It also serves to remind me of how to respond when people correctly point out that the Green Party's national platform and Stein's own words contain several positions that might be deemed un- or anti-scientific. Namely, the Greens are the only party in this presidential election with a comprehensive plan to transform our energy economy to renewable sources, put millions to work, and forgive college debt nationwide.
I don't know enough about the GMO issue to refute my friend's statements, and what I do know may be wrong. The information available in the Wilds of the Web (as opposed to uninformed political posturing on both sides) contains numerous contradictions. It comes down to whose science one believes, and the refutation doesn't fit into a single tweet.
The organisms themselves may be safe for human consumption, but terminator genes make it possible for farm families who have saved seeds for generations to continue doing so, and forcing farmers to buy Monsanto seed every year will ruin them, allowing Big Ag to take over their land. Suicide among farmers in India is epidemic, partly because of pressure from agribusiness, partly due to climate change. Also, making crops safer for chemical pesticides, fungicides, weed-killers, etc., isn't necessarily a good thing.
Jill Stein is herself a physician who knows a thing or two about nutrition. She eats as organically and plant-based as she can, and she maintains a fairly high level of energy. She keeps up with the studies on how American foodways contribute to elevated levels of chronic illness. She knows that the jury is still out on GMO, that not all GM organisms are alike or have identical effects. She knows that moratorium on GMO production does not mean pulling all the GMO crops out of the ground before they can be harvested, but halting further GMO production until the long-term research is more conclusive.