In that letter signed by more than 100 Nobel laureates to Greenpeace, the United Nations and the world nations, they were asked to explicitly support genetically modified organisms as the only way to end world hunger. Last week I stepped in muddy terrain and started talking about this issue. This is the second part, with ethics and politics for everyone’s tastes.
Al Fresco Posts
Several weeks ago I spent lots of time arguing about the letter signed by more than 100 Nobel laureates. In the letter, they urged Greenpeace and the United Nations to support genetically modified organisms as the only way to put an end to global hunger. I feel the urge to give my opinion about almost everything, so I’m going to talk a bit (well, not a bit, it’s a 2 part post) about GMOs in general and this letter in particular.
The simple fact of eating an apple can have a bit of an ecological footprint. Look at the label. Maybe, if you are in Spain (sorry guys, I’m Spanish), that apple has traveled all the way from Chile to your hand. Amazing, right? That’s what needs to be done if you want to eat apples throughout the year. Something similar occurs with almost everything we consume. Electricity, clothing, electronic devices…
It’s fall already! Colorful leaves, crisp air, blankets, coffee… And a bit of work in the garden to prepare for the cold months and guarantee a lovely spring.
Of all the chemical elements available in nature, plants only need 17. Three of those 17 are obtained from air and water, being the main elements in the synthesis of organic matter as a result of the photosynthetic magic. These three elements are carbon, hydrogen and oxygen.
What about the rest 14?