GMOS
When I am supposed to be writing essays, I tend to procrastinate by catching up on the news. I usually start with CBC, and then depending on the topics let my searching flow. While I won't go into whether or not I feel I could enter into the journalist world, the lives of journalists fascinate me. As do the stories and how the stories are reported. Anyway, that was an aside. What I wanted to post was this: http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2006/11/24/genetic-wto.html ....As some of my classes have been talking about GMOS and trade, I thought it was particularly fitting to think about. When I think, I think in themes and I, being a mad post-modernist, often find lucid interconnections rampant throughout everything. Anyway, this article is about the the WTO ruling that the EU was breaking trade laws when it refused to import GMOS, and now the market for them in the EU is openning up again.
It mentions that there were fears in the EU that GMOs could have detrimental effects on people and the environment. While it is not scientifically proven that they do, it is also not scientifically proven that they do not.
Personally, I don't think that that is grounds to lift the ban. The US, Canada and Argentina all lost potential profits in the EU when the ycould no logner export certain GMO products into the EU (the article states canada fell from 425 mill. dollars to 1.5). Now the demand for these, specifically oilseeds used in making biodeisel is growing and so it makes sense to allow the imports again. After all, a cleaner burning fuel is much better for the environment.
However, rather than accepting GMOS back in, why couldn't Canada and the US and argentina stop making GMOs and export known envirnomentally friendly grown oilseeds? if the effects of GMOs are not known (although increasing knowledge is pointing towards them having a negative effect), then the means to make a cleaner feul is not making anything cleaner. You cannot fix the harm of one thing by making something else harmful! Biodeisel is a newer substitute to petrolium; it's uses are just being exploited. We should not start off something good on the wrong foot by using something we know little about to make it. Even though the initial effects of GMOs may be better than burning fossil fuels, no one knows the long term effects. therefore, it is much better to change NOW to export non-GMOs, rather than knowing it is a problem later down the line and having to fixit then. Rather than lifting the ban, more pressure should have been place to stop the use of GMOs. I am not saying to stop researching and looking at the potential ways GMOs could be used to say make a cleaner burnign crop, but don't automatically use GMOs when there is so much debate surrounding whether or not they are harmful or not.
ah. I feel re-motivated. Excellent. Perhaps it is bad of me to fill some kind of self-fulfilling prophecy by discussing amongst myself and otehrs who stumble to this page because I want to discuss things, but if something needs discussing I don't see why it is wrong of me to discuss.
It mentions that there were fears in the EU that GMOs could have detrimental effects on people and the environment. While it is not scientifically proven that they do, it is also not scientifically proven that they do not.
Personally, I don't think that that is grounds to lift the ban. The US, Canada and Argentina all lost potential profits in the EU when the ycould no logner export certain GMO products into the EU (the article states canada fell from 425 mill. dollars to 1.5). Now the demand for these, specifically oilseeds used in making biodeisel is growing and so it makes sense to allow the imports again. After all, a cleaner burning fuel is much better for the environment.
However, rather than accepting GMOS back in, why couldn't Canada and the US and argentina stop making GMOs and export known envirnomentally friendly grown oilseeds? if the effects of GMOs are not known (although increasing knowledge is pointing towards them having a negative effect), then the means to make a cleaner feul is not making anything cleaner. You cannot fix the harm of one thing by making something else harmful! Biodeisel is a newer substitute to petrolium; it's uses are just being exploited. We should not start off something good on the wrong foot by using something we know little about to make it. Even though the initial effects of GMOs may be better than burning fossil fuels, no one knows the long term effects. therefore, it is much better to change NOW to export non-GMOs, rather than knowing it is a problem later down the line and having to fixit then. Rather than lifting the ban, more pressure should have been place to stop the use of GMOs. I am not saying to stop researching and looking at the potential ways GMOs could be used to say make a cleaner burnign crop, but don't automatically use GMOs when there is so much debate surrounding whether or not they are harmful or not.
ah. I feel re-motivated. Excellent. Perhaps it is bad of me to fill some kind of self-fulfilling prophecy by discussing amongst myself and otehrs who stumble to this page because I want to discuss things, but if something needs discussing I don't see why it is wrong of me to discuss.