It's called domestication.

I saw this difference in attitude between Asians and the west repeated with technology after technology. Nuclear power, for one, was accepted as routine in Hiroshima, but not in its country of origin.

Economies fluctuate everywhere, but the net result of this attitudinal difference over the years has been Asian prosperity and western stagnation. I look to Asia to lead the world out of the current morass with technological breakthroughs we never anticipated. It may be mining the moon or it may be a computer interface with the human brain. And when it happens, you can bet that the Hollywood stars who set our science policy will be carping about how dangerous it all is.

The Chinese people are more concerned with getting food on the table, and the Chinese government is not exactly concerned with the welfare of the people. Maybe in 20 years things will change, but this is how it is at present.

I guess we're just more willing to accept risks, and assume that fundamentally, products are always going to be somewhat harmful and businesses greedy enough to take plenty of risks. It takes events of some awful magnitude, like the melamine milk thing, to make us pause a little, but only for a while.

Another thing that Asians seem to see in a completely different light is privacy and civil rights. As a Malaysian, I already have one of those identity cards that so many Americans and Europeans decry as state tyranny. It has a chip containing my fingerprints, digital photo, race, date of birth and address on it, and matches up with a big online database. All of us have been fingerprinted since 12, and younger kids are now fingerprinted even earlier. And they're already talking about adding DNA signatures to our records.

Well, it bears mentioning that the european 'concerns' about transgenic crops are primarily concerned with AMERICAN transgenic crops. Many European objections are protectionism in sheeps' clothing-- once European companies have caught up (they're working on it but are a step or two behind) you should expect many if not all of these restrictions to disappear. The profound lack of scientific basis behind the transgenic boogeyman is disturbing to say the least.

The topic of transgenic crops has been dominated by corporate interests, supported by the FDA's amusing absence of actual accountability.

Finally, it has been demonstrated that the theory behind the entire debacle, the 1976 DNA assumption that one gene would trigger one protein, is false. It is now known, and replicated, that myriad influences (including environmental ones) influence how any gene expresses.

To continue to believe transgenic crops will save mankind from starvation is to continue to believe in the Easter Bunny. It has been equally demonstrated that the benefits from organic farming include the ability to feed us all.

Additionally, moving as rapidly as possible toward local food farming/manufacture reduces petroleum dependence, ensures better food security, enhances biodiversity which strengthens crops, enhances nutritional content, and the very soil management of organic practices creates huge carbon sinks.

The downside? Far fewer profits for Monsanto and Syngenta, not to mention Cargill, et al. Small price to pay for the above mentioned benefits. (see i-sis.org for one excellent source of data supporting the above)

It is now known, and replicated, that myriad influences (including environmental ones) influence how any gene expresses.

So what? This would not make the technique useless.

To continue to believe transgenic crops will save mankind from starvation is to continue to believe in the Easter Bunny.

There are many valuable techniques that will not save man from starvation. We use them anyway.

Additionally, moving as rapidly as possible toward local food farming/manufacture reduces .. creates huge carbon sinks.

These things are not Monsanto's goal, but the basic technique that produce transgenic crops can be used in many ways.

The downside? Far fewer profits for Monsanto and Syngenta, not to mention Cargill, et al. Small price to pay for the above mentioned benefits...

The downside? Loss of a valuable technique that can be used properly.

Attempting to prohibit a potentially useful technique, one that will be used in any case, rather that urge its proper use and regulation, is counterproductive.

Dear Mr. Leonard,

The link for "things can go wrong" is broken.

Does this sound a little racist to generalize about a whole group of people? Yes, it does.

We'll have to strip China of its revolutionary cred. Workers of the world unite, to condemn the dastardly Chinese and their caving in to The Man!!!!!!

Quick someone firebomb a Starbucks, throw a brick, something !!!!!!

Sirius1, you sum it up well, thank you. FYI my sig links to The Center for Food Safety in DC that organizes directly around this and related issues and players.

My grandfather was a farmer and gardener his entire life, and he regretted buying into all the chemical pesticides, herbicides, etc. over the years that he believed caused his fatal cancer.

Given known toxicities and harm of chemical companies and their products, and contamination and errors in and from China, the U.S. and elsewhere, why on Earth (pun intended) would you let any any of them or their ilk mess with or control your food supply?

We really, truly are what we eat. I like my food tasty and nutritious, and my genes unmodified and intact. Bon appetit!

In China, "getting food on the table" IS concern for the health of people -- China was somewhat ashamed of it so didn't ask for help or broadcast it too well, but in 1975 during "The Great Leap Forward" (when asshole bureaucrats in Beijing decided the birds were eating too much of the grain in the fields, never having gone out there to realize what the birds were eating was insects -- so they killed the birds and the insects had a field day -- literally -- also killed off the dogs and cats "competing for food" so the rats didn't have as hard a time sacking the granaries) during that time when Disco and Bee-Gee's and platform shoes were the dominant factors in our American culture -- during those few years 25 MILLION PEOPLE STARVED TO DEATH IN CHINA -- that's NINETEEN SEVENTIES

Seems to me that "putting food on the table" has a lot to do with a person's health when the alternative is no food at all.

(That was the situation when the NAZI's laid siege to St Petersburg aka Stalingrad at the time -- no food, people boiled shoes for whatever nourishment might be in the leather... they talked about that to emphasize the hardship they'd been through -- very very of them have ever been willing to talk about the widespread cannibalism.

The first order of business for any biological creature is feeding.