I'm thinking that Neil deGrasse Tyson, an astrophysicist, making broad claims about genomics, soil science, agronomics, etc., with obvious political outcomes, is sufficiently similar to William Shockley, a physicist who invented the transistor, making broad claims about population genetics, with obvious political outcomes. Both represent failures for science.
The notion that an observation over "tens of thousands of years" is scientifically valid for sweeping pronouncements about complex biological processes (e.g., our digestive tracts, topsoil ecosystems, beehive population dynamics, etc.) that have evolved over many millions of years -- that represents pseudoscience on the part of NdGT. Leading agronomists (who are not employed by Monsanto) such as at The Land Institute present vastly different opinions on the subject.
Moreover, many of the arguments against GMOs are based on the political process and business outcomes, not the science per se. For example, why should a transnational corporation spend many millions of dollars to prevent a state government from enacting reasonable laws -- or from even allowing voters to voice opinion? That's just over the labeling... Clearly, the GMO issues *aren't* so much about the scientific aspects as they are about the commercial aspects.
Last time that I checked, NdGT was not qualified to act as an attorney. Nor should he be giving legal advice to voters. Which is what the subtext indicates.
Huge points off for NdGT in my book. Meanwhile, that guy gets funded by somebody. What are the political linkages and business agendas for his funders?