Thursday, August 21, 2003

Norman C. Ellstrand considers the limitations of APHIS's current biopharming rules in Plant Physiology 132, August 2003, pp. 1770-74.

Meanwhile, Indra K. Vasil writes

By crying wolf much too often, the opponents of transgenic crops have not only lost their credibility, but also the right to be taken seriously. This indictment of the anti-biotechnology lobby may seem harsh, but it is entirely deserved. Time has come to gradually relax and eventually suspend the regulation of transgenic crops.
Nature Biotechnology 21, August 2003, pp�849-51

Before his little sermon to the choir he should have read Michael R. Taylor in the same issue:

It's fine to support and promote agricultural biotechnology on its scientific merits, but the public reaction to biotechnology�in America, Europe, and Africa�has only a little to do with science. Good science makes biotechnology possible and contributes to answering some of the questions people have, but no amount of science or science education will suffice to achieve public acceptance....

if biotechnology is to achieve its full potential in the world, the United States needs to step back from its aggressive advocacy stance and develop a food biotechnology agenda that recognizes that people won't accept food biotechnology under pressure.

Smartest commentary I've ever seen in Nature Biotechnology. How sad that something so obvious has come to sound so revelatory.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

©2002-2005 by the author