Disclaimer: I am an old fart. I do not
claim to be an expert in the field of genetically altered organisms
and neither are 99% of the people that read this blog. I have however
been around the block a time or two and have noticed some things
while attempting an intelligent discourse on numerous topics.
I refuse to jump on the anti-Monsanto
bandwagon. I see many flaws in the arguments against genetically
modified agriculture. The first is that we have been randomly
altering both crops and animals since we domesticated them. Even
today they are being modified in ways that we do not know by nature.
We do not know whether the results are harmful or not because we do
not test naturally modified organisms before consuming them.
The anti-Monsanto movement seems to be
motivated by gut feelings and prejudice rather than science. We live
in a changing world that continues to grow in population every year.
People are starving. Regardless of your opinion on population
growth, it is inhumane to allow people to starve at the level that
they are today.
Monsanto may be seeking a profit and
may use unethical methods in doing so, but their research in the
field of genetically altering produce is what mankind needs. If small
alterations which can be duplicated and researched helps mankind, it
is a plus.
Farmers have been genetically modifying
their crops and animals since they started farming and domesticating
animals. Nature does the same. No testing was done to ensure that
their methods were safe. This is ongoing and continues even today.
Which is best? Random mutations that
are not scientifically controlled and not tested or scientifically
controlled mutations that can be duplicated and tested?
