Just because scientists can genetically engineer foods doesn’t mean they should (or does it?)

This was written in response to the comment by Beth Hoffman in her article on Forbes, but it exceeded the given wordcount, which is why I post it here:

Thanks, Beth, for responding to my comment. It is good to read that you are more concerned about balance than about genetic engineering as such and that you don’t reject Golden Rice simply because it is a GMO. As I understand your comment, you simply wonder about the optimal allocation of resources?

The suggestion that we are putting all our eggs (or all our money) in the Golden Rice basket is far off the mark – Golden Rice is nowhere near representing 99% of our eggs; in the bigger picture it is rather a small egg

Related on the SLP

Adrian Dubock, Golden Rice scientist: Greenpeace, GMO critics misrepresent humanitarian project Anti-GMO activists brandish disputed Stone-Glover Golden Rice paper in attacks on Nobel laureates

Viewpoint: Died “with measles” vs. died “from measles”: RFK, Jr.’s dangerously subversive word games

Vaccine hesitancy, like malaria, surges globally, topping 35% in some countries

Blood tests for Alzheimer’s? The latest grifter, social media scam.

Read the full, original post: Comment on: Just Because Science Can Genetically Engineer Foods, Doesn’t Mean We Should (or Does It?)