Letters to the Editor
-
consumers?
A consumer decision doesn't have to be based on verifiable science.
That's absolutely true. A consumer's decision can be based on astrology (and I suspect more consumers make their choices based on astrology than on verifiable science). But this isn't a consumer's decision. This is a decision by a government to ban an entire technology. Consumer's should be able to choose GM-free crops if they want (in the form of organic food). But what about consumers who will want to buy cheaper, GM-food that doesn't have pesticides on it? Or consumers who couldn't give a rolling-O about any of it?
Don't be fooled, this isn't about consumer choice. It's about knee-jerk visceral reactions against an entire technology.
-
Greece as laboratory
Encourage that nothing in that country
or under Grecian aegis is -- At All --
exposed to GM seeds or crops.
Rigourous controls(absent transnational contamination?)
And see what happens.
?
-
The WTO must go
"A consumer decision doesn't have to be based on verifiable science. [...] In a free society, it is hard to see how consumers could be denied the right to make that decision."
Amen! Bravo! Absolutely right. This is why the WTO must go. It has no place in a free world. And shame on us for talking about spreading "freedom and democracy" and then berating the Greeks for freely and democratically making a decision which is in their interest rather than in Monsanto's interest.
-
too mild a warning
The claim of no scientific evidence of harm of GM is false. GM potatoes have killed lab animals. Discovering and publishing a harmful effect of GM food will end your career as a scientist. But lets pretend there is no harm from GM food. Monsanto sues for ownership of any plant they have patented. Your crop cross pollinates with GM, and they claim ownership your crop. The legal behavior alone of biotech companies is a call to arms. But lets pretend it's okay to use any legal means to control vital global resources. Altering the genome of organisms, is for all future generations, and could well effect unknown natural symbiotic relationships. Why is this subject treated as if there are opposing 'sides' who deserve equal treatment. This is not about presenting opposing opinions. It's like arguing what caliber weapon is appropriate for those who want to rob your children.