Food for thought

A strong attack on the weakness of the case for "organic" foods and an equally robust defence of transgenic foods (or "Frankenstein" food as the ludicrous Daily Mail puts it). The case is well made. I have always been "agnostic" on the question of genetically modified foodstuffs, but always suspecting that the organic lobby was guilty of ignorant anti-scientific thinking. If modification means that, for example, more rice can been produced with fewer pesticides and modififed to include vaccines, etc, then that is of immeasurable benefit in poor parts of the world. The argument that the Organic Lifestyle is a luxury for rich westerners with romantic hankerings for a simpler life has much weight - making them appear to like Marie Antoinette playing at being a shepherdess.

For me, the main objection to GM foods has always been a political one. The fact that control of GM foods was in the hands of a very small number of companies - potentially a cartel - is quite clearly a bad thing, whatever the benefits of the transgenic foods may be. If the claims for modification are justified, then the processes involved are a public good and should therefore be owned by the public. But these days the idea of public ownership seems more antiquated than traditional, organic farming methods.



Butterflies and Wheels Article
- posted by Paul Davies @ Tuesday, October 28, 2003