Seeds of Conflict

[thesummerqueen]

ಠ_ಠ

Seeds of Conflict
Genetically modified corn and soy dominate U.S. farms, but activist raids have kept Europe GMO-free. The fight over the next Green Revolution has just begun.

I think you have to register (for free) to see the article.

The heart of the conflict, in my opinion:

While the first transgenic plants sparked fear and controversy, suspicion seemed to stop at the fields’ edge. The same basic methods are used to coax bacteria and algae to synthesize plastics and biofuel. The pharmaceutical industry uses genetically modified bacteria and animals to produce insulin, vaccines, and a wide variety of drugs. Such applications, Paarlberg argues, are widely accepted because they provide clear benefit to consumers in the form of green fuel or reliable medicine.

and

Perhaps that is because genetically modified crops, which boost productivity and lower cost of chemicals and fuel, benefit multinational corporations and farmers, but not consumers themselves. And to scientists like Jacobsen and van Montagu, that is most frustrating of all.

---

Follow up

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/collid...UhprBe-pkR

The Discover headline was so promising: “Anti-GMO Grass-Roots Effort Gains Ground in U.S.” I hoped it would be about just how strange the alliances in the anti-GMO movement are. We have groups like the Environmental Working Group and the Union of Concerned Scientists working alongside organic industry boosters and organic food companies. And then there are the (louder and shriller ) groups that claim dire risks from GMO foods. So this opposition in the U.S. is a topic that deserves closer examination.

Instead, what I found is a piece that repeated–almost without challenge–misleading claims about GMOs stated by anti-GMO activists. Most of these claims are at best half-truths. Let me be up front: I can’t write about everything I think is misleading in this piece. There’s just too much. But, there are a few ideas that are repeated uncritically which are far more interesting than this piece lets on.

Probably the most common claim of anti-GMO activists is that GMOs are untested and unsafe. Charles Benbrook, an organic proponent (why is a proponent of organic and opponent of GM merely labeled an “agricultural policy expert”?) is quoted in the story saying that the “science just hasn’t been done.” That’s just not true. There are hundreds upon hundreds of studies. Genetically engineered crops are some of the few foods tested before they come on the market and all the data is on the EPA’s website. This testing is not typically the case for non-biotech foods. In the 1950s, the kiwi fruit was introduced to the U.S. without testing. We’ve since learned that it’s allergenic. More recently, new celery varieties have resulted in contact rashes in workers due to increased amounts of natural toxicants called psolarens (similarly, new potato varieties sometimes develop excess toxic solanine).

But there’s a kernel of truth behind the not tested claim. David Schubert (who is cited in the piece as a biologist without noting his association with the anti-GMO campaigner Jeffrey Smith) is very careful when he says: “no significant safety testing is required by FDA.” That is absolutely true. All safety testing done on GMO crops is voluntary. But even though it’s voluntary, every company has complied! The lack of mandatory testing does unnecessarily worry people: what good is the FDA if it can’t even require safety testing for food? This is perhaps why the American Medical Association recommended mandatory safety testing, despite also saying current GMO foods are safe and labeling is unnecessary. Pre-market testing should probably be mandatory, but it’s just not the case that GMOs are untested before going to market.

Bolding mine.