It Can be Declared that the Scientific Debate Over GMO is Closed.
By Jerry Rogers
The scientific debate over the risks associated with genetically modified organisms (GMO) is over; the science is absolutely settled.
For anti-GMO activists to say otherwise—i.e., that GMO are not adequately tested, or that they are harmful—they have to either cherry pick the data from politically tainted, scientifically-challenged sources, or these (scare) activists are simply denying the science.
There have been 2,000 studies documenting that GMO science does not pose a risk to our health and GM foods are as safe as or safer than conventional or organic foods.
Yet, the activists still ring the anti-GMO alarm. The failure of these anti-GMO activists to consider science when advocating policy betrays their true motive: kill bio-science and disrupt the market.
The sad truth is that the activists have an ulterior agenda centered on discrediting and banning GMO science. They believe that what we eat and drink is their business. They are seeking to disrupt the free market and destroy biotechnology by ignoring the science and scaring people about what’s in their food.
Well, now we have more science to confirm all the rest of the science. Writing in the October issue of the Journal of Animal Science, in the most comprehensive study of GMO ever conducted, University of California-Davis Department of Animal Science geneticist Alison Van Eenennaam reviewed 30 years of livestock productivity and health data from both before and after the introduction of genetically engineered animal feed.
What does the science say? The science says (again) that GM feed is safe and nutritionally equivalent to non-GM feed.
Considering the size of the dataset, it can convincingly be declared that the scientific debate over GMO is closed.
Jerry Rogers is vice president at the Institute for Liberty and the founder of Capitol Allies, an independent, nonpartisan effort that promotes entrepreneurship, economic growth, and free enterprise.