I think OP is incorrect: safety is merely lack of harmfulness. Therefore, claiming that something is safe is the negative claim, and claiming that something is harmful is the positive claim. A reasonable person should assume things are safe until there is significant evidence that they are harmful.
OK.
>They're absolutely more likely to be harmful to the environment based on the general behavior of the companies that make them (Syngenta, Monstanto, etc.). There shouldn't really be any debate on this.
Guilt by association is bad science. Saying "shouldn't really be any debate" is not an attitude a good scientist has.
Also, "absolutely more likely" doesn't make sense.
>In science, the burden of proof is on the new thing to unequivocally prove itself true...not 'harmless until proven harmful.'
Actually, science is not on either side. Science is science. Putting the burden on one side or the other is purely a human policy decision. It has nothing to do with scientific principles.
> Most of the studies declaring them safe have industry funding at their root. ... Careerism and loose morals in this field give me plenty of reason to at least be skeptical of a Pro-GMO general consensus...and of overly enthusiastic new science in general.
Do you avoid pharmaceutical products as well? They suffer from the same problems.
>I'm morally opposed to supporting products that support mucking with an already perfect product, namely real, clean, unadulterated food
Again, this has nothing to do with science. And, I can assure you: Many, many people disagree with the characterization of "already perfect product"