Comment: Well... it's not within the actual pages of the NYTimes -

(See in situ)

Well... it's not within the actual pages of the NYTimes -

not in the main news, editorial, nor opinion pages. It's on an opinion blog. And this column that pertains to the rider in the spending bill - a "pre-emptive Congressional override of the judicial system" - isn't written by one of the Times' Washington reporters, nor a correspondent on legal/judicial issues. It's by a food guy.

That's *food* as in, the stuff human beings ingest (even tiny, vulnerable infants) that relates to HEALTH. And yet after noting that there were some things to be done now to "improve yields while diminishing the need for herbicides and pesticides," the author CLARIFIES that he is talking about *crop improvement* (e.g. Roundup Ready seeds that "allowed farmers to spend less time and energy controlling weeds"), NOT consequences to human health:

"Acknowledging that — and recognizing that, at least for now, classical breeding methods remain superior to genetic engineering for whole crop improvement — is not the same thing as making inflated claims about the hazards of genetic engineering to human health, as some opponents of genetic engineering have taken to doing."

Although the author twice uses the excoriating term "disappointing" to describe GMO's (again, re CROP IMPROVEMENT and SAVINGS of TIME & MONEY), he talks out of both sides of his mouth throughout the whole piece. Nonetheless, you're right. If in a guarded and unobtrusive way, it could be said, I guess, that the New York Times has finally weighed in against GMO's.

FYI: 50 Harmful Effects of Genetically Modified (GM) Foods

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir