But the groundswell against genetically modified food has rankled many scientists, who argue that opponents of G.M.O.s have distorted the risks associated with them and underplayed the risks of failing to try to use the technology to improve how food is grown. Wading into a debate that has more typically pitted activists against industry, some have argued that opposition from even small pockets of an American elite influences investment in research and the deployment of genetically modified crops, particularly in the developing world, where hunger raises the stakes.
If you are concerned about the health effects of GMOs, you owe it to yourself to read this article. Most of the GMO fear is not backed by science, but there is a fierce and persistent activist movement which implies that it is.
This issue has made two things clear to me. First is that the left can, in certain areas, be as anti-science as the right.
The second is that the purity/sacredness foundation that Haidt discusses in his moral foundations theory, which he sees as primarily being an influence for conservative morality, very much exists for many of the left as well. While conservatives are often concerned about purity related to religious tradition, many on the left tend to be concerned about purity related to nature, believing that what is natural must be good, and anything that tampers with it is suspect.
- Cheerios drops genetically modified ingredients (usatoday.com)
- genetically modified crops (rramu0153.wordpress.com)