Nina V. Fedoroff wrote an op-ed last year for the New York Times called "Engineering Food for All." She raises some important points in her piece: a growing population, climate change, hunger, and food costs.

She basically believes that genetically engineered (GE) crops are the answer to feeding a growing population, on a planet that's climate is increasing to heat up. She may be right. The problem is that she presents no evidence whatsoever showing that farming GE food is cheaper or more productive.

She also contradicts herself to a degree by saying that GE crops resistant to certain pests require less pesticide. This is good for the environment because, according to her, "toxic pesticides decrease the supply of food for birds and run off the land to poison rivers, lakes and oceans." She then points out that "the rapid adoption of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant soybeans has made it easier for farmers to park their plows and forgo tilling for weed control." What Fedoroff fails to mention is that because of the plants resistance to herbicide more is used causing more run off which as she points out is bad for mother nature.

The other problem that people who argue along the same side of the line with Fedoroff always forget to mention is that GE foods may be the cause of the increased number of allergies we are seeing our children afflicted with but we just don't have proof yet. It's obviously almost impossible to prove that something is not bad for you because you can't prove a negative. It is irresponsible, however, to release, into the environment and peoples food supply, something that could be causing health and environmental issues without a substantial benefit. Especially without peoples consent.

One final note. It's one thing to use potatoes to grow spider webs—the proteins found in spider webs to be specific. We don't eat spider webs and their use, say material used to create a bullet proof vest for a police officer, is fairly simple. Mixing the genes of bacteria that is resistant to herbicides with the genes of corn and eating it is very different. As Michael Pollan points out In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto there are 25 antioxidants in a sprig of thyme. We still hardly hold a vague idea of how the complex synergy of properties within each piece of food we eat interacts, nourishes, and poisons our bodies. We ought to save the experimenting for the laboratory.