Let me ask you this question. I was reading an article from The New York Times of May 14. It's not that I read The New York Times all the time, but somebody sent me this article. It's by Pamela Ronald, a professor at the University of California, and James McWilliams, a professor at Texas State University.
They talked about the incredible benefits of GE products: drought-tolerant cassava, insect-resistant cowpeas, fungus-resistant bananas, and virus-resistant sweet potatoes. All produce larger yields and help developing countries to deal with poverty. They talked about “golden rice” containing provitamin A, which is saving the lives of thousands of children in the Philippines.
They went on to talk about more regulations. They say they just got back from a tour of Canada where a lot of farmers said there were so many regulations—some of them inconsistent with those of other countries—that the standards have ceased to make their industry competitive.
They talk about competitiveness. They say that more regulations will make us less competitive to the extent that foundations and smaller companies that might otherwise be engaged in GMO are being forced out of the industry because they can't afford, or will not be able to afford, all the research that goes into meeting all of these regulations. They say that opposition to genetic engineering has driven the technology further into the hands of a few seed companies that can afford it, further encouraging their monopolistic tendencies while leaving it out of reach for those who want to use it for crops with low or non-existent profit margins.
Do you see the problem?