Is it really so bad to offer poor countries genetically modified seeds, that are resistant to plague and pestilence and what not? Sounds sensible and it is often the basis for the pro GMO lobby's arguement. I agree. I know i am not supposed to, that a good lefty is supposed to be against the evil changing of the genetic basis of our foods with an almost fundamentalist fever but then again I have never been very good at toeing the party line. Of course this does not mean there are not dangers; I for one would choose to eat only organic stuff, and I don't want any GMO'ed veggies to get up in there.
Further, the idea of companies being able to patent these seeds and in essence own the basis of sustenance goes beyond creepy into the downright wrong.
What am i trying to say? Well Patrick Moore, who helped found greenpeace and has since then become a sort of right-wing environmentalist sums it up in this article. Yea yea I know, it is in the weekly standard, but none-the-less it is worth reading.
The point that most interests me is why so many people are inherently and vehemently against the ideas of GMO's. If we can use science to help keep people healthy and well fed who would otherwise die isn't it our moral duty to do so? It seems like those that are most against the idea are those whom have the privilege to not need the life-saving help that these new crops could offer.
This does not take away the (limited) dangers that do exist, and they need to be taken into consideration, but shouldn't GMO crops be at least a tool in the fight against world hungerPosted by thickeye at February 19, 2004 03:11 PM | TrackBack