Unless you’re technophobic by nature (in which case, reading this blog amounts to masochism), it’s hard to deny the benefits of GM foods. As a libertarian who'

Unless you’re technophobic by nature (in which case, reading this blog amounts to masochism), it’s hard to deny the benefits of GM foods. As a libertarian who's anything but technophobic and who knows something about gene splicing let me disagree: GM foods resistant to insect attack actually require fewer pesticides than their natural counterparts For now. Until pests become resistant to Bt toxin. Then organic farmers who use Bacillus thuringiensis might be adversely affected. This is an uncounted for externality. But this externality may be worth it, if for example it gets us cheaper food. But the best way to get A LOT cheaper food is to simply stop ag. subsidies. Now I happen to think the long term consumption of plants with Bt genes has a probability of being bad for you that's arbitrarily close to zero. BUT I am also a software engineer and so I know NOTHING is certain, shit happens. As a libertarian I know the basics of how free markets work, and information is a key part of a working free market. Which is why I wish GM crops would be labeled as such. If pests do become immune to Bt, splicing something else in is going to be harder. Because we didn't invent Bt toxin, we took it from bacteria. When happens we run out of naturally occurring toxins? If we could design molecules that would be awesome, but we're not there yet. Keep in mind you can also splice pesticide resistance into crops and the way they work is by enabling yyou to go nuts with the pesticides, bathe your fields in them. Stress-resistant GM crops can survive droughts and disease, Drought resistant crops are still in the works. This not nearly as easy as Bt toxin was. It's a major change in plant physiology and we can't do that yet. But Israel can profitably grow crops with desalinated water and computer controlled irrigation. The "this will help poor farmers" line is a red herring. Poor farmers in developing countries are poor because their countries are a mess. If your country isn't a mess you can even grow crops in the Israeli desert. warding off famine in developing countries across Read up on how famines happen, The Economist had a great study. In short it's about the government response, not about any one or two crop failures. Frankly, it’s amazing that we can remix our food to be more nutritious Not yet. Well for simple things, like rice and vitamin A, but not in general. We know that fruits and vegetables are not as nutritious today as they used to be. This is because they've been careful selected for looks and shipability. The most popular variety of tomato isn't called "Bulletproof" because it's so super tasty and nutritious. Simply put, the mass market wants big unbruised fruits and vegetables. Why would this change just because we can now gene splice more nutrition into our vegetables? We can have more nutritious today, there's just no real demand for them. And the tiny market segment that does demand it, is ironically least likely to buy GM foods. faster-growing See drought hardy. longer-lasting Not a problem for me. This is about shipping and storing crops for resale. How does that interest me? Lower prices - see ag. subsidies. and tastier See more nutritious. The fact is, the genetic engineering that's going on today is not about more taste or more nutrients or really anything that affects the end consumer. It's about higher profit margins for the produces and middle men. Ah you say, but surely those fat profits will shrink over time and we'll get cheaper food, but again: subsidies. Or maybe those profits/prices will help developing countries? Again it's not the climate or the soil is the government. make us healthier No that's other kinds of gene splicing, crops don't do that yet, and I doubt they will ever be the best vector for medicine or what ever. improve ag production Depends on your definition of improve, see roundup resistant crops. Also see ag. subsidies. Many people live on $1 a day. Pretty much all European cows are subsidized to the tune of $2 a day. make pharmaceuticals Maybe, but almost certainly there's better vectors. and survive hell and high water. Maybe future crops could recycle more nutrients back into dirt and help avert the looming topsoil crisis. Now you're getting into utopian fantasy and running into some fundamental limits of, you know, physics and stuff. So that’s what all the fuss is about. It's about free markets and information, it's about not letting private companies have undue influence on our system of government. Or on other companies, through a very imperfect legal system, i.e. Monsanto suing companies who market their milk as rBGH free. As a libertarian who works in biotech let me say: Seriously fuck Monsanto!