News

Denying biotechnology is a moral argument

As Purdue President Mitch Daniels addressed the American Seed Trade Association this morning his focus turned to biotechnology. ”Science is in favor of biotech. But we need to make it a moral argument and we need to take it outside this room,” he says.  “It’s bogus for people to try and alarm consumers about fictional difficulties with biotechnology. The fight against biotechnology is anti-poor. We have arguments for labeling products. Well I have one for GMOs. Being Anti-GMO should be labeled as heartless, cruel, and frankly immoral.”

He says it is his hope that those currently opposed to the use of biotechnology without scientific validity will eventually change their minds.  “I hope they will rethink their opposition and support thoughtful, careful use of these technologies,” he says. “It is our only hope in feeding a world of 9 billion people.”

Daniels admittedly was part of a pro-agriculture administration as Governor of Indiana and he says that continues in his Presidency at Purdue University.  “What more noble careers could our students pursue than to press out the knowledge of agriculture,” he says.  “In a world that is headed to 9 billion and many of them hungry, to be able to provide them with better food and better nutrition.”

AUDIO: Mitch Daniels, Purdue President (4:00mp3)

• 

  It is great to have someone that uses commonsense and proven knowledge to back his arguments and shape the minds of young people in our nation. We need to stop the emotional campaign against the food and agriculture industry and make our decisions based on the scientific evidence that universities like Purdue spend millions of dollars to research. My man Mitch!!

  Reply
• 

  Slick Mitch. Taking one from the playbook, eh? …labeling Purdue researchers, researchers from around the world, and farmers who wish to not grow GMO crops as being heartless, cruel, and immoral. WOW! Nice play, and great way to conquer and divide, Mitch. I cannot imagine being a Purdue scientist conducting GMO research and feeling freely open to report any results that may conflict with the University President’s view of GMOs, and not worry about losing my job.

  Mitch could demonstrate some moral humility and rational exuberance by pushing for a scientific study to determine if animals (mice, deer, and pigs) show a preference for either Non-GMO grain or GMO grain, and if so, why. Such a study would be an inexpensive study to do, but it could come with the risk of costing the university lots of money if the actual results went public.

  Rather, the University President earns his paycheck by disparaging many USA farmers, Purdue’s own researchers who have identified plausible reasons to be concerned with GMOs, not to mention researchers and the people of more than 60 countries around the world who share a similar concern and have placed significant restrictions or outright bans on the production and sale of GMOs. To suggest that since the US government has approved GMOs based on studies conducted by the same corporations that created them and profit from their sale, as somehow logically morally ethical, while everyone else who has a problem with this research conflict of interest, including the revolving door at the FDA, and people’s right to be reasonably concerned about GMOs, as being heartless, cruel and immoral – just who is Mr. Daniels trying to fool or keep fooled? I respect that Mr. Daniels may believe what he wants, but I will place my stock with the animals that are more concerned with quality food than any money trail.

  Mitch, in regards to the GMO topic, either you are ignorantly stupid or you are corrupt, but you are not both. I am neither Mr. Daniels. I want you to do the research and report the unfiltered facts. Doing so will help you regain the credibility that is congruent with the better, smarter leader and person we both know you can be.

  Reply