f it as possible. Assuring its safety is the F.D.A.s job (Pollan 468). When the sole motivation of food-producing company is to crank out as many of its products as it can and let the F.D.A. be the judge of the quality of the good instead of pre-testing it for safety in their company, we as consumers begin to have doubt for the safety of that companys goods. When the company is represented with quotes such as the one listed above, consumers doubt the honesty of the company and therefore turn away from its products.The real issue here, and one that you ignore, is sustainable agriculture and the growing food demand here and abroad (New York Times Magazine, 10/25/98). Monsanto in their reply still refuses to address the safety of their product, but instead leads the consumers to believe that they are working for a higher good. Monsanto believes that in order to achieve a higher goal, one such as ending world hunger, losing a few lives to unsafe products is a reasonable cost. As consumers, we care only about ourselves and refuse to see the big picture. Curing AIDS seems like a good idea but we wont try unsafe medicines to get there. A big problem with biotech foods is that it needs to convince the public to purchase and consume the goods therefore creating demand. Monsanto needs to appeal to the consumers and not concentrate on the big picture.On average, a single American farmer today grows enough food each year to feed 100 people. But this accomplishment has come at a price. The modern industrial farmer cannot achieve such yields without enormous amounts of chemical fertilizer, pesticide, machinery and fuel, a set of capital-intensive inputs, as theyre called, that saddle the farmer with debt, threaten his health, erode his soil and destroy its fertility, pollute the ground water and compromise the safety of the foods we eat (Pollan 460). With the introduction of the New Leafs into the soil, farmers can easily achieve the pro...
