I think my main objection to GMO right now is that it's as much or more about control as it is about either increased production or safety. Private companies are patenting existing living things with minor modifications. They are actively preventing seeding plants from being able to reproduce. Call me skeptical, but I doubt that having the food supply under private control is going to solve the world's hunger problems.<p>I'm also entirely unconvinced by the argument that cross-breeding and genetic engineering are the same and thus pose the same level of safety risk. If that were true, we wouldn't need genetic engineering, we could stick to grafting.
<i>"As a society, we struggle to satisfy the global demand for food."</i><p>My vegan friends claim that this is only true because we waste so much food/water to feed livestock for meat.<p>Even if thats not true, humans waste a lot of food. Hell, my local supermarket throws out enough food each day to feed me for a month. (Ok ok not really true because it wouldn't last a month, but quantity-wise...)
The article does make a few good points, but I also think it uses a couple of unforgivable rhetorical devices. Most obvious are the out-of-context mentions of various "huge numbers", e.g. as follows:<p>"By reducing the need to till farmland, GR soy and corn have prevented 41 billion pounds of carbon dioxide from being released in the atmosphere between 1996 and 2013."<p>This amount of CO2 savings sounds great without comparison, but it amounts to about 0.003% of the total GHG emissions in the same period. (Assuming emissions of ~40 Gt CO2e/year 1993-2013 [1].)<p>[1] <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/figure-spm-1.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/figure-s...</a><p>Edit: typo
Alan Watts: Prickles and Goo. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXi_ldNRNtM" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXi_ldNRNtM</a><p>It's true that the "Prickles" have caused problems. However, a tremendous amount of good has come of science and technology. Skepticism is necessary to counteract humanity's collective hubris. Morality and philosophy have their uses for this as well. However, it's high time that we asked for some epistemic rigor from the "Gooey" side. Otherwise, our society is going to drown in unarguable nonsense.
Many people simply don’t believe the use of GMOs is <i>morally</i> acceptable - whether or not they they are safe to grow or ingest is besides the point.