In his Jan. 25 article, “Inflation and food supplies,” Hugh Cortazzi commented that the “The use of GM crops may well be necessary, but we do not yet know what the long-term implications for wildlife may be.”
What an odd thing to write. Since we cannot know the future, we do not know the long-term implications of any new activity nor, indeed, some of the ones we have been pursuing for ages. All innovations of necessity imply a measure of uncertainty and it is, unfortunately, a measure of Cortazzi’s bowing to his perception of popular sentiment that he needs to say so specifically with respect to GM crops.
Does he also think there is uncertainty for wildlife from so-called organic agriculture or from energy-generating windmills? If not, why not? How can he be sure of the future consequences of those activities?
In a time of both misinformation and too much information, quality journalism is more crucial than ever.
By subscribing, you can help us get the story right.