By: Garry Auld, PhD, RDN, professor, Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition, Colorado State University
In my opinion, there are far more compelling reasons to label GMOs than concerns over possible health effects.
Only a handful of agro-chemical corporations (Monsanto, Dow) control GMOs; these same corporations have acquired most of the seed companies, i.e., substantial control of the food system now rests with corporations whose profits depend on pesticides. It is naive to think they are designing crops to use fewer pesticides and reduce their profits. Widespread resistance has developed to glyphosate (Roundup) and the next generation of crops will be resistant to far more toxic pesticides — atrazine and 2-4-D. The annual application of billions of pounds of toxins is bad the environment or human health.
Additionally, the predominant agriculture and food systems, typified by infatuation with GMOs, are responsible for 30 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions; 50 percent of GHG if you include deforestation to plant primarily GMO corn and soy for animal feed. GMO proponents argue that these crops are needed to feed the world and address malnutrition — hogwash. It costs hundreds of millions to develop these crops; for-profit companies are not interested in feeding the poor.
If consumers hope to retain some influence on the food system, than they have to know what type of system they are supporting with their purchases. Vote to label GMOs and then vote with your food dollars to support a just, environmentally sustainable food system that actually produces healthy food for everyone.
Corporate controlled GMOs do none of these.
Originally Published: Coloradoan