Posted on 02/06/2017 5:38:26 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Despite the overwhelming scientific consensus that genetically modified foods are safe for human consumption, Americans are generally distrustful of all types of GMOs. An ABC poll from last year found that more than half of Americans believe that GMO foods are unsafe. However, the relative lack of outrage over the forthcoming release of “non-browning” genetically modified apples could mean public perception of GMOs may be changing. This would be an important step towards reducing food waste, fighting global malnutrition, and helping the environment.
If American public opinion is finally turning against anti-GMO rhetoric, it is about time. There is no scientific debate about the safety of genetically modified foods; a recent Pew Research poll even found a greater scientific consensus for GMO safety than anthropogenic climate change. And as Mark Lynas of the Cornell Alliance for Science has pointed out, many of the same tactics used by climate change deniers are mirrored by the anti-GMO movement.
The case of these genetically modified apples is hardly any different. The apples take much longer (about three weeks) to oxidize or turn brown after being exposed to the open air. By “silencing” a chemical that plays no role in apples today, scientists were able to reduce the browning effect of oxidization while retaining safety and nutritiousness.
The benefits of this go beyond just aesthetics. Each year, 31 percent of the U.S. food supply is wasted, and this level of waste increases to 45 percent for fruits and vegetables. Much of fruit and vegetable waste comes from producers and consumers discarding foods that have browned or otherwise changed to look less visually appealing. GMO apples represent a step towards reducing this massive amount of food waste. Non-browning apples also reduce the need for companies to use pesticides and chemicals to delay the rate of browning.
Organic advocates are predictably unhappy about the lack of forced labeling of the apples, but most other critics have been quiet. This did not happen when GMO apples first received FDA approval, when the initial reaction was overwhelmingly negative. The New York Times even published an article that pointed to a negative public reaction and made vague threats about “tainting the wholesome image of the fruit.”
Looking at the bigger picture, GMOs have already made great strides in improving global food security. In the 1970s, amid predictions of hundreds of millions of people facing starvation, Indian scientists created a type of genetically modified wheat that allowed India to achieve self-sufficiency in cereal production. GMO salmon has achieved FDA approval, and grows twice as fast with 75 percent less feed. GMO papayas also saved the papaya industry from ringspot virus in the late 1990s. All of these projects met with significant resistance, even after exhaustive regulatory processes.
Realizing GMOs’ potential to drastically improve agricultural outcomes, over 120 Nobel Laureates and thousands of scientists signed a letter calling on global governments to embrace genetic modification. They even declared opposition to GMOs to be “a crime against humanity.” This is not mere hyperbole. GMO rice (“Golden Rice”) offers the potential to save as many as 2.7 million children under 5 who suffer from vitamin A deficiency by improving vitamin A intake, but it has been blocked by anti-GMO activists, such as those who destroyed a test plot in 2013.
GMOs also offer additional benefits beyond improved food security. GMOs resulted in lowered carbon dioxide emission by 27 million kilograms in 2012, which is similar to removing 12 million cars from the road for one year. GMOs also led to an 8.8 percent reduction in pesticide spraying between 1996 and 2012. Further, farmers received a $3.74 return for each dollar invested in genetically modified crop seeds in 2012, which led to a $18.8 billion increase in farmers’ incomes that year.
The stakes are too high for Americans to ignore the overwhelming scientific consensus on genetically modified food. Americans should embrace GMOs for what they are—a safe way to improve the welfare of their country and the world.
Andrew Wilford is a Young Voices Advocate and recent graduate of American University.
While I believe it is possible to genetically modify crops in a way beneficial to mankind, I believe it is impossible that an entity like Monsanto has done so.
You don’t have cows and live in the city. Maybe suburbia.
Says the people who want to starve half the world. Not you half I’m sure.
Well it was invented after 1830. Must be true.
I'll bet you saw a farm once, on T.V.
The three components of Aspartame are found in the food you eat every day. How are they bad for you when bound together as Aspartame, but not bad for you when consumed individually?
You should stop reading CSPI.
Genetic sequences should not be patentable.
Certain genetic modifications to food could be harmful to our health.
The spread of harmful genetic modifications may be irreversible.
Science is often invoked as some sort of source of absolute truth. It’s not.
Science is mostly trial and error. And it is always subject to revision.
If Monsanto wants to GIVE GMO food to the starving in third world countries and evaluate their improved health and nutrition after a decade or two, I might be open to modifying my position.
True about the water, now the air, and the food. They can even control if, when and what you plant. You need a license to hunt or fish, and limits on how much you can harvest. Face it, modern man is not as free as the peasants in Victorian England.
What is a GMO?
Five things in GMO that should not be there:
E Coli Bacteria DNA, Cauliflower Mosaic Virus DNA, Antibiotic Resistant Markers, Up to 6 varieties of BT Toxins, Copious Glyphosate Residues
http://naturalsociety.com/5-things-gmo-corn-shouldnt/
This is just one of those topics that brings the kook brigade out of the woodwork.
Was driving a tractor 35 years ago, Chump.
I live in the country in Montana - ever have a bear, moose, bald or golden eagle visit YOUR home?
Deer, elk, bobcats and fox are common here as well.
Thank you! I hardly ever go to demonstrations anymore, but several years ago I took my kids to an anti-GMO demonstration in Kalamazoo. I am sure that many folks that were marching with us that day were also there at the pro-illegal-immigration, let them in to destroy us, demonstration that they had in the same park the other day. At least there is one thing upon which we can agree!
RE: This is just one of those topics that brings the kook brigade out of the woodwork.
My intent is to see if the more scientific minded brigade would come out for or against it.
RE: What is a GMO?
GMO stands for genetically modified organism, is a plant, animal, microorganism or other organism whose genetic makeup has been modified using recombinant DNA methods (also called gene splicing), gene modification or transgenic technology.
Well, good luck with that. I think most of those posters have learned to stay away from threads on this topic because the crackpots just swarm them.
Yeah, right. Anyone with any grasp of agriculture knows that cows will eat corn and that all corn has been genetically modified. You may live in the sticks, but you don’t a thing about agriculture.
Up yours, dickhead.
I have raised corn and cattle most of my life, I was trying to be nice to you but some folks need a kick in the ass.
GMO food is BAD. I do not grow it.
I recommend it to you, however..
“For one, the plants become annual instead of perennials”
I don’t think so. Corn? Soybeans? Wheat? Peanuts? Always been annuals. Sure would be nice if you didn’t have to plant every year though. Tomatoes? Etc. Etc.
Apples? Oranges? Peaches? Always been Perennial. It sure would be hard to have to plant Apple trees every year.....
Maybe there are crops that used to be annual and are now perennial. Got some examples maybe?
Corn that is GMO cannot be used as seeds for the next years crop. Anything not invented by man will perpetuate itself year after year. Perennial is not the correct term, and potatoes also do better if they are stored, then “seeded”, but they will continue naturally. That was my point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.