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:
What are the risks of genetically modified food? And how can critics avoid bias when they study them? We take a deeper look.
When one journalist tweets that another's piece contains "too many industry talking points," it takes a lot more than 140 characters to sort out the rights and wrongs.
Sure, Big Ag might use the controversial genetically engineered rice as a stalking horse -- but if it's able to help save hundreds of thousands of lives, maybe it deserves a chance.
Surprise! When it comes to assessing who benefits the most from gene-splicing technology in food farming -- corporations? farmers? us? -- there's no consensus.
Biotech seeds cost more and often return less than conventional crops or organic farming. But they do give farmers a kind of safety net.
Plants engineered to produce their own bug-killing toxins really have helped farmers cut the use of nastier chemical insecticides.
Herbicide-resistant crops make it easy for farmers to rely on hefty quantities of weedkiller. Then the weeds evolve, and we have to up the ante.
Genetically engineered crops are supposed to make it easier for farmers to protect the earth by plowing less. But the record is spotty.
Today's agribusiness patent holders have locked out innovation. The annals of maritime exploration offer a way out. Really!