Michael Jacobson, Executive Director for the Centre for Science in the Public Interest, has written what is generally a supportive argument for GMOs in agriculture. His editorial, in the organization’s May 2009 newsletter, while critical of the fact that many GM foods developed in Canada haven’t really been of any benefit to consumers, outlines some of the positive effects of agricultural biotechnology, examples of which are mainly found in other countries. Some of these examples include golden rice, a water-preserving mustard plant, and pesticide-resistant crops which have resulted increased yields in several other countries, with less expense and risk related to pesticide use. In Canada, one of our staples, the soybean, has been genetically altered for reduced trans fats, or introduction of omega-3 fats, in the oil. According to Mr. Jacobson, these are not yet market-ready, but the closest thing we have to a GM food offering nutritional benefits to Canadians.
What I like about Mr. Jacobson's article is that, while public safety is important, and some evidence suggests that certain GM products may cause adverse health effects, he concludes the regulatory system should not be stifling to an industry that holds promise for improving not only the health of consumers AND the environment, but the welfare and prosperity of farmers around the world. Those who read my blog regularly likely know that one of my favourate terms is the precautionary principal! I agree that a rational system for regulation, run by cool heads, is the likely way to reap the benefits of technology without putting ourselves, or the environment, at risk.
Comments