The second reason is that the further investigation Carman calls for already exists in droves. Hundreds of existing studies look at the potential health impacts of biotech crops in human and animal applications, but likely much to Carman’s dismay, each says the same thing: Biotech crops are as safe as their conventional counterparts. Given this mountain of preexisting science, it would appear that Carman is less interested in "more investigation" and more interested in investigation that agrees with her anti-biotech viewpoint.
That’s not science; it’s cleverly-cloaked advocacy. Advocacy is based in emotion and ideology, while to maintain its integrity, science must be based in real, tangible fact.
What is real, however, is the challenge we face together as a global community - farmers, activists and consumers alike. Within the next 40 years, we will share this planet with more than 9 billion people, and to feed them, we’ll need to produce more food in that time period than we’ve produced in the 10,000 years before it. To meet that challenge, we need every tool at our disposal: biotech, non-biotech, organic, conventional, local, regional, national and global. To limit our use of any one tool, as Carman and her fellow anti-biotech activists would suggest, is to limit our ability to feed our friends, our neighbors and ourselves as our collective need grows.
Source: St. Louis Post-Dispatch