Well, most of the articles we read have in them a measure of subjectivity. And few authors worth their substance will deny that. So, Dr Suzuki’s cautious and deliberate opinion is unlikely to be completely objective – devoid of his own viewpoints. What is disconcerting in my view is that some of the companies actively leading the GMO charge have been the subject of more than a fair share of controversy (if in any doubt see these links: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/01/business/global/japan-and-south-korea-bar-us-wheat-imports.html?_r=0http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/03/monsanto-profit_n_3006157.htmlhttp://digitaljournal.com/article/297701http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-schiffman/the-fox-monsanto-buys-the_b_1470878.html ). And that alone gives a clue as to the characters of the people behind those companies.
Personally, I’m in favour of good and safe science that is informed, ethical, has the best interests of humanity at its core, well researched and verifiable, and isn’t excessively / solely commercially driven. And reading between the lines of Dr Suzuki’s article (and everything else I’ve been able to find out over the years about GMO’s), I strongly believe my health (and the healths of billions of people on the planet) would be safer in the hands of Dr Suzuki’s cautious approach, than entrusted to some dubious alliance of greedy researchers/ scientists (on some corporation’s payroll), shady lobbyists and profit-driven death-tech corporations (which are non-transparent and whose past records are scary & rather alarming).
malawiace.com 
Hmm, perhaps he should speak for himself. With a mind like that that’s probably the case for him don’t you think?
LikeLike
Well, most of the articles we read have in them a measure of subjectivity. And few authors worth their substance will deny that. So, Dr Suzuki’s cautious and deliberate opinion is unlikely to be completely objective – devoid of his own viewpoints. What is disconcerting in my view is that some of the companies actively leading the GMO charge have been the subject of more than a fair share of controversy (if in any doubt see these links: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/01/business/global/japan-and-south-korea-bar-us-wheat-imports.html?_r=0 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/03/monsanto-profit_n_3006157.html http://digitaljournal.com/article/297701 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-schiffman/the-fox-monsanto-buys-the_b_1470878.html ). And that alone gives a clue as to the characters of the people behind those companies.
Personally, I’m in favour of good and safe science that is informed, ethical, has the best interests of humanity at its core, well researched and verifiable, and isn’t excessively / solely commercially driven. And reading between the lines of Dr Suzuki’s article (and everything else I’ve been able to find out over the years about GMO’s), I strongly believe my health (and the healths of billions of people on the planet) would be safer in the hands of Dr Suzuki’s cautious approach, than entrusted to some dubious alliance of greedy researchers/ scientists (on some corporation’s payroll), shady lobbyists and profit-driven death-tech corporations (which are non-transparent and whose past records are scary & rather alarming).
LikeLike