Genetic modification is a topic which has some involved in agriculture smiling at the possibility of a brighter future, while others shudder that it will shatter consumer confidence.
While consumers need to stay aware of genetic modification science, it shouldn't just assume it is a huge specter of doom.
Science is not inherently disastrous, and agriculture has been relying on scientific breakthrough since the first cow was domesticated and wheat was planted and reaped.
There is science behind what nutrients a crop requires in the form of fertilizer.
There is science behind crop breeding programs, as there is in terms of freezing livestock embryos, using artificial insemination, and practically every other aspect of farming.
For the most part the science has been accepted and has proven its worth.
That said at the time pasteurization of milk was first developed there was certainly a constituency against it.
Somehow though we have come to view genetic modification of crops as a step too far.
It may have to do with the fact the initial efforts in terms of GM crops revolved around allowing crops to withstand certain farm protection products rather than offering anything of obvious benefit to consumers.
Longer term though that is where GM technology offers both agriculture and consumers the greatest opportunities.
Certainly when we look at the canola sector GM technology allowing chemical tolerances have gone a long way to expanding acres and yields, and agronomically that is a good thing.
But the true potential of GM is about plants producing elements which they currently do not.
For example, longer term GM will produce plants with traits which make them increasingly tolerant of solid salts, drought, and frost. Those sort of changes expand areas crop will be grown, and in the face of a growing world population that will be a positive thing.
And then there is the potential to introduce genes into plants which will allow the plant to develop low-cost antibodies, protein drugs and vaccines for cancers or other diseases. Consider the costs of traditional methods of creating many of the drugs which are already important to a range of disease treatments. Now consider what a plant growing in a field which could be harvested for the same or new drugs could mean?
Is the science without risk?
Of course not. We only need to recognize that uranium allows for healing and bomb creation, to know there are pitfalls.
But to not explore the possibilities and work to ensure the positives are the goals science pursue, would be to limit the potential good to mankind.
Into the future a changing world dynamic, growing population and declining arable land base will need the potential of GM to meet our basic needs.
We need to embrace the science, although a cautious eye in all things is prudent too.
