There may be no evidence that genetically modified (GM) food is bad for consumers, and there may be evidence (according to this article) but we have definite proof that non-GM food is actually good for consumers: non-GM food has nourished the earth’s population for millennia, and I think the only problem is in getting the food to the people who are hungry. Why, then, do our corporations have to change all our food? Wouldn’t their efforts be better spent in distributing the food we have?
Also, since there is “accumulating evidence that GM crops . . . may be detrimental to ecosystems,” doesn’t that make one think that we should proceed with more caution? It certainly does that for me.
So, farmers have found a loophole that allows them to legally grow GM corn in England? Aren’t you supposed to know there is something wrong when the subjects of “legal loopholes” and “patents” come up in a discussion of farmers planting a crop of corn? It used to not be this way. A farmer used to be able to buy some seed, plant his crop, maybe save some seeds until next year, and not have to worry about sneaking around or being taken to court. This, however, it seems to me, is where genetic engineering has brought us. And I don’t think biotechnology is a better way. If it was, these issues would not exist.
Austria, which along with Switzerland and Italy oppose planting GM crops, will hold a conference next year on genetically modified food.
Technorati tags: biotechnology, gmo, genetic engineering