Debate just boils down to two points of view

Congratulations on this well reasoned story. It seems that the genetically modified food controversy comes down to two points of view:

1. Activists: This could be bad, lets not jump into it.

2. Montsanto: So far, we have no evidence of harm, in fact, quite the opposite, it is much safer for farm workers.

View number one, the anti-GM food activists, is much more prevalent in Europe, and countries such as Costa Rica, that have very active social awareness networks. In the European Union many in the scientific and educational community are opposed to GM foods, although as Monsanto says, “food derived from authorized genetically-modified crops is as safe as conventional (non-GM-derived) food”. It is tempting to surmise the EU attitude is because the population of the United States is so unconcerned regarding the controversy. Recent scientific studies, originating in China have groundbreaking new evidence about the impact of all food to the DNA that concern activists. Another possibility is the distrust of Monsanto, manufacturer of DDT, Agent Orange, and Roundup, among a wide variety of products.

View number two, promoted by the manufacturer, who has a huge investment, apparently is widely accepted in the United States, but conscientiousness is rising. Read “Background: The Controversy in the United States and Abroad”. It seems fair to say the attitude of Monsanto that “There is no need for, or value in testing the safety of GM foods in humans” is cavalier.

A criticism, your characterization of the party, or representation of, Frente Amplio as “left-leaning” is an editorial statement. Does this need to be said? Are your readers smart enough to make up their own minds?

John Connaghan
Playa Potrero

This entry was posted in Reader Opinion. Bookmark the permalink.