>Nobody has more reason to disapprove of the use of legal power to
>silence opponents than I, and Monsanto should be attacked for doing so.
>However, that does not show that the science is bad. The scientific
>journals are all pretty much agreed that there is nothing intrinsically
>more dangerous about GMO food than any other form of cross-pollination.
Yeah, and they also said back in the 1950s that it was ok for shoestores to use x-rays to measure kids' feet, and that nuclear power would make electricity too cheap to meter.
This is one of those issues where I feel alienated from both sides. James has complete faith that allowing Monsanto the fuck with the gene pool is just fine, nothing to worry about. But opponents of genetic engineering want to junk it all. Isn't there a difference between science that's done under principles of profit maximization and science whose aim it is to maximize human happiness? Isn't there anyone around who understands both the science and the politics of the issue? Or is this one of those thing where each side views the other as the enemy of all that's holy?