- The Global Food Security Act of 2009, S.384 has a few clauses that have anti-biotech activists all worked up.
- One of the biggest arguments against improved seed, whether biotech or simply hybrid, is that it is developed by corporations. To be fair, this is often true in the United States. The US government decided decades ago to leave crop improvement to corporations. The USDA still does a little work in crop improvement, but this work doesn’t result in many released varieties.
- Titles I and III don’t mention biotechnology or any other specific farming or research methods, so they haven’t raised any controversy to my knowledge. Title II lists quite a few changes that most would argue are favorable for agriculture in developing nations.
- The Act does not say “include genetic engineering to the exclusion of anything else”. It doesn’t even say “include biotechnology to the exclusion of anything else” (biotechnology includes marker assisted selection (pdf) as well as genetic engineering and other techniques).
Reflection
When I first read this article, I was amazed to find out that the United States government is getting involved in this controversial topic by passing an act on GMOs. The author of this article was pointing out the good parts and bad parts about this act. Some of the clauses in this act got a lot of people upset, but it is hard to please everybody with such a controversial topic as GMOs.
Bodnar, Anastasia. "» Proposed US Law to Mandate GMOs?" Biofortified. 22 Apr. 10. Web. 17 May 2010. .
No comments:
Post a Comment