It’s easy to get information about genetically modified food. There are the dubious anti-GM horror stories that recirculate through social networks. On the other side, there’s the dismissive sighing, eye-rolling, and hand patting of pro-GM partisans. But if you just want a level-headed assessment of the evidence in plain English, that’s in pretty short supply. Fortunately, you’ve found the trove.
Stories in this series:
Farmers have a slew of tools they can use to keep GMO grain separate from traditional crops. But none of them will deliver absolute, 100-percent results.
Retractions are typically the result of big goofs and frauds -- but in this case, the problem was inordinate attention paid to inconclusive results.
Much GMO research is just walking roads that evolution already tried. Is gene-splicing a dead end and should scientists just move on?
Why does anyone care about GMOs? Whoever wins the debate, they're not that important to our future. But they're central to the stories we tell.
GMO products rarely deliver on the hype, but they've pushed our agricultural system to a critical crossroads -- that's why they matter. First in a series of responses to our coverage.
Genetically modified food still holds great promise of improving conditions for the world's poor: A second response to our 'Panic-Free GMOs' series.
Tom Philpott and Ramez Naam both made sense in their responses to the conclusion of "Panic-free GMOs." Here's what they might have missed.