I originally discussed the need for nutrition professionals to enter the genetic engineering (GE) conversation/GMO debates on the American Society for Nutrition’s (ASN) blog. Neither the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (AND) nor ASN has an official position stance on the science, safety and application of GE foods. I find it highly problematic that these major nutrition professional bodies have not provided any guidance on this controversial issue for their constituents and, ultimately, the public. Call me crazy, but one might think that a professional body representing nutrition might engage in a controversial discussion regarding food… With their absence, I have seen many representing the broader nutrition field and spreading fear about genetic engineering, hardly from an evidence-based perspective.
We can use GE to address real issues in the world, and make our food a bit better. We find a number of examples in the research of ways that GE could substantially improve the food supply. I don’t claim that any of these examples are ready for market immediately (remember: it took a couple versions of Golden Rice to get it right), but rather, they serve as ‘proof of concept’ studies, suggesting that nutrition professionals should get more interested in this technology, and encourage a political/regulatory system (and more importantly, a public) that allows for the tools of genetic engineering to be applied to our food, beyond just traits that benefit farmers. Examples include: allergens, food waste, nutrients, flavor and others.
Too long has this conversation been occurring with the voice of nutrition professionals, when we, and consumers of food, have much to gain from the application of GE.
The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis. Read full, original post: GManifestO, Part 2: Nutrition
