Originally posted by: glenn1
I think we may be on the same page but just looking down different ends of the telescope. I think we both agree that GM could be a huge benefit in particular to the third world, if the costs can be either brought low enough that the third world can afford them directly, or if they are subsidized to where they can be afforded. I think we both agree that the Ag companies will need to and deserve to make a profit to develop said crops, which enables the distribution question above to even be entertained.
What I don't get, however, is your underlying opinion on whether you on balance support or oppose a greater rollout of GM products. You kinda touched on technological advances being a net benefit to humankind even if not all can afford them, so it seems you're in favor of GM, but are simply trying to find a way to disseminate their benefits to the greatest number of people regardless of the economics of it.
My concern is in this whole exchange you are hung up entirely on profit and the food, and have ignored the very real threats that were brought up
"One possibility is that transgenic crops would spread from fields into forests or other wild lands and there become environmental nuisances, or worse."
" A further risk is that transgenic plants might cross-pollinate with neighboring wild plants, producing "superweeds" or other invasive or destructive varieties in the wild"
In that entire article, that is pretty much the limit of the writers concerns, and I expect that is more that many who would promote this.
The call is for regulation, but by whom? People who believe that the obligation of a business is to it's shareholders?
Bush has demonstrated that he can't be trusted with his stacking of scientific panels to get a desired answer, and I don't know if Kerry is better.
This is entirely driven by profit. Which fox gets to guard the hen house?
I have been a consultant for companies in bio tech fields. I have seen how profit drives science. Often it's good, but sometimes it's really really ugly. Oh the lab safeguards are in place, but it is the culture of profit to make money. IMO when profit and the public safety are in conflict, profit needs to lose. It has great potential, but that is all for nothing if a gene gets inserted into a plant it it goes like hell into something we can't control.
With GM plants, INDEPENDENT WELL FUNDED STUDIES BY INDEPENDENT SCIENTISTS NEED TO BE DONE.
It is THEY, not you or me or Bush or Monsanto who needs do the studies, and make the recommendations, and they need to be taken and not subverted.
The more I see this reduced to food and dollars, the less I like it, not because of GM but because of the recklessness of the promoters of these foods.
Will that happen? Who knows? I don't. You don't. The writer of the article doesn't. The government doesn't and neither does Monsanto. Many are for ramping up production. Maybe Pandora's box is empty before it's opened, but maybe it's not.
Caveat Emptor