Mr. Hoover's claim that GMO technology is "benign and beneficial" is a stupendously unpopular opinion. Unfortunately he supports it with some outright falsehoods.
GMOs do not (at least at this point) increase food nutrition. As far as I know, the only plan for that is the so-called "golden rice" that has not actually gone into production. He then claims that this technology that is primarily used to allow crops to survive higher doses of toxic pesticides "reduce agricultural impacts on the environment." He also claims that GMOs lower food cost, but I think he may be mistaking the technology for government subsidies. Opinions are ours to make up as we go, but facts are facts. GMO technology has so far delivered nothing but economic hardship for farmers and increased pesticide presence in our environment. Not to mention unknowable health and ecological risks.
Maybe someday a benign or beneficial use for the technology will emerge, but until then we can all enjoy the unique opportunity to live in the midst of the largest scientific experiment in human history as unpaid subjects. Thankfully his opinion is in the minority around here, and I would suggest that Mr. Hoover visit the corn and soy deserts of the Midwest to see this benign tech at work.
Steve Lowe, Arcata