The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis.
The left can be quite smug about its allegiance to science. And quite selective, too. That’s particularly true of the environmental movement’s relentless and often hysterical attacks on genetically modified food.
. . . .
This is a fight being waged around the country and the world. . . .
Long-standing GMO bans in Africa have blocked rice and other crops modified to combat a variety of childhood ailments associated with abject poverty. The greens have willingly sacrificed children in the false quest to keep food natural.
Any victories the anti-GMO movement achieves is a triumph of superstition over science.
. . . .
GMOs should be considered the environment’s best friend. They allow higher yields, meaning more food can be grown on a smaller footprint. This is essential to meeting the food demands of a growing worldwide population.
Crops can also be engineered to resist drought, cutting down on irrigation and the strain on water supplies in arid regions.
Many crops have been modified to require far less use of pesticides and fertilizer, so fewer harmful chemicals flow into waterways.
. . . crops can also be engineered to improve human health and nutrition.
Far from being monster food, GMOs are an example of science for the public good.
The bill under consideration in the Senate would require a national standard for labeling GMO foods. If those labels come, they should also contain the disclaimer that there are no verifiable risks associated with GMO products.
Read full, original post: Editorial: Base labeling on science, not superstition
