Editor’s note: The piece below was written by Wayne Parrot, professor of crop science at the University of Georgia, and Val Giddings, senior fellow at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation.
We write to offer a dissenting opinion to that in a Forbes op-ed, “GMOs Have Had A Good But Teachable Moments Lie Ahead”. In contrast to this rosy take, we believe the food industry (in the broad sense) continues to fail to appreciate the nature of the opposition to GMOs …. [Clayton’s] op-ed said 2016 was a good year because Congress passed a law preempting states from meddling with mandatory food labeling for genetically modified foods; the New York Times “corrected” itself by printing a “pro” article following a “con” article on the subject; the National Academy of Sciences came out with (yet another) favorable report reaffirming safety of genetically modified foods; the press has been generally positive about CRISPR; and President Obama said that policies must “follow the science.”
But … Congress did not need to pass a labeling bill, a redundant move precipitated by anti-GMO lobbyists having pushed through a clearly unconstitutional law in Vermont. The New York Times’ editors disregarded an avalanche of expert criticism and responded by raising the status of the “con” article to an editor’s pick. The National Academy report wrongly stated there is a lack of yield benefits from using GMO seeds, a claim contradicted by the papers it cited. And President Obama’s defense of GMOs was tepid at best, while his administration overall had a poor record when it comes to following the science on GMOs.
The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion, and analysis. Read full, original post: Was 2016 really a good year for Agricultural Biotechnology?