Our food is patented (c)

Just recently, the EU announced that the number of allowed pesticides in the EU will be drastically reduced. On first sight this seems like a good idea, especially when you read that some pesticides are carcinogenic in their own right, meant to alter the DNA of the crop it is applied to. This DNA alteration is meant to make the crop more resistant to the environment. And when it can alter the DNA of a plant, it is quite imaginable that it can alter DNA of animals too. That's why they're carcinogenic of course. But when I read this article on the BBC website, it made me think again if said move by the EU is really a good thing. Because, to make up for the fact that crops' DNA cannot be altered by pesticides, its DNA has to be altered beforehand. This means genetically modified crops. Now I'm not against GM crops, but they do have a strange side effect. Because the crop isn't natural, but made by a company, it can be, and in fact it is patented. This means that by eating our daily slice of bread, we not only sponsor the farmers, but also the patent holders of the wheat. It also means that big corporations can decided how healthy our food is and where in the world it will be deployed. Somehow, I find this a troubling thought.

Zaaf