Comment: He's as unfair to the opposition

in his new position, as he admits being to the opposition of his old position. He's not offering science to support his change of positions, but blanket pronouncements of the industry, which, after reading much analysis, is supported by manipulated science: to the degree that Russia is proposing science on GMO done in public (via video stream). He uses straw men, equating opposition to GM with Greenpeace (that's where he gives a bit of science, giving the impression that the rest of his thinking is based on science). His only metric for success is yield. He does say reduction of pesticide use is a good, but glyphosate use has way increased on round-up ready crops, hasn't it? His blanket statement GM decreases pesticide is contrary to my information.

He casts organic as obstructive, which is very aggressive, much in the character of the biotech companies. Organic is still a tiny percentage of the market, though growing steadily. That rings of a preemptive strike.

He claims GM can feed the world's growing population, a dubious claim. The current problem with feeding the world is not production, but distribution. I've seen the Ted talk of Hans Robling who predicts population will level off at 10 billion. He's kind of spreading alarm to support his new claims.

He completely ignores the legal framework of ownership of life.