In GMO Myths and Truths, the authors attempt to cross this divide by taking a science-based, heavily referenced approach to dealing with claims for the benefits of GM foods.
On the basis of this research, they argue that a large body of scientific and other authoritative evidence demonstrates that most claims for benefits of GM foods are not true. On the contrary, they say, the evidence presented in their report indicates that GM crops:
•Are laboratory-made, using technology that is totally different from natural breeding methods, and pose different risks from non-GM crops
•Can be toxic, allergenic or less nutritious than their natural counterparts
•Are not adequately regulated to ensure safety
•Do not increase yield potential
•Do not reduce pesticide use but increase it
•Create serious problems for farmers, including herbicide-tolerant "superweeds", compromised soil quality, and increased disease susceptibility in crops
•Have mixed economic effects
•Harm soil quality, disrupt ecosystems, and reduce biodiversity
•Do not offer effective solutions to climate change
•Are as energy-hungry as any other chemically-farmed crops
•Cannot solve the problem of world hunger but distract from its real causes - poverty, lack of access to food and, increasingly, lack of access to land to grow it on.
Whether or not you agree with these conclusions, the authors have put a great deal of time and effort into reviewing the evidence for the claims. This is the best-researched and most comprehensive review I've seen of the criticisms of GM foods.
Can the pro-GM advocates produce something equally well researched, comprehensive, and compelling? I doubt it but I'd like to see them try.http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/06/debunking-the-health-claims-of-genetically-modified-foods/258665/?google_editors_picks=true