Tuesday, May 29, 2012

GMO Opponents Vs. GMO Backers

The BBC program Newsnight hosted a live debate on May 17 between opponents and backers of GM technology. The issue: wheat that was genetically engineered to repel aphids needed a trial in an open field and opponents threatened to destroy the crops if the trial went ahead.

It's unfortunate there was so much crosstalk. It made the activists look frenetic and the backers look smug.

Biotech is a business, or group of businesses. They exist first and foremost to make money. That's all well and good, except with their particular product, the public has no choice to opt out, at least in the US. It's difficult to not consume a product that has inundated a market, a product that, being a food, people need.

I can't see an easy resolution to this. Maybe a cheap and desirable competitor?
Thanks, Shaun!


Ben P. DaSalt said...

I really did appreciate this posted video. I just don’t have time to adequately weigh in to my satisfaction. There’s just so much to comment on. But thanks Bix, more data to add into my head regarding GMO, as I’m still sorting things out.

One quick comment, I tend to feel that anti-GMO advocates come across as less rational and well-reasoned and at times hysterical, and this video reinforced this.

I find myself leaning more and more toward team GMO, at least in principal, maybe not so much in ultimately in how it’s been implemented thus far.

Bix said...

Yep, GMO activists' hystrionics are not helping them.

I like science. I would find biotech an exciting field to work in. But the lack of transparency is offputting. There seems to come a time in the cycle of a business where greed and getting ahead trump health and ethics.

Bix said...

Anyway, a label would be nice. That skull and crossbones is terrible. Just an asterisk next to genetically engineered ingredients.

Tell me my water is fluoridated, my spices irradiated, my salt iodized, and my corn genetically modified.