During the Agricultural Outlook Forum in Arlington last week, Mitch Daniels, Purdue University President, once again called for anti-GMO groups to stop attacking the use of the biotechnology in agricultural production while calling on public, private and nonprofit leaders to fight against attackers.
“The attack on GMO technology is the most blatant anti-science of the age, but it is far worse than that,” Daniels said during his keynote speech. “Lives are at stake, and while scientists, regulators and business people are naturally reluctant to fight back, it’s morally irresponsible not to.”
Daniels cited projections by the United Nations that the global population is expected to grow to more than 9 billion people in 2050, generating a 70 percent increase in the demand for food. He described GMOs as the best hope to ensure the world’s poor have access to an affordable and nutritious diet.
“Thousand of studies and trillions of meals consumed prove the safety of biotechnologies,” he said. “We would never withhold medications with a safety record like that, and it’s just as wrong and just as anti-scientific to do so for food.”
Daniels also praised Purdue and other land-grant universities for making the world’s food supply not only safer and more abundant, but far friendlier to the environment.
4 Comments on “End GMO Attacks Calls Purdue U President Daniels”
In 2010, Progressive Farmer magazine reported that 6% of all farms (121,000 farms) produce 75% of all farm sales. As consolidation continues and health outcomes decline (2/3 of our nation is now overweight or obese, helping to spawn a plethora of nutrition-related diseases), farmers are summoned to further increase yields, planting corn and beans that either produce pesticides or are tolerant of pesticide applications. There’s more than a few problems resulting from over-reliance on these monocultures (herbicide-resistant weeds as an example), but now farmers may be counted among the endangered species, as most are now reliant on your “sound science” approach, while facing years of operating below the cost of production. Does this sound like a healthy food and agriculture system, one that the world should depend on? It may look good on corporate balance sheets, but it doesn’t look so rosy in farm country.
In 2010, Progressive Farmer magazine reported that 6% of all farms (121,000 farms) produce 75% of all farm sales. As consolidation continues and health outcomes decline (2/3 of our nation is now overweight or obese, helping to spawn a plethora of nutrition-related diseases), farmers are summoned to further increase yields, planting corn and beans that either produce pesticides or are tolerant of pesticide applications. There’s more than a few problems resulting from over-reliance on these monocultures (herbicide-resistant weeds as an example), but now farmers may be counted among the endangered species, as most are now reliant on your “sound science” approach, while facing years of operating below the cost of production. Does this sound like a healthy food and agriculture system, one that the world should depend on? It may look good on corporate balance sheets, but it doesn’t look so rosy in farm country.
I have yet to find those “thousand of studies” proving the safety of biotechnologies. Can Mitch Daniels please provide me with at least the top ten independent longitudinal (multi-generational) studies proving safety on animal and human populations?
As a dietitian with a degree in nutritional science and food systems, I have concerns for public health and how we nourish present and future generations based on a different data set, including these three of many examples:
– “GMOs, Herbicides, and Public Health,” N Engl J Med 2015; 373:693-695; http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1505660
– “No Scientific Consensus on GMO safety,” Environmental Sciences Europe; January 2015: http://www.enveurope.com/content/27/1/4/abstract
– Agriculture at a Crossroads. U.N. International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science & Technology for Development: http://www.unep.org/dewa/Assessments/Ecosystems/IAASTD/tabid/105853/Defa
Its important to reference/back up claims of safety and assess long term impacts/ unintended consequences of each application of any new technology. Those of us working in the fields of hunger and nutrition know that poverty and economic injustice are at the root of hunger, not under-production. Keep in mind that we waste close to 30% of food produced. In my opinion, it is “morally irresponsible,” to use Mr. Daniels’ words, to promote a form of agriculture that harms biodiversity, pollinators, water quality, children’s health, and the sustainability of family farmers and rural communities. Here’s a different perspective to consider: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAY65VzOk1U
I look forward to seeing the reference list.
Thank you.
I have yet to find those “thousand of studies” proving the safety of biotechnologies. Can Mitch Daniels please provide me with at least the top ten independent longitudinal (multi-generational) studies proving safety on animal and human populations?
As a dietitian with a degree in nutritional science and food systems, I have concerns for public health and how we nourish present and future generations based on a different data set, including these three of many examples:
– “GMOs, Herbicides, and Public Health,” N Engl J Med 2015; 373:693-695; http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1505660
– “No Scientific Consensus on GMO safety,” Environmental Sciences Europe; January 2015: http://www.enveurope.com/content/27/1/4/abstract
– Agriculture at a Crossroads. U.N. International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science & Technology for Development: http://www.unep.org/dewa/Assessments/Ecosystems/IAASTD/tabid/105853/Defa
Its important to reference/back up claims of safety and assess long term impacts/ unintended consequences of each application of any new technology. Those of us working in the fields of hunger and nutrition know that poverty and economic injustice are at the root of hunger, not under-production. Keep in mind that we waste close to 30% of food produced. In my opinion, it is “morally irresponsible,” to use Mr. Daniels’ words, to promote a form of agriculture that harms biodiversity, pollinators, water quality, children’s health, and the sustainability of family farmers and rural communities. Here’s a different perspective to consider: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAY65VzOk1U
I look forward to seeing the reference list.
Thank you.