Anti-GMO Has An Immoral Angle

Aside from the fact there is ZERO legitimate, scientific data - ZERO - supporting (no, the little cute mouse running away from GMO corn as if it knows something we don't is not fucking science) any of the claims made against GMO* (did I mention zero?),

I heard Daniel Chamovitz of Daily Plant earlier today explain on a radio show that anti-GMO is completely irrational. All fruits and vegetables have been altered in some way. The belief that you can eat a fruit in its natural 'position' is rooted in pure scientific ignorance. He used the tomato as an example. If you ate a tomato from the Andes in Peru where it originates, you'd die of poisoning. It was only through man modifying it did we get to be able to eat it.

But extreme environmentalists have invested so much emotion and passion into their causes, the science - the real science - means squat to them.

The dark side of this First World luxury crusade is that it has negative impact on poor countries looking to feed their respective populations.  In the case of GMO, which would do wonders for them, they can't export them because of EU bans.

So, in part, the West is responsible for keeping them starved. Not to mention other irrational regulations we impose on them for environmental reasons.

The way I see it, environment should not come at the expense of human life. It's nice to protect the environment but it should not trump human needs.

To me, once this happens, it becomes a moral issue.

No one has the right to prevent another from eating what they choose.

*I think it's appropriate early in the post to disclose the fact that I am no on Monsanto's pay roll. Or Exxon. Nor am I affiliated with any of the Koch Brothers.

Caliph Crunch wears a deshdasha & turban. The cereal pieces are shaped like severed heads.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Mysterious and anonymous comments as well as those laced with cyanide and ad hominen attacks will be deleted. Thank you for your attention, chumps.