IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/eurrev/v21y2013is1ps68-s79_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Genetic Modification and the Public Good

Author

Listed:
  • Potrykus, Ingo

Abstract

Genetic engineering (GMO-technology) offers great opportunities to contribute to the public good by improving public health, e.g. by improving the micro-nutrient status of poor populations, cost effectively and – therefore – sustainably. The prime example for such a project from the public domain for public good is ‘Golden Rice’ (www.goldenrice.org). There are exclusive public funds involved (from altruistic organizations), no dependence from industry except for in-kind support and help in acquiring free licenses for humanitarian use. There is no financial reward for anyone involved. The only beneficiaries are the poor in developing countries. Theoretically, when considering the arguments of the anti-GMO lobby, this is an ideal application of GMO-technology. However, Golden Rice is considered a Trojan Horse, which must be prevented under all circumstances. The consequence: millions of avoidable blind and dead children. The author considers those who are responsible for this avoidable suffering of many innocent children (and mothers at childbirth) a crime to humanity. There are those who commit this deliberately and those who are participating passively, such as numerous ‘humanitarian organizations’ and ‘decision makers’ in politics and elsewhere. There is a wealth of scientific information and broad consensus that GMO-technology is at least as safe as any other technology involved in any context with our food or our environment. What we experience here is an example of ‘unreason’ and a perfect example in the context of The March of Unreason. Our ‘enlightenment’ and science-based successful European culture is on the verge of being replaced by unreason-based failure and lack of culture.

Suggested Citation

  • Potrykus, Ingo, 2013. "Genetic Modification and the Public Good," European Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 21(S1), pages 68-79, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:eurrev:v:21:y:2013:i:s1:p:s68-s79_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1062798713000203/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:eurrev:v:21:y:2013:i:s1:p:s68-s79_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/erw .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.