[ Home ] [ Leadership ] [ About Bill ] [ News ] [ Chuck ]
Bill Rowell
April 14th, 2014
The
GMO Issue
I would
like to speak from the perspective of both farmer and consumer
as we look at this anti GMO sentiment that has continued to
surface.
I do
understand that as a consumer we are concerned with "the
quality" and "the integrity" of the food we eat, I know that I
am, and I would expect no less from anyone else.
I have
also come to understand that a Genetically Modified crop amounts
to activating the preferred traits of a plant within that plants
genome, these crops have been developed to be more drought
tolerant, disease resistant, and produce a greater yield, they
also require less pesticide, less herbicide, less fuel and less
labor to grow.
The
crop yield of today, here in the U.S, would have required an
additional 490 million acres to produce a similar result during
the 1930"s. It is generally recognized that animal agriculture
is heavily dependent upon grains and forages, there is great
competition world wide for much of what is produced here, and
taking it for granted would be a mistake.
I was
doing a bit of research when I came across a document published
by The Center for Food Integrity, it discusses GMO advances in
agriculture, early objections related to their impact on eco
systems, and possible longterm negative environmental
consequences.
British
author and environmentalist, Mark Lynas, helped form this anti
GMO movement during the 1990's; GMO Inside. In January of 2013
he made a public statement: " the GM debate is over, it is
finished. We no longer need to discuss whether or not it is
safe, over a decade and a half later, with more than 3 trillion
GM meals eaten there has never been a single substantiated case
of harm. You are more likely to get hit by an asteroid than get
hurt by GM food."
His
statement, was then followed by an extensive list of respected
science based organizations that have issued their own
statements indicating that GM foods are safe:
American
Association for the Advancement of Science
American
Medical Association
World Health
Organization
National
Academy of Sciences
American
Council on Science and Health
American
Society for Cell Biology
American
Society for Microbiology
American
Society of Plant Biologists
International Seed Foundation
Council for
Agriculture Science and Technology
Crop Science
Society of America
Society for
In Vitro Biology
Society of
Toxicology
Royal
Society of Medicine (UK)
European
Commission
French
Academy of Science
Union of
German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
International Society of African Scientists
International Council for Science
We have
seen a good deal of controversy raised over the subject of
genetically modified food, in fact, our General Assembly here in
Vermont recently focused on legislation to require the labeling
of GMO products. In Washington, at the federal level,
Representatives Pompeo (R-Ks) and Butterfield (D-NC), along with
a number of their colleagues, have introduced legislation which
would nullify the efforts of various states to label genetically
modified foods. In introducing their legislation it was stated
that every major health organization has determined that GMO's
have no detrimental health effect. They further pointed out that
Scientists from Italy recently reviewed nearly 2,000 different
studies of GMO's and failed to find a single credible study to
indicate they are unsafe or different from foods grown without
this technology. The gentleman from Kansas also pointed out at a
news conference, where the legislation was introduced, that "
some of the campaigns in many states to require labeling aren't
really to inform consumers, but are actually aimed at scaring
them."
In all
that I have found as a result of my research, it would seem that
GMO's have been studied extensively for more than 20 years, and
the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that
Genetically Modified foods DO NOT pose a risk to consumers.
I would
conclude by saying that I strongly believe each of us are
entitled to our own opinion, but that opinion does not entitle
any of us to our own science. Period!
The apparent
smoking gun here is an attitude being used to stir controversy
and generate propaganda, credibility appears to have been
substituted with sentiment in order to promote an anti GMO
agenda. |