बहस खत्म हो गया है: आनुवंशिक रूप से संशोधित फसलों सुरक्षित हैं.
That’s the most important takeaway point from the massive study released last week by the National Academy of Sciences, one of the most respected research agencies in the world. A team of 20 scholars—drawn mainly from universities and think tanks, and none from seed companies—spent two years examining more than 900 studies. Its comprehensive report comes in at nearly 400 पृष्ठ.
This is quite an endorsement from our best and brightest. It also affirms what other groups have said in recent years, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, अमेरिकन मेडिकल एसोसिएशन, the European Commission, अमेरिका. खाद्य एवं औषधि प्रशासन, the National Research Council, the World Health Organization and more.
They all agree that GM food is safe. They speak with one voice.
What we have is the very definition of a scientific consensus.
It’s absolutely okay to ask questions about GM food—but it’s not okay to pretend that we don’t have answers about fundamental issues, or to suggest that scientists are dueling over data or tussling over theories.
They’re not. They’re saying that GMOs are safe, just like the earth is round.
The science may be settled, but the politics surely isn’t. Should GM food carry special labels? That’s the hot topic right now. My home state of Vermont is about to implement a law that will require some food with GM ingredients to carry special labels. वॉशिंगटन में, DC the U.S. House has approved a bill that would overturn this decision, blocking states from passing a mishmash of confusing and contradictory labeling regulations. The Senate continues to deliberate.
Here’s what the NAS report says about labels: “The committee does not believe that mandatory labeling of foods with [जीएम] content is justified to protect public health.”
The lawmakers ought to listen to these wise words.
The report should also help answer U.S. District Court Judge Christina Reiss, कौन, in ruling against a preliminary order to halt Vermont’s GMO-labeling law, said that concerns embedded in the law were within the state’s purview. “The safety of food products, the protection of the environment, and the accommodation of religious beliefs and practices are all quintessential governmental interests.
Let me state my interest here. My family raises dairy cows and we grow some of the food we use to feed them. We don’t plant GM crops on our acreage, but I believe that my fellow farmers ought to enjoy access to this positive technology.
The NAS report calls attention to all of the benefits, beyond the simple fact that GM foods are safe to eat: They allow farmers to boost their bottom lines, help them save time, and also protect the environment, such as by enabling more insect biodiversity. “The committee found no evidence of cause-and-effect relationships between [जीएम] crops and environmental problems,"रिपोर्ट कहती है.
GM crops also keep food affordable for consumers. In a recent report on NPR, दान चार्ल्स ने बताया कि कई कैंडी कंपनियों के साथ गन्ना ग्राम शुगर बीट की जगह हैं. परिणाम? Hershey चुंबन की कीमत में जा रहे हैं. GM शुगर बीट की अस्वीकृति, चार्ल्स की रिपोर्ट, "का अर्थ है कि खरीदार भुगतान कर रहे हैं 10 करने के लिए 15 प्रतिशत अधिक' अपने कैंडी में चीनी के लिए.
तो लोग सिर्फ एक बड़ा अंगूठे अप NAS से अर्जित एक खाद्य-उत्पादन तकनीक से बचने की खातिर एक प्रीमियम भुगतान कर रहे हैं.
कि बहुत मतलब नहीं है.
अनिवार्य लेबल न करो, even though they represent a top reason why companies such as Hershey’s are turning away from biotechnology: They figure it’s easier to abandon GM ingredients entirely, as opposed to replacing infrastructure to comply with the directives of Vermont and possibly other states.
Yogurt lovers are about to fork over more, भी. पिछले महीने, Dannon, the country’s leading yogurt maker, announced plans for the feed of its farmers’ cows to be non-GMO within three years.
As a dairy farmer, I happen to know a bit about the price of cow feed. बिल्कुल अभी, non-GMO grain costs about 30 percent more.
I’m also a mom. I look after what my kids eat and try to maintain a family budget. I see the value in a technology that allows farmers to reduce their reliance on herbicides and pesticides. I also wonder why anybody should pay extra for safe food that doesn’t deliver new benefits and in many cases, goes backwards.
We should quit debating GMOs, and start thinking about how to make the most of this remarkable technology.