: Thus the question for the science advocate is not whether they are safe, but whether the economics and ethics stack up. If farmers in the developing world can grow more food with less water, and if that contributes to a reduction in starvation, or if they can grow rice with vitamins fixed, and that can reduce incidence of blindness in children, why would that be bad? So far the major objection I see is "because Monsanto". That's not a logical argument. 
 :