Wayne Stollings wrote:
I found the quote, but there were some points missed.http://www.davidsuzuki.org/blogs/scienc ... ood-crops/
By David Suzuki with Faisal Moola
Because we aren't certain about the effects of GMOs, we must consider one of the guiding principles in science, the precautionary principle. Under this principle, if a policy or action could harm human health or the environment, we must not proceed until we know for sure what the impact will be. And it is up to those proposing the action or policy to prove that it is not harmful.
That's not to say that research into altering the genes in plants that we use for food should be banned or that GM foods might not someday be part of the solution to our food needs. We live in an age when our technologies allow us to "bypass" the many steps taken by nature over millennia to create food crops to now produce "super crops" that are meant to keep up with an ever-changing human-centred environment.
A rapidly growing human population and deteriorating health of our planet because of climate change and a rising number of natural catastrophes, among other threats, are driving the way we target our efforts and funding in plant, agricultural, and food sciences, often resulting in new GM foods.
But we need more thorough scientific study on the impacts of such crops on our environment and our health, through proper peer-reviewing and unbiased processes. We must also demand that our governments become more transparent when it comes to monitoring new GM crops that will eventually find their ways in our bellies through the food chain.
Ohhhh Wayne. I don't know whether to love you or hate you, but the fact is I both love and hate you.
I will not touch that line .....
Okay, look, ..... I am quite sure that Monsanto has convinced many that they are actually creating solutions to the problem of world hunger. And they really have come up with some neat technology. But this neat technology is creating more problems than it is solving.
Waht problems have been created? Not the assumption of possible later problems, but what problems have been created now?
They cannot possibly solve the problem of world hunger because they, as a corporation, do not reallly care about world hunger.
Why not? The scientists who developed radar were not interested in cutting down cooking time, yet they did when they gave us the microwave.
While it is there motto of sorts, and is there selling point .... they do not actually give a shit about it! They are a business and are concerned about making a profit and giving some profit back to their share-holders, which is the mandate of most corporations. One cannot even fault them for this as it is a model that we have all agreed to on some level, both consciously and unconsciously
So profit prevents a company from solving problems? One cannot solve problems profitably?
There can be many levels of greed for profit, but it seems this means more than anyone anticipated.
And while we are all responsible .... can we not also see the short-comings?
Not when the short-comings are not clear, such as those you have assumed in this case.
There are definitely food shortages around the world .... from Africa to India. But there are many reasons for these food shortages and instead of addressing the root causes , we rely on the likes of Monsanto to sweep over them? Unless we address the core issues ....
Psst ... the core issues require a lot of humans to die off and soon if there is no way to increase production since food reserves have been falling every year of late.
While we need solutions, Monsanto is't it. They are nothing but a business opportunity.
See through them.
Give some viable alternatives and we can see. If there are workable other solutions let us hear them.