You wouldn't post these kinds of cynical and deeply ignorant remarks if you had the faintest awareness of the science behind the GMO debate, specially the warnings and problems already flagged in the real world where GMOs played a critical part.
But seriously, some sources would be appreciated.
They are not my claims, it's the current state of the art regarding GMOs, and one which anyone with a cursory interest in the subject is very well aware.
If you honestly have any interest in the subject, you can start by reading articles such as:
https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12302-0...
I have very little interest at all about GMOs, but I realize that it's good to know things about things I don't really care about. It's not curiosity that will carry me through the paper but more obligation that I should know more about these things.
Some times you have to read through long articles because it might change your mind on current events even if what you really want to do is stick it all in a drawer and never open it again.
"GMO is bad" may be true but I never seen a good sources supporting it.
What I encountered was always on a level of astrology, new age, homeopathy, vaccines-cause-autism quackery.
But any good anti-vaxxer can shower you with links to published papers.
Any source should have to pass three tests.
1: is it good science? Does it even say what you think it does?
2: Does it indict a specific varietal? For instance a paper identifying a risk with Bt Corn may or may not identify a risk with Golden Rice.
3: What's the risk/benefit?