Honestly it's a brutal article. I'm pro-GMO overall, but trying to use climategate is complete false comparison. I could just as easily say, "The right insists on letting market forces dictate policy on matters like fossil fuel consumption, so it's hypocritical for them to suggest that market forces are not the best policy in choosing between GMOs, non-GMOs." And that would be a dumb argument for me to make, but it's on par with the OP article. The difference is that on climate change, nobody has ever argued that less information to consumers is actually better for the process; both sides attempt to win the debate with more information, rather than less, and the onus is on the consumer to make good decisions with the information that they're given.
I assume that any food that I buy that's not organic potentially involves GMOs. I've always assumed that those tasteless, mongoloid strawberries are GMO in particular, and I always buy organic for strawberries and rasberries because it's the only way in ensuring I can get ones that actually taste good.
GMOs are honestly not a meaningful solution to world hunger as the article suggests, especially compared with solutions as simple as better crop selection and usage. Stop using huge amounts of cropland in the US on corn crops that are then used for biofuels, for example. I believe we already produce about 1.5 times the food necessary to feed the entire world's population.
I'm particularly in favour of GMOs as a solution to finding drought-resistant crop solutions for agriculturally challenged regions; that's far more significant than GM corn for biofuel, and that's probably the direction that GMOs are going right now. On a global scale, probably Europe and North America become the two parts of the world where GMOs are not accepted.
|