This isn\’t an argument against I\’m afraid

The study concluded that GM crops are needed to prevent a catastrophic food crisis by 2050.

But the report has sparked a backlash from opponents of GM foods who say they present a threat to the livelihood of small farmers.

Quite why small farmers would be damaged by GM crops I\’m not sure. The only reason I can see is that GM will raise yields so substantially that small farms will become uneconomic….for the raised yields will lead to lower food prices.

If that is the thinking then of course the fact that small farmers will go bust as a result is an argument in favour of GM: for it means that we\’re getting more and cheaper food which is really rather the point of it all, isn\’t it?

4 comments on “This isn\’t an argument against I\’m afraid

  1. Let the bloody consumer decide. Post clearly on the package: “this food is genetically modified” or “this food is sterlised through irradiation”.

    When it’s commercially successful; the consumer picking the best-value product as always, then the nay-sayers can go screw themselves.

  2. Addenda: Government fiat deciding what I can and cannot spend my hard-earned (after-tax) on completely defeats the point of the free market.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.