I agree that GMOs should without doubt be labeled as such for the consumer to recognize such products and to be able to make an informed decision. I also agree that GMOs should be vigorously tested for safety and the aggressive market dominance by Monsanto is seriously harming traditional agriculture
However, demonizing genetic engineering of crop plants as a whole without providing any credible sources is undifferentiated scaremongering.
Whereas Japan has a more restrictive approach to GMOs than the U.S., it has certainly not banned them from consumption and planting entirely.
http://www.foodsafetymagazine.com/magazine-archive1/junejuly2016/international-regulations-on-genetically-modified-organisms-us-europe-china-and-japan/
https://www.loc.gov/law/help/restrictions-on-gmos/japan.php
What most people do not seem to understand about genetic engineering is that humans have done it since millenia. Breeding of plants to obtain the desired qualities
(resistance to drought, larger fruits, tolerance of suboptimal soil composition) has until recently been a random and tedious process (just like it's random with a 50% chance of parents having a boy or girl). Genetic engineering renders this process precise and directed, speeding up the rather slow evolutional process used by traditional breeding techniques. Of course, the tools to manipulate the genome of organisms are so powerful that any new GMO product should carefully be considered and tested in closed and isolated systems to recognize any undesired side effect on the environemnt, other plants and animals/humans.
This is a social media website and not a scientific journal. Here is a veteran of long term study of biological threats against humanity, maybe he can convince you. The entire internet is at your disposal, prove it to yourself. No one bears responsibility for convincing anyone else.
https://blog.bulletproof.com/don-huber-318/
This is true. To publish your often poorly compensated and year-long, painstaking research in a scientific journal of any decent reputation you need to pay money and pass the scrutiny of 2-4 peer reviewers.
It doesn't cost you anything to publish an article on this social media website except for the time you spent on writing and researching it, but you can potentially earn (lots of) money! This why it is especially important that these articles are carefully curated by the community. If the content appears to have little credibility, then it is the duty of the community to address this. Misinformation on social media is as bad as is censorship, in my opinion. I'd prefer to not have either of them.
Your answer is generic, since nowadays you can just give "the internet" as a source for everything, even for almost any hogwash you can come up with because most certainly someone expressed his or her thoughts just because they can on the internet.
Thanks you for the link though, I will read into it.