Vote ‘NO!’ to GMO
COMMENT, Melbourne — You may not know this but Melbourne is about to approve genetically modified crops. GMO food. Canola to be precise.
This is based on economic benefits, and the current advice of leading scientists.
I say current advice, as scientists often change positions. Scientists criticized Pasteur’s theories and penicillin. In the 19th century, many surgeons ridiculed the idea that clean environments reduced infection.
And politicians are often wrong too. Many thought World War I would be a short war (forget about foreseeing World War II, or preventing it at Versailles).
Am I willing to place the future of our food supply on a few scientists and politicians current advice. Based on limited tests.
And as far as I can see it is only about money.
I’d rather a safe food supply, and not take unneeded risks.
In business, you learn that unless there is sufficient benefits, you should not take unnecessary risks. Many business leaders, like Warren Buffett, go further.
In short, only proceed with a proposal with upside benefits, if there are no downside risks.
I don’t believe in GMO. Too much research shows that healthy food is better for us. And there seems to be no macro-benefit for society beyond some money.
I don’t mind the occasional bugs in my food; if the alternative is another DDT.
The best advice is sometimes not enough. And this is proof of why decisions should be vetted through committees, and models to assess risk set-up.
If you live in Victoria, write to the Premier John Brumby or your local member, and tell them what a bad idea GMO is.
Do we really want to risk ‘Franken-Crops‘ for a few extra dollars, and a few less bugs?
Take care,
Christopher
Speaker. Author. Editor-In-Chief. Executive Director of Innovation, 2thinknow.
What's your View?
Or Follow us on Twitter or StumbleUpon