People often wonder why bother discussing GMOs. Unless you’re being paid by Monsanto (which I’m not), then why try to defend biotechnology? Who really cares?
Because it is personal. And, quite frankly, it is unethical for someone not to support GMOs.
Biotechnology gives us hope for a future where we can produce enough food for the entire world, we can make our food more nutritious, and we can use that food to fight things like cancer. Biotechnology is hope. Instead, we have a bunch of anti-scientists types who oppose it. Why? For absolutely no reason. There is not one scintilla of evidence to suggest GMOs are dangerous. Not even a tiny bit. Yet so many people have been duped into thinking there is something seriously wrong with them.
These people are opposing hope for the future, especially in parts of the world where there is little hope. Parents don’t have to watch their children starve, suffer, or die from diseases we can cure. When someone opposes biotechnology, that’s exactly what they’re advocating for — and that is unethical.
I’m glad I’m not alone in these feelings. Harry Cline over at Western Farm Press, a great advocate for GMOs, also expressed these feelings recently:
“I admit to taking a junkyard dog approach to those I call whackos. I also acknowledge that there are intelligent, educated scientists who have raised issues about GMO technology. However, most of the controversy in the media has been generated by radicals who simply do not want to accept sound science. They are self-serving socialists more interested in halting technology than even considering its benefits. Sadly, they have had far too much influence on the general public and that may be the most troubling element of the controversy. I am shocked when people spout some of the garbage they read in newspapers.”
Finish reading here.