1. Ubquity of GM food is not widely known / apparent to consumers.
2. Most GM strains are produced by a company of questionable ethics.
3. Some countries have outright banned GM foods (though for reasons / motives not given -- elaboration would have been nice here).
4. "Critics claim there haven’t been any long-term studies done (GM food has only been around for 20 years), that supportive research was biased or inadequate, and that the FDA rushed the approval."
> 2. Most GM strains are produced by a company of questionable ethics.
It turns out that the "questionable ethics" charge is essentially circular. It's basically yelling that someone is bad and then refering to the yelling as evidence of bad.
> Critics claim there haven’t been any long-term studies done (GM food has only been around for 20 years), that supportive research was biased or inadequate, and that the FDA rushed the approval."
Said critics don't have any objection to genetic alteration by other means, of which there has been no testing.
I agree with you - the article just implies that GM foods raise questions, but appears almost afraid to take a stand on those questions.
Why do they need to take a stand one way or the other? The Singularity Hub informs about advancements and progression toward the Singularity; their mission doesn't involve taking sides on controversial topics.
They raised the questions -- you can decide for yourself, right?
The article presents the fact that most of our food supply contains some genetically modified plants. The article mentions that some people "feel" this is a bad thing.
I appear to have missed the point. Was there a point?