  urlLink Genetically Modified Food and the Poor This gave me quite the laugh. As you may know, silly foreigners don't like enhanced food. Crops that need fewer pesticides, grow faster, taste better, etc. are undesirable to them. The European Union has banned what pundits call "frankenfood" after the patchwork monster of Dr. Frankenstein.
They have some strange belief that such food is harmful in some nebulous fashion. THis is like saying broccoli is poisonous because it is a hybrid vegetable. I see no reason not to improve on existing plants, and animals for that matter. This is no different than breeding, which we have done since the dawn of time. This raises an issue I would love to hear others talk more about. Namely, engineering our children.
The only arguments against this are all emotional. Not that an emotional argument can't be compelling, but I would like to hear a reasonable, logic reason why I shouldn't be allowed to endow my progeny with the best possible set of characteristics. Why should I allow mutation and chance to dictate their future? Why isn't my planned, methodical choice better than some random one? Back to crops. The truth of why these foreigners don't want our superior produce is simple, and the NYT amazingly says it. "It makes cotton cheaper to grow for highly subsidized American producers, further undercutting the price of cotton and forcing West African producers out of business. " Well, sort of. As usual I can't quote a single sentance of the NYT without correcting something. The thing forcing these losers out of business is that their product is inferior and too expensive.
If it was superior they would find a market, and if it was cheaper the market would find them. Is Japan depriving hard-working Africans of work because they make superior CD players? The fact is that agriculture is best done in huge super-farms. economy of scale finds its perfect application in farming. "African farmers work tiny plots without the benefit of fertilizers, irrigation or pesticides. The risks they face from genetic modification are remote — but unlike Europeans, the average African would benefit hugely from crops engineered to resist bugs or need little water.
" Aw, too bad. Let them pay for the research and development, or even for the licenses! But that of course would be only just. The Left doesn't want justice, but equality. And artificial equality is known as slavery. "(T)he major companies like Monsanto, Dupont and Syngenta have no financial interest in developing them for African crops — and tightly control the technology. " Why develop a product for illiterate peasants? Let them make something of value and suddenly they will no longer need to farm for a living. "Several poor nations are trying to develop improved versions of local crops, but these efforts have been crippled by the biotech companies' control over the technology. " So the crime of not giving away the results of expensive research keeps these poor countries from making better crops? Why am I not concerned? This is like saying the tight control over stealth technology keeps India from developing a stealth fighter like ours. It took much labor and treasure to come up with these technologies, and we are right to protect them.
If we didn't, there would be no reason to push for new innovations. Why bother when some dirt-farmer in the Ivory Coast can lay claim to your labor for free? This bit of class warfare rhetoric sums it up: "The world shouldn't ban genetically modified food. It should develop a cassava root resistant to the mealy bug and drought-proof corn. Antiglobalization activists are right that corporate greed is the problem. But they are wrong that genetically modified crops should be banned. The real crime of genetic modification is not its risks but that it is squandering its promise, widening the gap between rich and poor. " OK, let "the world" do all the research then. That is fine by me. But don't come to us and demand we surrender our wealth. Create your own! 
