OPINION & EDITORIAL
Genetic food provides benefits
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Letters to the Editor:
- SSFC stipend appropriate (December 11, 2007)
- Poor plowing cuts off handicapped access (December 10, 2007)
- Cars that actually help the environment (December 10, 2007)
- Organic food: Deliciously safe (December 10, 2007)
- Diversity deserves attention at UW (December 7, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Organic food: Deliciously safe (December 10, 2007)
- Confessions of a capitalist pig (March 7, 2002)
- ASM grocery store utterly ridiculous (October 4, 2007)
- Nation should follow N.Y. on trans fat (December 13, 2006)
- Disclosure of trans fat content needed (September 6, 2007)
by Letters to the Editor
Wednesday, February 23, 2005
Although the argument against genetically modified (GM) foods is a passionate one, passion should hardly be allowed to displace truth. This is apparent when considering the exaggerated and false claims promoted by GM food opponents.
An example of one such exaggeration is the claim that the science community has grave reservations regarding biotech and GM foods. The reality is that there is a strong and growing scientific consensus in support of GM food technology. While a few scientists have expressed concerns about genetically modified organisms, joint work between the Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has produced an extensive list of regulations and testing requirements, ensuring the safety of GM foods entering the market.
Another illustration of grossly exaggerated claims is the idea that GM foods are toxic to humans and to the environment in which GM crops are grown. While it is true that GM crops can be engineered to produce more natural pesticides and herbicides than their natural predecessors, the benefit is that, overall, far fewer chemical pesticides and herbicides are used for similar yields.
A USDA report elucidated this benefit when they studied the adoption of biotech crops in the United States. In short, farmers who planted herbicide tolerant soybeans were able to apply environmentally friendly glyphosate herbicides to their crops. These glyphosate herbicides are nearly three to 16 times less toxic than the herbicides they replaced. Most importantly, farmers reduced their use of synthetic herbicides by approximately 1.8 million pounds. One can hardly read these statistics and claim that farmers are poisoning their environment and customers.
Currently there exists a campaign to bully Kraft Foods into halting the use of harmless GM ingredients in their products despite the solid scientific assurances of their safety. We encourage students to read all of the material on the subject, beginning with our weblog at www.cfactcampus.org/madison. Decide for yourself who is correct in this important debate. Last night, over 50 UW students elected to support science and fought back against the destructive rhetoric of the anti-progress crowd. CFACT is inviting you to do the same. You can log onto a website attempting to lead the charge against scientific progress at http://pirg.org/ge/GE.asp?id=98&id3=ge&id4=HP&. Please delete the fear-mongering e-mail and send some words of encouragement to Kraft Foods for their forward-thinking policies. It will be a powerful action that will positively affect the debate between science and fear.
Peter McCabe
Executive Director
CFACT-Madison
Anonymous (February 23, 2005 @ 9:26am):
Although I am not a scientist, I have been following the GM foods debate with interest recently. I agree with many of McCabe's points -- that GM foods have great potential to reduce the amount of environmental damage due to fertilizers and pesticides and that there are no hazards associated with consuming GM foods.
But there are a few concerns that I have, which McCabe doesn't mention -- first of all, the potential loss of genetic diversity among crops. This diversity ensures that some plants will survive and evolve resistance if the crop is attacked by unknown pests or diseases.
Secondly, the problem of cross-pollination, the transmission of transgenic material to other plants of the same species that have not been genetically modified. Nature is an open system, so there is no way to ensure that transgenic material will not find its way into other plants, the results of which could be unpredictable.
In short, I believe that careful consideration of all possible problems is in order before we go along with the current of "scientific progress".
Anonymous (February 23, 2005 @ 9:42am):
Here is the number one fact in favor of using GMOs that is not mentioned. Since the end of World War II, the population of the earth has essentially doubled. It is expected that it will reach 9 billion people within the next few decades. The amount of land used for farming, though, has remained stagnant. How has this happened? Through the development and use of high yield farming techniques, including GM crops. Nearly all additional gains out of farmland will come from GMOs. So here's your option. Accept the fact that GMOs are not harmful, and on the scale of what our ancestors did to domesticate crops millenium ago it is a drop in the bucket, or tear down the rain forests for low yield farm land so you can have organic food.
