When it comes to food, pesticides and drugs, does ‘natural’ mean safer or healthier?

daeef f bf d fd fe
This article or excerpt is included in the GLP’s daily curated selection of ideologically diverse news, opinion and analysis of biotechnology innovation.

From a scientific point of view, an evaluation is done on a case by case basis, whether it is a genetically modified plant, a pesticide or a drug.

A given GMO is designed for expected benefits under specified conditions. But it may be of no interest in a different agricultural or climatic context, even harmful to its environment in the context of bad practices. This is not specific to genetically modified plants but concerns all seeds. Asserting “GMOs are poisons” does not make more sense than pretending they are “without problems”. The controversy leaves the scientific field when the method of obtaining these varieties is the subject of all attention to the detriment of their intrinsic characteristics….

The same is true for pesticides. The distinction between synthetic pesticides and “natural” pesticides makes no scientific sense. All pesticides are “chemicals” and their toxicological profile needs to be considered on a case-by-case basis. The “natural” has no reason to be better than the synthetic….

Related article:  Bangladesh’s embrace of GMO technology may embolden innovation in developing countries  

The common point of mobilization against GMOs in general, against pesticides in general (implied “chemical” or “synthetic”) or in defense of homeopathy in general seems to be the vision that scientific progress is dangerous a priori or that nature is good in principle. Nature is neither good nor bad….

Editor’s note: This article was originally published in French. This summary was prepared with Google Translate.

Read full, original article: GMO, pesticides, homeopathy: science or ideology

Share via
News on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.
Optional. Mail on special occasions.
Send this to a friend