
The Surprisingly Sudden Demise of the Anti-GMO Movement - okket
https://risk-monger.com/2016/05/23/the-surprisingly-sudden-demise-of-the-anti-gmo-movement/
======
pklausler
I disagree that a wave of rationality has come from somewhere and boosted
everybody's critical thinking skills -- it doesn't seem to have affected e.g.
the anti-vaxxers yet. The OP might want to consider some alternative
explanations as well as the original hypothesis.

~~~
ktRolster
Maybe it can be explained by the rise of apathy....

To be anti-GMO, you have to _do_ something, get out there, check labels to
avoid foods, whatever. Whereas vaccination is something that forces itself
into your attention when you have kids.

------
Overtonwindow
I don't think the movement has collapsed, rather the movement was successful
on the labeling front. It's not that people are inherently anti-GMO, but
rather people simply want GMO foods labeled. After the defeat of the Roberts
bill in the US Senate to preempt the Vermont mandatory labeling law, the whole
issue has gone silent. I don't exactly see people marching for GMOs. This
article is awfully skewed and misses the bigger point of the GMO movement.

------
Qantourisc
"were causing significant environmental" -> Links to an article not even
mentioning "significant". And they mention burning leaves of. How about not
doing that at all ?

Is this propaganda ? Or did I not read deep enough ?

~~~
Broken_Hippo
In addition to the burning, there are the effects of planting fields with non-
gmo sugar beets. I don't think we can have the sugar production without sugar
beets, and the old version either requires hand-weeding or more chemicals to
be able to have a good harvest. Often those chemicals do more environmental
harm than good.

The problem with telling folks not to burn the fields is the same problem the
sugar beet folks run into when told to hand weed the fields. It costs more and
is harder work.

------
xbmcuser
I personally don't like gmo because of the patents system.

