GM-YES

This is my most controversial blog yet and thus I feel it's appropriate to begin with some explanation.

Do I, at all, support Monsanto and how it does business or meddles with the government or FDA, corporations treated ab human beings, or genetic patenting?  No. As in 'not at all; not even close; not synonymous; the opposite of yes.'

People are often confused about this and can easily turn nasty, claiming everything from drug abuse to engaging in intercourse with multiple animals, to torturous murder of children to proudly proclaiming superiority through indirect execution by social class and geographic location (many have proudly stated they're so much better and that 2/3 of the worlds population should die in order to only produce organic, vegan, or certain crops worldwide--I am not kidding).

Before Monsanto couldn't stop ruining farmers, landowners, and even trying to sue governments for banning them or legally demanding compensation money for ruining food supplies, a man named Norman Borloff was researching GMO crops and distributing them in various parts of Asia to poorer farmers and local growers.

Before Monsanto bought the rights to his techniques, Borloff created strains of grains, mainly rice, that was hardier, more disease-resistant, and more nutritious, saving over a billion people from starvation.

Today, The Economist magazine is arguing for similar research, saying that even environmental groups on Europe are considering benefits of GMO, both for human consumption and for conservation. Institutes are meticulously looking for better ways to put genetic modification to good use, mostly replicating the ideals and intentions of Borloff and are already distributing them.

Saving lives is always a commendable thing.  Ruining them is never good. Science can do either.  Let's find a way to keep using to for the former so everyone can eat (including organic--nothing wrong with that, just please don't kill people).