The arrogance of GE technology

6
0

Bcg2VkTIEAAgVIk

The arrogance of GE technology

6 COMMENTS

  1. You know, when the arguments put forward against GE consist of this kind of meaningless, ignorant, religious drivel, it becomes harder for people who aren’t idiots to oppose GE – we wouldn’t want to be tainted by association.

  2. @ Psycho Milt: hard to disagree with you. The comment by Vandana Shiva demonstrates a fundamental ignorance and misunderstanding of the science underlying genetics.

    • @ D’Esterre

      Think it might be you misunderstanding and showing a fundamental ignorance of the concept of pollution.

      Please direct me to a scholarly scientific site that states that scientists know everything about the effects of applying GE technology to our food. Last I read is that it is a very complicated issue and caution needs to be shown in this area of GE.

      It is apparent that companies selling GE food products dislike to put GE labelling on their products because no one wants to buy them because many people are aware that the effects of changing food in this way is not well understood and the only reason it has been allowed to go ahead is that large corporations have bulldozed there way through food safety standards.

      True science takes a cautious approach to stating truths – when big money backs science this necessary caution is thrown to the wind.

  3. Agree with both Psycho Milt and d’Esterre. Unfortunately, there are is an element in the green movement who only want to acknowledge what the science says when it is consistent with their own views (e.g., global climate change; environmental degradation by dairying), and are not interested in what the science says when it is inconsistent with their views (i.e., pseudoscientific views regarding GMOs). The type of view expressed in the above illustration is every bit as pseudoscientific and anti-science as is climate change denial. (And now I’ll wait for the ‘thumbs down’ to roll in!)

    • March Hare, D’Esterre, Milt, you might be surprised to learn that the Greens do not oppose use of GE to produce medicines, in tightly controlled, contained, environments.

      So it’s not quite as black and white as detractors of the anti-GE movement believe.

      By the way, if tobacco, thalidomide, and asbestos are anything to go by, there’s nothing wrong with exercising caution instead of rushing headlong into something we might regret later.

      After all, the ancient Romans thought that keeping wine in lead jars was a really, really good idea…

      What could be wrong with that?

      Of course, we wouldn’t do that now, would we? We know better.

      • Frank – I actually agree with what you say, but I think you might have missed my point. My point is that there are some elements in the anti-GM movement that come out with emotive and extravagant claims that are just not supported by the science. This serves to damage the credibility of the anti-GM movement as a whole, and seriously undermines what it is that the anti-GM movement is trying to achieve. The above illustration serves as such an example. Satisfactory resolution of this issue will only ever evolve from robust debate and discussion that is underpinned by actual science, not by emotive claims that are largely fact-free.

Comments are closed.