A couple weeks ago, we pointed to a piece in the Why Files (a great site from the University of Wisconsin that specializes in "The Science Behind the News," with funding from the National Science Foundation) looking at the development of
genetically modified crops ten years after their introduction. Now, the site has published
part two of the series. It's a sober and balanced look at both the potential benefits and risks of GMOs as well as the lack of both labeling and peer-reviewed study of GM crops. One thing is clear: So far, GM foods have lost the PR battle. In an age of RoundUp Ready Soy and StarLink Corn, the hottest consumer trend is -- guess what? -- organics. A testament to organics' surprising success:
Even Wal-Mart has gotten in on the act.
7 Comments:
somewhat related: there's an interesting item in the Times today about handwringing at the farmers' markets since walmart and others have co-opted and watered down the organic label. the new alternative now is 'beyond organic' -- but what does that mean? the article explores.
Lost the PR battle? Maybe because fools at the Sierra Club (who originally supported GM) and other organizations have poured millions into campaigns against it.
Meanwhile, over a billion acres have been growing GM crops, and billions of meals have been served without one single health incident.
Since GM allows less insecticide spraying and encourages no-till techniques, which stop soil erosion, you enviro-wackos should love it.
Meanwhile, go buy some organic food (not at the evil Walmart, though), and don't worry about the "organic" pesticides used to grow it such as rotenone (linked to Parkinson's Disease), pryrethrum(according to the EPA, a likely carcinogen) and copper sulfate (known to cause liver disease).
Or maybe they (the Monsantos and other Big Ag conglomerates) lost the PR battle because they fought labeling tooth and nail, sued farmers for saving seed, neglected to educate the public in an honest and open way and generally ran roughshod over legitimate health and environmental concerns. Just a thought.
Btw, the idea that the non-profits outspent the Ag giants in the PR campaign is just out and out ludicrous.
As for your other points about no-till and spraying, ... did you bother to read the Why Files articles? They do cover both the pros and cons.
Which makes your ill-tempered response seem just a tad uncalled for. Jerk.
It is simplistic and wrong to pit GM crops against organic and vice versa. As a scientist who works with organic and GM farmers, it is evident that GM crops can help overcome some of the risks to human health and the environment caused by some farming practices. Furthermore, this result was an important goal that led to the organic movement. At the same time, many "conventional" farmer have adopted some "organic" practices to lessen the likelihood of pest attack and improve soil health. One should not be wedded to a particular philosophy (organic, biotech or whatever) that may cause one to adopt practices that lead to higher risks to the environment and human health. Rather one should look at the particular technique (GM or organic) and determine which poses the least amount of risk to human health and the environment. Putting aside the rhetoric, it is clear that each technology has something positive to contribute to reducing risks. So let's get to work to implement the best practices regardless of where they come from.
- An agricultural ecologist
So let's get to work to implement the best practices regardless of where they come from.
- An agricultural ecologist
That's the spirit.
Well, now here's an interesting item to ponder where GMOs are involved: bioplastics made from corn, some of it genetically modified.
Good thing? Bad thing? Beats me.
Enviro Wacko:
1. The USDA and other regulatory agencies have fought the labeling (but of course they are in the pocket of corporations, revolving doors, etc).
2. They sued farmers for STEALING seed, not "saving" it.
3. The public was misled by people like you, and this stuff is tested more than any other food in history.
4. The NGOs have tons of money and exist purely to spread scare stories in order for them to get more. What is the annual budget of Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and the Sierra Club? 100s of millions of dollars.
5. No, I didn't bother reading it when I saw who was involved in writing it. Besides, Sierra Club morons seem to be endorsing it.
Post a Comment
<< Compass Main