Sunday, August 31, 2014

GMOs are the answer for sustainable food production

This fall Coloradans will be voting on a proposition requiring labeling of every product that has beenp roduced with genetic engineering. Krista Kafer is a local talk show host I listen to, an organic gardener, and a person who will vote no on Proposition 105:
This fall, as I reap the produce of my organic garden, I will be voting "no" on Proposition 105, the genetically modified organisms (GMO) labeling initiative on the ballot in Colorado. I have researched ways to produce food with fewer chemicals and less water, and have determined that GMOs are the answer for sustainable food production. Requiring food to be labeled "Produced With Genetic Engineering" will unfairly stigmatize GM crops and food processed from GM ingredients.

The time it takes to create desirable traits in plants was drastically reduced beginning in the 1980s when scientists began to insert beneficial genes directly into plant species. After being introduced to commercial agriculture in the 1990s, farmers have been increasingly switching to GM products because they require fewer "inputs" such as water, herbicides or pesticides while generating greater harvests. GM sweet corn, for example, protects itself from insect predation and thus does not need to be sprayed with insecticides. GM herbicide-tolerant sugar beets allow farmers to more easily eradicate weeds thus preserving water and nutrients for crops.

Even though GM technology is helping mankind grow more nutritional food on smaller acreage, with less water, and fewer chemicals, no one should be forced to eat such food. They can buy organic. Also, companies that produce goods that do not use GM crops are free to label their products thusly. In fact, Ben & Jerry's is in the process of sourcing all of its ingredients from non-GM crops. This voluntary business decision will no doubt boost sales among those for whom genetic modification is a concern.

The forced labeling approach of Proposition 105 is not about providing information but provoking fear and ultimately stopping scientific progress.
Read more here.

No comments: