Genetically modified organisms have been around for over 20 years; The New York Times looks to the fields to see if the technology has lived up to its promises.
The controversy over genetically modified crops has long focused on largely unsubstantiated fears that they are unsafe to eat.
But an extensive examination by The New York Times indicates that the debate has missed a more basic problem — genetic modification in the United States and Canada has not accelerated increases in crop yields or led to an overall reduction in the use of chemical pesticides.
Genetically modified organisms are a technology used by many companies, but often it becomes synonymous with one company.
GMO. It’s a term shrouded in mystery. A scapegoat for real and perceived agricultural and food system ills, the acronym conjures visions of monoculture, pesticides, chemicals, junk food, obesity, and the transformation of life forms into intellectual property. Perhaps the most common menace summoned when “GMO” is uttered: Monsanto. Mentions of genetic engineering (GE) technology, seemingly without fail, result in “but Monsanto” protests, along with amalgamated concerns about food.
The American Council on Science and Health responds to a New York Times article on the paper’s genetically modified organisms’ coverage.
Why America’s supposed newspaper of record has become a voice for anti-biotechnology food activists remains a profound mystery. The only plausible explanation is that this is calculated; the New York Times must be tailoring its reportage to its customers, who consist mostly of well-to-do, organic-food-eating elites. Evidence plays little to no role in the paper’s coverage of controversial scientific issues.
Britain’s vote to leave the European Union may change the country’s agricultural policies, including those focused on genetically modified organisms.
The promise of Britain’s exit from the European Union is to liberate the U.K. from the shackles of damaging EU regulations. So congratulations to Theresa May’s government for scoring its first Brexit victory by getting away from one of Brussels’s worst food obsessions.