My Way of Thinking: People should die to save the environment
Over the years, as biotech crops have been developed, an argument has been made that the crop improvements are simply ways for farmers to more easily grow crops and for the multinational crop protection companies to earn big profits.
Many of the activists in the earlier years of genetically modified organism research contended that biotech crops didn’t have a connection to improving people’s health and nutrition. Today, there are biotech crops being grown with improved nutrition and “pharming” has become a biotech practice for inserting genes into plants so that they produce pharmaceuticals. Yet, the activists continue to find fault with all biotech crop production.
Sacrificing lives to maintain the environment, as they perceive it must have been 300 years ago, is no reason to drop their opposition to biotech food and farming pharmaceuticals.
In other words, it is their contention that it is better to let people die from starvation and disease than to possibly impact the environment—even if that impact is seen as positive by the vast majority of the most educated and practical scientists and ecologists of the world.
The activists won’t go away until they, or someone dear to them, dies. Until then, they’ll ignore the starving and sick.
- Texas fall armyworms out early due to unseasonable rains
- Scout for western bean cutworm, western corn rootworm in Ohio
- AgSense releases iPad version of its WagNet Mobile app
- Ag markets posted divergent moves again Thursday
- Ag markets remained mixed at midsession Thursday
- Be wary of wheat quality after wet weather
- Don’t link bird decline and use of neonicotinoids
- Commentary: Setting the record straight on 'Waters of the U.S.'
- Look at fertilizer pricing 2013 vs. 2014
- Solar energy jobs increase, wind power decrease
- Setting the record straight on 'Waters of the U.S.'
- Comments end for Enlist Duo but not the fight