The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis.
. . . [A] growing cadre of scientists, food-safety experts, and farmers—both conventional and organic—suggests that perhaps it isn’t GMOs we should reject, but an industrial food system that employs them in irresponsible ways.
. . . .
Anyone who objects to GMOs based solely on distrust of Monsanto, . . .might consider the very real benefits they can impart. David Sutherland likes to remind his vegan pals about the potential of GE vegetables to deliver nutrients—like omega-3 fatty acids—that are typically lacking in plant-based diets. . . .
. . . . Globally, GE crops have reduced pesticide applications by 37 percent while boosting yields by 22 percent and farmer incomes by 68 percent, according to a 2014 meta-analysis con-ducted by Germany’s University of Göttingen.
. . . .
. . . . “If you’re against Monsanto, fine,” says Sarah Evanega, director of the Cornell Alliance for Science, a group founded to depolarize the GMO debate. “But don’t stand in the way of public-sector scientists trying to deliver modern agricultural technology to farmers around the developing world who need it. That has nothing to do with Roundup Ready corn in Iowa.”
. . . .
. . . .Developed entirely in the public sector and distributed free to Hawaiian farmers, the [geneticallly engineered] papaya has become a poster child for benevolent biotechnology. . . . “But this was before GMOs became heavily politicized,” says Evanega. . . . “Since then, the public sector has not been able to develop this technology,” she adds. “Those pushing for excessive regulations have actually done the Monsantos of the world a favor by eliminating the competition.”
Read full, original post: Still Life with Mass Hysteria: Are GMOs Really That Bad?