You know, I've actually met extremely few people who are truly anti-science. Most are actually very pro-science, they just happen to be looking at different scientific evidence and drawing different conclusions.
As in any debate, the most foolish thing one can do is characterize the other side as a bunch of ignorant heathens who would prefer a negative outcome (e.g., "returning to the dark ages.") No one prefers a negative outcome. Everyone, in fact, believes they are trying to avoid one.
I don't really have the energy to discuss the points in the OP at length, but here are a few tidbits that I have a problem with:
Quote:
Perception: Biotech food is not necessary or safe.
Fact: Biotech crops have been commercialized for nearly 15 years... etc
|
This whole paragraph is merely about how great biotech crops are. It doesn't actually address the safety issue one bit.
Quote:
|
Antibiotics protect animal health.
|
Antibiotics protect human health, too. There are also countless studies that show the dangers of antibiotic overuse, in both humans and animals. One can favor limits on the use of something without being in favor of eliminating it altogether.
Quote:
|
What's more, no meat sold in the U.S. can contain antibiotic residues that violate Food and Drug Administration (FDA) standards... Growth promotants are thoroughly tested by FDA.
|
Right. It's only allowed to contain as much as we say it's allowed to contain. And we test it thoroughly, we promise.
If you start with the fundamental belief that the FDA is a useless, corrupt organization run by industry lobbyists, then the fact that the FDA has put a stamp of approval on things doesn't mean a lot, you know?
Quote:
|
Specifically, 99% of U.S. farms and ranches are owned by individuals, family corporations or partnerships.
|
WTF is a "family corporation?" Like how all those TV ads tell me that Johnson & Johnson is "a family company?" A family farm is one in which the owners of the farm are in the sun working the fields, and nothing else.