system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Anti-GMO people are worse than Anti-Vax people.

(disclaimer: This is more about Anti-GMO activists than people that won’t eat GMOs. Most of those people are just ill informed.) 

Vaccines save lives, and anti-vax’ers endanger the lives of their families, but most Anti-Vax decisions only effect a small percentage of people. Sure anti-vax kids can break some herd immunity, but most people around anti-vax’ers will not experience negative reactions. The same can not be said about anti-GMO’ers. 

Being Anti-GMO, is extremely self centered. You would rather people in other countries die than eat food that is slightly different. We could prevent a lot of unnecessary death if people would give up their misguided ideals. 

Firstly, GMO’s are practically always safe, and are definitely safer then our current methods of food supplies. Just like vaccines, we’ve been using GMOs for decades, but people only care about it now because of ignorance about technology. It’s just food that has been modified to be better. Just like vaccines, they were made to better the world, not kill it. 

Secondly, GMO’s save lives by improving the way that food can be grown.  Third world countries have to destroy lives and the environment with pesticides just to grow plants.  These less developed pesticides can cause cancer for those spraying it and can drain into the water. Of course most of these pesticides are not in our food once it comes to us, but the workers are still being introduced to constant high doses of chemicals. 

GMO’s on the other hand can be made to naturally reduce pests, making pesticides obsolete. With GMOs, workers will not have to be introduced to pesticides and would not have to suffer like the currently do. It’s better to use technology that is nearly completely safe than to continue to use technology we know can be deadly. 

Lastly, GMOs can help reduce world hunger. GMOs can create crops with higher yields with higher shelf life’s to allow for more food supplies to starving countries. GMOs can be made to survive harsher climates and smaller growing areas allowing for more widespread farming in places like Africa and Mexico. This allows third world countries to receive the necessary fruits and vegetables of a sustainable diet. We could save tons of lives by using safe GMOs.
gpt
Anti GMO activists aren't protesting against the type of genetic modifications you've cited as support for the harm they are 'creating'.  They're protesting genetic modifications that are exploitative at their core.

&#x200B;

For example: seeds that produce crops that don't themselves produce seeds for the farmers to replant.  This modification is disguised as a food feature, such as seedless watermelons, but for arguments sake can be presumed as a method of forcing repeat customers from farmers who go back to Monsanto each year to buy watermelon seeds for the market.

&#x200B;

another lesser example: Not specifically lab based gene edited modifications, but by breeding and cross breeding 'families' of a produce...lets say artichokes...for traits such as appearance, or strawberries for super sweetness, rather than nutritional features, or traditional flavor profiles.  These changes in the commercial bench mark for a product have negative impacts.  

&#x200B;

The root arguments of the movement, rather than what the popular mouth pieces spew out on high profile media outlets, are about the pendulum swinging so far towards commercialism maximizing profits, rather than taste, sustainability, etc.  Those decisions are being made absent a dampening effect of public understanding, feedback, governmental oversight, etc.

&#x200B;

The anti gmo movement is better than the antivaxxers because it's core argument doesn't have the negative side effects of deaths of people not involved in the decisions.  Immune suppressed persons who are unable to receive vaccinations and thereby rely on herd immunity.

&#x200B;

Genetic modifications for yield (absent exploitative trait changes), or for pest resistance (absent negative side effects on the environment), or for growing environment expansion, are all good and should be pursued.  The problem lies with the corporate entities that are either doing the research, or hiring away the grad students with high salaries to modify a more perfect looking apple at the expense of using twice as much water to produce the same number of trees (hypothetical).

&#x200B;

&#x200B;