Molecular biology and genetics professor Nina Fedoroff says genetic modification has a good history.
She was among the witnesses testifying at the House Agriculture Committee’s GMO labeling hearing to concur that genetically modified foods are no more of a threat than products from conventionally bred plants and animals.
“GM crops have been in commercial production for almost 20 years, they have an impeccable safety record and multiple environmental benefits,” said Fedoroff, during her testimony Tuesday morning in Washington, D.C., “[GM crops] have boosted farmers’ incomes and reduced consumer prices.”
Organic food marketers have demonized GMOs, while advancing organically-grown foods as more healthful than conventionally-grown foods, according to Fedoroff’s testimony. She says anti-GMO activists openly state that GMO labeling laws will help drive GMOs out of the market.
“Attaching a GM label provides no consumer benefits since GM foods are as safe and nutritious as their non-GM counterparts,” Fedoroff told the committee, “but attaching a label will send the false message that there’s something to worry about because the FDA’s labels are there to alert consumers to food ingredients with health implications.”
Fedoroff cites a statistic that only 37 percent of the general public believes that GMOs are safe, while 90 percent of the scientific community believes they’re safe.
“Now the facts are these,” Fedoroff testified, “organic produce is no more nutritious than conventionally-grown produce. It’s more expensive because organic farming is land inefficient and labor intensive; the organic industry’s false and misleading marketing are a primary reason why consumers believe GMOs are bad and organic food is good.”
Source: www.brownfieldagnews.com