I'm interrupting the series on Outer Space in reaction to a drama in the UK.
Protestors are threatening to "decontaminate," i.e. destroy, an experimental wheat field containing genetically modified crops. The researchers have asked the protest organizations to come in for a dialogue before taking destructive actions.
Whether you are in favor of or opposed to GM crops, there are moral questions to be addressed:
- PRO: how certain are we, and how certain must we be, that GM crops will not affect human health nor surrounding ecosystems?
- CON: in the Century of Scarcity, is your opposition to GM crops justifiable should they offer the possibility of reducing the misery of hunger and starvation?
There is not enough scientific understanding to answer either of these questions. Increased yields and decreased need for pesticides are hypothetical at this point--as are notions of how GM crops might contaminate surrounding genomes.
GM crops are one of many potential approaches for reducing the threat of starvation. We will follow the science.
I am against GM crops only because there are so very many crops that aren't "mainstream" which can thrive in places those GM plants are "necessary" (sorry for the proliferation of quotes). I don't think enough is being done to diversify and explore our plant options. The world really honestly does not all need to subsist on corn and soybeans; there are plenty of other options. I enthusiastically support better storage solutions and better science.
ReplyDeleteby better science I mean science that isn't paid for by Monsato to push their products.
DeleteAgreed, and also there really don't seem to be any GM crops that are proven to increase yields by enough to make a difference! It's one of those subjects on which there seems to be "more heat than light."
Delete