How I Got Converted to GMO Food – New York Times opinion

My report from Bangladesh and Kenya

NAIROBI, Kenya — Mohammed Rahman doesn’t know it yet, but his small farm in central Bangladesh is globally significant. Mr. Rahman, a smallholder farmer in Krishnapur, about 60 miles northwest of the capital, Dhaka, grows eggplant on his meager acre of waterlogged land.

As we squatted in the muddy field, examining the lush green foliage and shiny purple fruits, he explained how, for the first time this season, he had been able to stop using pesticides. This was thanks to a new pest-resistant variety of eggplant supplied by the government-run Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute.

For the full story, visit the New York Times website.


  1. Scott

    We can all agree that the Bt eggplant is superior to the conventionally grown eggplant in that less pesticides are needed. Now show me a study showing that it is superior to an organic polyculture.

  2. Padraig Hogan

    Mark Lynas you are a clown.

    You have no clue of what you’re talking about. You are supporting something that you don’t understand the first thing about.

    You know nothing about science, you are an anti-science joker who’s been given numerous platforms by the industry to spread your junk message.

    The science is out and it demonstrates that GMOs are extremely dangerous, cannot be contained and unsurprisingly, it’s a terrible idea to go spreading them. You were fooled by pseudoscience being promoted by the industry. I admit it may be hard sometimes for someone naive to the ways of the world since this type of supposed “science” has huge production values, all designed to get people to think a certain thing, but it flies in the face of other clear facts and obvious logic.

    “science”… you wouldn’t know science if it hit you on the head.

    1. MB

      One would think your name-calling and absolutist conjecture would be followed up by a couple of citations from peer-reviewed scientific reports published naked to the world for all manner of examination, vetting and testing in respected science journals with an editorial board consisting of scientists.

      Personally, I don’t have a big problem with GMO except where used in ecologically damaging ways (corn for fuels, for example, or specifically for pesticide-saturated fields). Unfortunately, a lot of it is developed for these said uses and ignores the health of soils.

      But GMO breeding for high-yield, nutrient-rich plant varieties that can grow in relatively adverse physical and social conditions (e.g. poor families in the rural Third World) …. bring them on.

    2. Ravingscientist

      As MB wrote: if you assert that the scientific consensus is that GMOs are dangerous, you’d better have something to back it up. That would be somewhat more useful than name-calling, and would provide some interesting discussion points. Without that, your post essentially useless.

  3. Padraig Hogan

    There is no controversy over the dangers of letting GMOs out into the wild, the consensus is that that would be bad. Unless you plan on arguing the merits of Jurassic Park style species creation I don’t think there’s an argument there.

    I’m not arguing over whether they have a significant affect on people eating them now and the vast majority of ecological and environmental authorities against GMOs are not arguing that. That is all mainly strawman tactics by the pro-GMO lobby,m even though some questions have been raised about certain changes considered “not biologically relevant”.

    Considering GMOs may be tricky and non-intuitive sometimes but the moderate and sensible approach to GMOs is that they should all be banned forever and the whole technology should be burned. The more the technology is developed the more ordinary people will be able to create their own genes and just release them into the air where they can do god knows what. Again – it may be counter-intuitive in this day and age of personal freedom that allowing just anyone access to this technology and releasing it will be okay. I’m thinking way into the future here. It’s not just whether this GMO will cause negative health effects, it’s the entire, irreversible impact on the environment.

    1. Padraig Hogan

      And please just note when I say “god knows what” I am of course not evoking some sort of religious argument for it, just using a common expression.

    2. Batiste

      I hate to break it to you but Jurassic Park is a Hollywood movie, not a documentary on genetic mutation gone wrong.

      What about conventional hybridisation, or mutagenesis? Doesn’t your arguments also apply for those genetic creations? If it is the case maybe we should burn all the bio technologies and go back on a palaeolithic diet that consist of bitter roots, acid berries and the rare piece of rotten lean meat.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *