So it seems about,28 countries in the world have banned GM products, mostly in EU. Can someone tell me the rational?

>tell me the rational
US has been eating gm for decades.
Next, the 2016 elections happen.
No coincidence here.

Stop thinking about the science and think about the motives. The ones modifying shit aren't being paid to work with your health in mind, they are paid to work with profits in mind.

GMOs are not automatically bad or good for you, I do however not trust the companies behind them. I don't think Monsanto gives a fuck about a increase in cancer 50-year probability for people consuming their GMOs if it allows them to save big on everything else.

No I haven't heard anyone talking about this during the election. Lol its seems a relatively un talked about issue save a few online communities. I just saw,a random video on YouTube from a couple years,ago about people bitching about GM. I tried to explain to them but they I was pointed tho this scientist's book in one of my links.

>don't think about the science on a science board
Huh?
I mean if that's the case what about the saccharin controversies with alternative sweetners for diet sodas(huge market) in the 70s? They have been retracted then put back on th market twice in 30 years due to suggestive research about bladder cancer on mice once. Then subsequent researh showed little effect after going back and fourth with retractions and re-retractions when they finally realized it wasn't bad. I don't know if we can say companies never care.
Ibe heard it say that Montana workers in their cafes eat organic but I can't find a source for that.
I think we would need some serious biostatistics and case studies with people who eat organic foods and those who don't. ..then again it could be skewed since people who are so invested in eating everything organic might also have healthier diets to begin with than people who don't care.

>rational
You mean lack thereof.

Most politicians know jack shit about science, most of their voters know jack shit about science.
To them GMO == not natural == bad.

>increase in cancer 50-year probability
Why would you just assume this?

U.S.Politicians don't seem to care though. People are pointing it out to mean U.S. politicians are rather scientifically illiterate and are only representing interests of the biotech company. It seems sketchy that they refuse to label their products at store. People fear all they care about is the ability to make food super cheaply without regard to health. I just wish someone would give me links to research about the exact methodologies the biotech company uses for Gene insertion. Perhaps I should read that book but it seems more a propaganda book about isolated studies th at resulted in adverse effects on rats.

I agree here. Cancer is a difficult beast. We have no idea how to curve it and what really stops your cells from regulating themselves. Some of your growth factors and proliferation factors just get out of wack for some reason.

>pseudo-science
>soccer moms
>liberal arts

Folks, we've hit the pan-global quota of sargon-tier buzzwords allowable in a single post. That being said, the sentiment is correct to a marginal extent: yes, many proponents of anti-GM are a part of the general uniformed public, however, many flag-wavers of the anti-GM movement come from positions of power and of genuine scientific authority, unfortunately. The genesis of the movement, although, appears rooted in a stigmatic premise - "they're trying to control us with potatoes, man!" - rather than any direct evidence of adversity.

It truly seems that people find difficulty in dissociating the ethics and behavior of market-bodies such as Monsanto from biotechnology.

well, mutation stops your cells from regulating themselves, it's pretty simpler