George Beebe, whom I respect as a farmer, quoted Mark Lynas from a speech at Oxford earlier this year in his letter of April 15 concerning GMO crops. Mr. Lynas has been accused of misleading claims of "helping start the anti-GM movement" by the actual founders in GMWatch.
Mr. Lynas says GM technology can be a benefit to the environment. Yet I ask Mr. Beebe, or anyone, to name one GMO crop that is currently in use that does not have either a pesticide inside it, or is made resistant to more pesticide on it. They contain new, foreign proteins. How does "terminator technology" benefit the environment? Furthermore, are we 100 percent sure that the sudden, unprecedented rise in food allergies in the mid- to late-’90s was only coincidental to the introduction of GMO corn and soy into our food supply in those years? Is there really "overwhelming evidence" of safety with GMO foods as Mr. Lynas claims?
The motive of GMO companies is profit, not safety. That involves enticing our farmers into a vicious cycle that pollutes their own land.
I am 100 percent sure that nature’s corn is good for me and my children. Are you 100 percent sure that GMO food is good for your children?