Here is a solid criticism of a story going around that a study linked genetically modified corn to tumors in rats. It reminds me of how we are only willing to dig beneath the top layer of stories we don’t want to accept, and accept stories at face value if we like them.
The only part I have to quarrel with is the vague economics at the end,
“On the other hand, GM technology can be used, as Monsanto has done, simply to allow farmers to use more pesticides, which doesn’t seem to benefit anyone other than the pesticide producers.”
Why would Monsanto use more pesticides that they have to pay pesticide producers for if it doesn’t increase demand for their product? It is one thing to say that some big companies do bad things for profit, it is another to say that big companies just like poisoning people for no reason (and are even willing to pay to do so).
If Monsanto doesn’t pay for the pesticides, then the pesticide producers are. Why is it profitable to have Monsanto use your product for free?
No matter how you slice it, adding more to your product (like pesticides to crops) has to increase demand to be profitable. If it increases demand, might there be a reason why? Perhaps it has something to do with bugs which are filled with natural toxins eating crops, reducing supply, and making food more expensive.
But these people… you just attach Monsanto to some good/evil story and they’ll eat it up every time.
