The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
PDF versionTwo sides of Rome, two sides on GMOs
Can genetically-modified food crops feed the worlds hungry? Two opinions
May. 19, 2009
Soybeans and corn are the top two most widely grown genetically-modified crops, followed by cotton, rapeseed (or canola) and potatoes
The Vatican's Pontifical Academy of Sciences is sponsoring a May 15-19 "study week" in Rome on genetically modified organisms, led by German scientist Ingo Potrykus, a Catholic and the inventor of "golden rice." The meeting brings together roughly 40 scientists and activists, the vast majority of whom agree with Potrykus that opposition to GMOs is costing lives and standing in the way of a second "Green Revolution" in the developing world.
Meanwhile, a small demonstration Monday morning on the other side of Rome, far away from the Vatican, presented an anti-GMO Catholic voice not represented in the Academy for Sciences meeting. One placard read: “Pontifical Academy, do not ally with those who, promoting GMOs, contribute to hunger in the world.”
The following two interviews reflect the two sides of the debate, heard in two different parts of Rome. Professor Bruce Chassy is a food safety expert at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, and is among the participants in the Vatican study week. He's strongly pro-GMO. Irish Fr. Sean McDonagh is a Columban missionary who organized Monday morning's anti-GMO protest. Both spoke to NCR; the following are excerpts from those interviews.
Fr. Sean McDonagh: GMOs are going to create famine and hunger
Professor Bruce Chassy: Resistance to GMOs works against the hungry and poor
Cameroon's Archbishop George Nkuo, lone African bishop at pro-GMO meeting: 'What am I to believe?'
Yesterday's story:
Vatican science academy pushes GMOs as safe way of feeding the hungry
By John L Allen Jr
While many church leaders from the grassroots to bishops are against the spread of genetically modified crops for environmental and justice reasons, the Vatican Academy of Sciences is increasingly in favor what it calls "life-sustaining and lifesaving technologies."
Seeds have to be bought every
Seeds have to be bought every year from the companies who produce them. A farmer can't save and use his own. The seed spreads to other fields contaminating the crop in that field. We have no idea what the long term effects on humans will be. The seeds often contain materials like Roundup so that weeds don't grow and insecticide so that the farmer doesn't have to worry about insects. How good do you think those are for humans? What about bees etc.? What about the land?
No on GMOs. This is big!!! business for large corporations.
The professor addresses the
The professor addresses the big business issue - but once we "modify" anything, there will be consequences. We just don't know what all those consequences will be.
Don't mess with Mother Nature.
Nonsense. We have been
Nonsense. We have been messing with "Mother Nature" for millennia - that is what defines us as humans. Compare today's conventional crops with their wild relatives. Compare breeds of dogs or cattle with their wild relatives. Without "messing with nature" we would be just another species of animals. As for GMOs, leave it to the people who understand the technology. If those who understand it do not fear it, I wouldn't either.
Crop plants have been bred
Crop plants have been bred for centuries in order to improve them. Almost all seeds, including those planted by poor farmers in Africa, have been modified by breeding and selection over time.
We assume farmers are ignorant people who need to be protected by smarter, better informed people. Farmers tend to be highly informed small businessmen who are capable of making tough choices. They can understand the trade-off between higher yield, disease or insect resistance, weed control, etc. and the cost of buying seed annually.
The arguments against GMOs tend to boil down to the idea that "we have no idea about the long term effects". Well, GMO crops -- tomatoes, corn, soybeans, cotton, papaya, etc. -- have been planted on a commercial scale since the 1990s, more than a decade ago. Today, they cover millions of acres on several continents without substantial ill effects. They have been intensely studied, and the supposed ill effects on human health and the environment have simply not materialized.
It's time to let reason and scientific fact prevail over scare tactics and political pressure. Let farmers use the best available technology. GMO crops are the best choice for many of them.
Its not more food that is
Its not more food that is needed, if humans grew more from less, their greed and love of money would result in the same uneven distribution of the worlds resources, maybe even greater. We have enough resources to feed the worls now, but it's the human heart and greeed that gets in the way. What makes anyone think that it would be any different by the GMO's. All that would happen is that farmers would have a greater return on their funds employed and very few woul;d ccare about those whi are starving. The human heart can be the cause of all evil, it can stoop to the lowest thing on this planet, but with the grace of God we can become something quite spectacular. It's not the GMO's that need to change, its the human heart.
Thank you, Mr. Allen, for
Thank you, Mr. Allen, for bringing this important debate to our attention. I would like to see Professor Chassy address the challenging questions that Fr McDonagh raises, regarding long-term safety of GMO, the narrowing of agricultural genetic diversity, and the impact of monopolies on the distribution of food and income among the poor.
Attributing political and economic motives to anti-GMO groups and claiming personal ignorance of capitalism do not strike me as convincing enough.
From what I understand, agri-industries, including GMO-manufacturers, while raising yield, pay scant attention to soil degradation and ecological interdependence. That kind of neglect ought to be troubling!
Great stuff...thanks for
Great stuff...thanks for bring this to our attention and presenting both sides.
btw I lean toward the position of the U of I prof.
GMO? Nuts. In the United
GMO? Nuts. In the United States alone we have millions of animals in shelters. Slaughter them for food. We have billions of tons of pet food fit for human consumption...at least 20% of it should be processed for humans. The vegetable matter used to fill it could be better used too.
Post new comment