I totally agree, science shouldn't take the blame for corporate irresponsibility and there are anti-GMO activists focused on these two distinct objectives. That's why it is not very productive either to label activists "anti-science" as it has been flying around lately. Many are pro-science and anti-corporate tactics but in the crowd of protest it's harder to hear the distinction. So both sides of the GMO debate are guilty of mixing up science and corporate issues. I've apologised for coming on too strongly in my reply to flagamuffin. I felt insulted when he called the protest an "Idiocracy" and the tone of my comment came out wrong. I hope we can get past this and focus on discussing specific GMO issues.People need to be able to separate the science from the business practices.
If Monsanto were using toothpaste as a way to corner markets and do really evil stuff you wouldn't be anti-toothpaste protestors, you'd be anti-Monsanto protesters. -Maybe not the best analogy, but point is modifying organisms genetically isn't good or bad, it's indifferent but the companies employing this ability can be good or bad.I totally agree, science shouldn't take the blame for corporate irresponsibility and there are anti-GMO activists focused on these two distinct objectives.
Then they shouldn't be labeled anti GMO activists, they should be labeled anti-Monsanto (etc) activists.
Please see one of my previous comments, which explains why some people object the process of genetic engineering as a whole.Then they shouldn't be labeled anti GMO activists, they should be labeled anti-Monsanto (etc) activists.