Richard Ha writes:
Genetically engineered food? Is it safe? Should it be labeled?
Mark Lynas was one of the original founders of the anti-GMO movement. In this video, he explains that he has totally changed his mind about GMOs, his original position was not scientifically based, and he now completely regrets it.
“I want to start with some apologies….For the record, here and upfront, I want to apologize for having spent several years ripping up GMO crops. I'm also sorry I helped start the anti-GM movement back in the '90s, and that I thereby assisted in demonizing an important technological option that can and should be used to benefit the environment.
“As an environmentalist, and someone who believes that everyone in this world has a right to a healthy and nutritious diet of their choosing, I could not have chosen a more counterproductive path and I now regret it completely….”
The video is called "Mark Lynas on his conversion to supporting GMOs – Oxford Lecture on Farming. Watch it here to learn why he changed his mind. (In short, he says he "discovered science.")
At its recent 2012 annual meeting, the American Medical Association adopted a
position on bioengineered foods:
“Conclusions. Despite strong consumer interest in mandatory labeling of bioengineered foods, the FDA’s science-based labeling policies do not support special labeling without evidence of material differences between bioengineered foods and their traditional counterparts. The Council supports this science-based approach, and believes that thorough pre-market safety assessment and the FDA’s requirement that any material difference between bioengineered foods and their traditional counterparts be disclosed in labeling, are effective in ensuring the safety of bioengineered food.
To better characterize the potential harms of bioengineered foods, the Council believes that pre-market safety assessment should shift from a voluntary notification process to a mandatory requirement. The Council notes that consumers wishing to choose foods without bioengineered ingredients may do so by purchasing those that are labeled “USDA Organic.”
But organic farmers have high operating costs, and therefore organic foods are generally more expensive. How can we help organic farmers?
One way is to increase the discretionary income of organic customers. Geothermal-produced electricity puts money back in consumers’ pockets. Everyone benefits.
The large biotech companies aren’t going to come and plant and grow on the Big Island. Half our island is lava rock, and we don’t have long straightaways where you can set up irrigation. Lose money!
Why do you think the sugar plantations used "tracked” equipment to work the fields? So they wouldn't flip over, or get stuck in the mud.
Big tractors that are used in Big Ag make money on the straightaways, and they lose money on the turns. We don’t have the straightaways, and so we don't have that type of Big Ag here – and we won’t.
Banning University of Hawai‘i field trials on the Big Island only hurts regular farmers.
Outright banning GMO like Wille is trying to do is just dumb. She would change her tune in a couple seconds if some virus started wiping out the Kona coffee crops. People like her need to know most of the genetic modification is to make the skin tougher, so that it doesn’t need a wide range of pesticide for protection. The skin of fruits and vegetables is most often disposed of, not eaten. The Hawaii legislature already voted down GMO labeling this last session. Why she is trying to resurrect it just for Hawaii island is a mystery. Like the above article says, there is already GMO-free labeling, that is USDA Organic. We don’t need another layer of bureaucracy policing labels, just adding more costs to production. There does need to be more transparency and more oversight, along with more education for the public on a level that it doesn’t take a genetic engineer to understand.