Being anti-science is bad, but that's not only a conservative problem. There are more than a few lefty types that hate fluoride in water and GM crops.
The arguments against GM crops are not necessarily "anti-science", there are legitimate concerns about this.
Being against GM crops IS anti-science, just like denying evolution. But only one of those anti-science positions actually gets people killed.
There is no consensus on this, something is only anti-science if the vast majority of scientific evidence points in one direction. There may be
near consensus in North America (but it's eroding and AFAIK there were always critical scientists), but not elsewhere.
A quick link. I haven't checkd up on his credentials, but his criticism is fairly standard in the European debate on this.
http://gmosummit.org/former-pro-gmo-scientist/#.UmgKApa6IdY.facebook"Genetic engineering is 40 years old. It is based on the naive understanding of the genome based on the One Gene – one protein hypothesis of 70 years ago, that each gene codes for a single protein. The Human Genome project completed in 2002 showed that this hypothesis is wrong.
The whole paradigm of the genetic engineering technology is based on a misunderstanding. Every scientist now learns that any gene can give more than one protein and that inserting a gene anywhere in a plant eventually creates rogue proteins. Some of these proteins are obviously allergenic or toxic."No matter what ones personal opinion is, this is an issue where there is a scientific debate going on, so being against GMO isn't in itself anti-science.
As a guide to the anti-GMO evidence there is this report "GMO myths and truth".
http://earthopensource.org/gmomythsandtruths/download/
