By Robert A. Vella

While I personally oppose genetically-modified crops (i.e. GMO’s), I do so for different reasons than many people on the political left.  I don’t like the domination of corporate monoculture which is reducing biodiversity in our food supply.  I don’t like abusive, manipulative businesses (e.g. Monsanto) who monopolize seed production, dictate their exploitative terms to entire nations, and who wipe-out small farmers as a matter of course.  I advocate for the GMO labeling of food because consumers have a right to know what they are eating, and especially when such regulations have little financial impact.

However, I’m not convinced that GMO’s pose any significant health risk, and I’m certainly not opposed to the scientific study of genetic engineering.

The acclaimed astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson has been getting a lot of criticism from lefties lately for expressing similar views, albeit by doing so far more assertively than I just did.

I highly recommend reading the following in-depth article on this brewing controversy, for it is very informative, provocative, and clarifies Mr. Tyson’s position on GMO’s extremely well:

Neil deGrasse Tyson tells GMO haters to chill out–people get angry

3 thoughts on “Lefties aren’t happy about Neil deGrasse Tyson’s views on GMO’s

  1. I respectfully disagree with Mr. Tyson on this issue.

    For one thing, he is disingenuous in comparing generations of breeding plants to bring out certain traits with genetic engineering which sometimes entails injecting toxic substances into lving organisms.

    For millenia, farmers have used the healthiest seeds in a harvest for replanting. This practice, as well as cross-breeding different strands, is a natural, long term process. Genetic engineering is very dfferent. It is much more invasive and often involves manipulation at the cellular level. It is also a shortcut.

    This is typical of modern life in which we are impatient and believe anything scientific is admirable usually without considering moral and safety implications.

    More important is the fact that, when it comes to health, we should be responsible and err on the side of caution.


    Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.