I found the comparison of amount of rice to carrots to be very striking to me. Even on the best of days the proposed gmo solution would not be as good as simply having the farmers grow the crops they grew for generations. I write simply, but the issue is anything but simple. While it would not be particularly difficult for India to properly feed all of the people in the country through agriculture, it would be extremely difficult to overcome the influence of those few who would lose in such a situation. I have nothing against gmos , esspecialy after I had a perfect example of some of the delicious foods they are present in. But in this situation they are a less efficient bandaid to a much larger problem. I really do think that in the situation of malnutrition we have to take a step back and look at the underlying structures that contribute to if not cause the problems. In the situation we were presented it would seem that using golden rice would simply further the loss of traditional crops and just shift the malnutrition to the next vitamin that would be displaced by the mass production of select crops. I find it interesting how much the whole discussion of fixing malnutrition is framed in the language and techniques of globalization and how little mainstream solutions are offered that would break from this framework.

The other issue that came to mind in all three cases was money. I mentioned this in class but I just really want to write about it again. In all three cases there are strong financial interests that are at the heart of the problem. In all three cases the discussion the issues will eventually return to a rather calculated discussion of costs. How much would restoring more traditional crops to India cost the multinational agri companies there and the people in Europe and US facing higher costs? How much would increased regulations and pollution taxes slow economic growth? How much would American businesses lose if they were forced to disclose the presence of gmos to the mob? Some form of these question I can confidently say has been in play durring the larger discussions of these issues, and the mere fact that they are being so seriously considered in a dry mathematical, cartesian sense in my opinion gives the pro money side a huge advantage.