"Bt brinjal (eggplant) gets biotech regulator's approval", said the headline in an Indian newspaper.
The story went on to report that a key government committee has cleared the way for the first genetically modified food crop in the country.
The company producing the genetically-modified eggplant seed says it has been tested for nine years and is fully compliant with guidelines and directives issued by government regulators.
They claim that a million farmers will benefit because this strain of brinjal has been engineered to resist common pests that have hindered production in recent years.
Greenpeace India has questioned the bio-safety of this product and asked the government to hit pause and hold off on the commercial sale of this seed.
Greenpeace commissioned a study by a prominent French scientist, who concluded that Bt Brinjal may present a serious risk to human and animal health.
Further, environmentalists like Vandana Shiva of the Navadanya movement have objected to genetically-engineered foods for fear of damage to surrounding land.
The only other genetically-modified crop in India is a non-food, cotton, and it has increased costs to farmers.
Shiva and other environmentalists also warn of the ingenuity of nature; pest mutations and strains can break through specific genetic modifications.
In addition, moralists argue that seeds are nature's gift to mankind and should not be subject to profiteering by large corporations at the cost of individual consumers and farmers.
How do we, as lay people, react to this debate? I have watched e-mail exchanges on Yahoo groups and noted that while a few people raise concerns, for most of us science is like religion.
We barely know enough to understand the positive and negative impact.
Many of us view these developments as unstoppable.
Helplessly, we are willing to live with the consequences.
To me, genetically modified foods are problematic for several reasons.
First, the human body is incredibly complex.
I don't think science understands the way the body works in the same we understand, say, how an automobile works.
As an example, on something as basic as our diet, there are varying opinions on the impact of carbohydrates, fats and proteins.
We embrace diets that later turn out to be bad for us.
Many people know more about what grade of gasoline to put in our cars than what food to put into our bodies.
Second, any impact of genetically modified food on the body could be long-term and difficult to identify.
Only after decades of smoking have we realized the ill-effects of cigarettes.
Even seemingly rigorous testing has not prevented the release of harmful drugs like Vioxx.
In effect, the health of a billion Indians depends on a handful of scientists who are paid by the government to review mounds of data produced by many more scientists paid by drug and food companies.
Third, the best data links intensive, industrial farming using chemicals - fertilizers and pesticides - with soil erosion; the reduction in fertility rates; and barrenness of farmlands.
I recently met Nammalwar, an agricultural scientist who has dedicated his life to promoting ecological farming.
He makes a compelling case for going back to nature's zero-waste design of growing crops, trees and animals in a farm - and allowing the waste of one species to act as a food for the other.
His own experiences have shown that ecological farming, at a fraction of the cost, produces much higher yields per hectare than intensive farming.
Human beings have a much shorter time on this planet than the flora and fauna.
Until a few centuries back, we battled nature but did not have the weapons to do much damage.
Unfortunately, the last two hundred years have led to environmental weapons of mass destruction.
We need a different approach to deciding on the fate of future generations - an approach that is holistic, inclusive and sustainable.
Can we really afford to leave it to the hands of a few scientists, economists and politicians? It's up to us.
It's up to you.
What do you think? Share your thoughts and get involved.