Last week the Salmon Arm Council heard presentations on genetically engineered (GE)crops and food.
It is interesting that Salmon Arm Council chose to only consider information from anti-GMO activists. With no one with real experience in this area of science presenting facts about GE crop technology, there is no way the council could have learned the multitude of falsehoods presented to them by the activists.
Here is the comment from the US National Academy of Science 2011 report- Impact of GE crops on Farm Sustainability in the US: “In general, the committee finds that genetic-engineering technology has produced substantial net environmental and economic benefits to U.S. farmers compared with non-GE crops in conventional agriculture.”
And this from the European Academies of Science 2013 report – Planting the Future:
There is no validated evidence that GM crops have greater adverse impact on health and the environment than any other technology used in plant breeding…There is compelling evidence that GM crops can contribute to sustainable development goals with benefits to farmers, consumers, the environment and the economy.”
I am sure the council never saw these statements.
How exactly does the complete lack of credible science information on GE crops serve the citizens of Salmon Arm? When pseudo-science drives public policy the result is bad public policy.
Robert WagerVancouver Island University
