Thank you. As many other sticking points GMO tend to be polarizing, and acritically defending them makes a disservice to science same as considering them "evil".

Humans have been genetically modifying food (and animals) long before DNA was known.

Then again, like every other product meant for human consumption it should be subject to scrutiny and monitoring, to ensure saftety.

And even then, most companies will tune food products to maximize profits, and this generally means favoring the looks, yield, consistency and shelf life of a product, as opposed to flavor and texture, with the result of food that looks and feels "artificial".

In general banning all GMO is a fairly stupid political and marketing move, that has little bearing on the final quality of the product: if anything they should guarantee thier customers the freshness and the quality of the ingredients, independently of their origin.

I support this point especially when I consider companies like Monsanto who genetically engineer crops to resist just their own brand of pesticides.

If you were to genetically engineer products for everyone's good, it would make sense to enter such uncharted territories, but to do it solely for the good of one entity is simply horrific.