Rose, in Texas, has sent us this eye-opening backstory on GMOs, and why they were so eagerly embraced by the U.S. political/economic system. The part I found most fascinating I put in bold. She titles her summation of the two links below
The Science of GMOs
July 17, 2013
Grist, long a bastion for Anti-GMO forces has proposed a consortium of sorts to debate the pros and cons of the science of GMOs.
This development comes on the heels of a recent alternative media interview with financial guru and advisor, Catherine Austin-Fitts, wherein she suggests that patentable GMO seeds were to have replaced petroleum (a finite, non-renewable resource) as the basis for the US dollar as the world reserve currency.
The GMO paradigm was initially attractive for three primary reasons:
1. Crops are a renewable resource.
2. Food is inherently more valuable than oil.
3. The product properly patented, would be ‘Made in the USA’.
Such reasoning makes it easy to see why US financial policy makers would jump on the GMO bandwagon as a means of keeping the US dollar viable as the world reserve currency but as the article indicates, ‘this form of toxic food imperialism has backfired’.
Grist will undoubtedly catch grief from Anti-GMO forces but hopefully the decision to ‘reach across the aisle’ will provide a forum for both sides to promote legitimate concerns.
Call to action: Grist reevaluates crop biotechnology; It’s time the rest of journalism does too | Genetic Literacy Project
A.K.: Reference to the Katherine Austen Fitts interview is here: