A14 | News | Orlando Sentinel Friday, May 9, 2014

Opinion

Howard Greenberg PublisherPaul Owens Opinions Editor

Ideal letters to the editor are brief and to the point. Letters may be edited for clarity orlength. Submissions require the writer’s name, address and day and evening phone numbers.

SOMETHING ON YOUR MIND? Mail: 633 N. Orange Ave., Orlando, FL 32801E-mail: insight@orlandosentinel.comWeb: OrlandoSentinel.com/letters

TOSUBSCRIBE, CALL 407-420-5353

SUBSCRIPTIONRATEPERWEEK, BYCARRIER

7-day Wed-Sun Fri-Sun Sunday

$9.52 $7.41 $5.30 $4.31

E-EDITIONANDDIGITALCOMBO$9.995-weeks

All subscriptionsmay includeup to fourPremium Issuesper year. For eachPremium Issueyour account balancewill be chargedanadditional $1.00 in thebillingperiodwhen the sectionpublishes. Thiswill result in shortening the lengthof your billingperiod. Premium Issuesscheduled in 2014: TheEnvelopeon3/2; Explore Floridaon5/18; Football Previewon8/24;ThanksgivingDayEditionon11/27. Vacationholdsdonot extendyour expirationdate.

All carrier pricesinclude transportationandapplicable Fl.sales tax.Member ofAlliance forAuditedMedia.

ATribunePublishingCompany, LLC. USPS412100, ISSN0744-6055. PublishedeverymorningbyOrlandoSentinelCommunicationsCompany, LLC, 633N.OrangeAve., Orlando,FL 32801. Periodical postagepaid atOrlando, FLPOSTMASTERS.Sendaddress changes toOrlandoSentinel, POBox 2833,MP224Orlando, FL 32802. For customer service call,1-800-359-5353

HOMEDELIVERY

RATES

A new report came out thatcalls Venezuela the most miser-

able country on Earth. After hearingthis, Kim Jung Un said, ‘What do Ihave to do? What do you want fromme?’ ”

— Conan O’BrienNew Study: Fat Bottomed

Girls May Not ‘Make the Rockin’World Go Round’ After All”

— GlossyNews.comUkraine, Russia on Brink of

War; Americans Advised toStock up on Caviar”

— IronicTimes.com

TheNeedle

‘’‘’‘’

THE FRONT BURNER

DANA SUMMERS/TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY

Follow us at @OrlandoOpinion

Like us at facebook.com/orlandoopinion

At OrlandoSentinel.com/opinion: Look for editorialcartoons from around the country,Friday Back Talk polls, Today’s Buzzquestion and national columnists,as well as editorials, letters to theeditor and guest columns you mayhave missed.

Be social

Thehazardof participating in anopinion forumona scientific topicis that science isn’t forged fromopinion.Two juxtaposedviewpoints intheSentinel provide the illusion that they are equallymeritorious sidesof the same issue.As typicalwith a scientific topic linked to apubliccontroversy, oneperspective is basedon significant evidence and theother is emotional,with little scientific base.

As a socially andenvironmentally consciouspublic scientist, I’vealwaysbeenexcitedby transgenic crop technology— familiarly,GMO—yet Ihavebeen skeptical of claims andcautious of implementation.I’veneverhad interest in the companies that commercialize biotechseeds, andnever received any compensationor funding fromthem.Yetafter 30years of studying the topic, I see evidence thatGMObenefitsfar outweigh limitations.

GMOsandGMO-containing foodarenotdebated in scholarlyconferences andarenot apoint of contention among scientistswork-ing inmedicineormodernplant biology. Instead, anydebates are asocial phenomenon, fueledby activist fears, conspiratorial thinking,emotion, low-quality science, “natural”marketing gimmicks, andstrong feelings about “BigAg.” It isan emotional andvisceral dis-cussion, because it is about food,somethingwithdeeppersonalmeaning, and thosewith anagendaexploit that.However,whenwedisengage fromemotion and studythe science,we see that there reallyis nothing to fear.

Biotech critics say that the tech-nologydoesnotwork.Theywill tellyou that all government andaca-demic scientists arepaid stooges forcorporations, that there is no inde-pendent research, regulationortestingwith geneticallymodifiedproducts.They say farmers aredimwits, andcorporations arereapingprofits bykilling everyonewithpoisonproducts.Theywill tellyou thatGMOscause autism, al-lergies, obesity and30otherdis-orders.

The critics’ claimsdon’tmatch the facts. Farmers freely choosebiotech seedbecause they ensure yields, reduce costs anddecreaseinputs like insecticides.Hundredsof independent research reportsshownoevidenceofharm.Today, 70percent of foodon store shelvescontains at least one ingredient fromaGMOplant.The technologyalsobringsus renewable fuels and fiberswith lower environmentalimpact. In trillions ofmeals consumed, therehasnot beena singleconfirmed incidentwith geneticallymodified food linked to ahealthproblem.The safety record is amazing, and reinforcedbyourbestscientific organizations, including theAmericanMedicalAssociation,theNationalAcademies of Science and theAmericanAssociation fortheAdvancement of Science.

Here inFlorida, these technologies couldpotentially stop citrusgreening andother cropdiseases.Around theworld, thepoorest couldbenefit from improvedvarieties andnutrition. Sadly, such innovation isbeing stymiedbymanufacturedperils. Technologieswith tremendouspotential benefits are frozenbecauseof a vigorous anti-scientificmis-information campaign.

Thequestion is notwhether these technologies are safe orwhetherthey shouldbebannedor restricted. Instead, here iswhatwe shouldbediscussing:

Willweallowprofiting authors, celebrity chefs andeco-terrorists toarrest thepaceof scientific progress? Shouldprivileged foodactivistsdictatewhat seeds farmersmaygrowandwhat technologiesmayreach thepoor?Willwe tolerate smear campaigns against reason,science and scientists, like thosewagedagainst those that advocate forclimate science, evolutionor vaccines? Is it ethical for fearmongers tolie to concernedparents about food, especiallymotherswith limitedmeans?Willweallowacadreof the Internet’s self-appointed expertsto coercepoliticians into clunky andunnecessary regulation?

These are the real questions in theGMOdebate.

KevinM.Folta is anassociate professor and chairmanof theHorticultural SciencesDepartment at theUniversity of Florida.

By KevinM. Folta | Guest columnist

Despite GMO benefits,hysteria checks progress

Will wetoleratesmearcam-paigns

against reason, sci-ence and scientists,like those wagedagainst ... climatescience, evolutionor vaccines?

Theuseof genetically engineeredcropshasgreatly increased infrequencyover thepast several years.Biotechnologygiants likeMon-santoandDuPonthavequicklygainedadominant shareof themarketby supplying farmerswithgenetically engineered soybean, corn, cottonandother seeds.

So,what’s theproblemwith this rapidaccelerationof geneticallymodified food?

According to theU.S.DepartmentofAgriculture, better than90percentof the topU.S. crops—suchas corn, cottonandsoybeans—aregenetically engineered.That’s amajor jumpsince the turnof thedec-ade.With that, comes theconcomitant riseofpesticideandherbicideuse in theUnitedStates.Conventionalpesticides andherbicidesusedon farmsmore thandoubled from400millionpounds in themid-1960sto850millionpounds in1980.Agricultural pesticideuse jumpedagainin1994—up11percent fromthepreviousyear.

This escalationposes apotentiallyharmful impactonourhealthandlocal ecosystemsdue to the fact thatmostGMcropsalreadyareengi-neered toproduce their ownpesticides.

Geneticallymodifiedcropsalsoare resistant to chemicals,whichincludeRoundup.This allows farm-ers tokillweedswith this chemical,glyphosate,withoutharming theircrops.Theabilityof theplant tobeunaffectedbychemicalshas re-sulted in the increaseduseof gly-phosate.

Somestudies suggest the in-creaseduseof glyphosate, patentedbyMonsanto in1970,maybe linkedtoanumberofhealthproblemsanddiseases, includingParkinson’sdisease, infertility andcancers.However, longitudinal researchonthe topic is lacking.

Themainpointhere is thatweareunawareof the impactof thesechemicals onourbodies,whicharebeing increasingly added toourbodyburden (theaggregatevolumeof toxic chemicals existing in the

humanbodyat agiven time) as theyentrenchandblanketourenviron-ment.

Theamountofherbicides andpesticidesusedon farms for agricul-tural purposeswill only increasewith thecurrent stateofpolitical af-fairs.Most commodity cropsarenot eatenas-is, but aremade intoadditives likehigh-fructose corn syruporhydrogenatedoils that go intothewidearrayof junk foodspresentongrocery-store shelves acrossAmerica.Corn, soy,wheat, rice andcottonare someof themostheavilysubsidizedcommodity crops turned intoartificial syrupsandsweeten-ers.

So, notonly arewesubsidizing junk food, but also themajorityofcropsarebecomingGMOs—ofwhichweareunsureof thebiologicalandecological consequences.

Since it is clear that legislative reform is slow incoming regardingBigAgribusiness, FloridaPIRG, a statewideadvocacyorganization,hascampaigned topromotecorporate accountabilitybyputtingpressureongrocery-store chains to labelGMOs.Doing sowill set the stage forbroaderenforcementof thesepolicies in the future, throughregulation.

It is theconsumer’s right toknowwhatour foodcontains. Since late2013,Chinahas rejected shipmentsofAmericancorn.The reason:Chinadoesn’t endorsegeneticmodifications to foodproducts.

TheWall Street Journal recently reported rejectionofGMfoodsbyforeignnationshas so far cost graincompanies$427million in sales.Polls consistently showmore than90percentof thepublic supportslabeling in theUnitedStates, andnowAmericancompanies are losingbusiness toothernations thathaveoutlawedGMOconsumption. It’sjust smartbusiness sense for companies togive their customerswhattheywant.

Iwould say letushave someaccountability inour foodandhaveproper testingconductedof the foodweareconsuming, and thedam-ageweareaccountable for in theenvironment.

DalynHouser is aprogramassociatewithFloridaPublic InterestResearchGroup.

By Dalyn Houser | Guest columnist

Americans deserve to knowwhen there’s more on menu

We areunawareof the im-pact ofthesechemicals ... whichare being increas-ingly added to ourbody burden asthey ... blanket ourenvironment.

Pull a product off the grocer’sshelf and,more than likely,whatyou’ve reached forwill containamong its ingredients geneticallymodified organisms, orGMOs.

And their (unannounced) pres-ence in some80percent of proc-essed foods andother productshas heatedup controversy.

A geneticallymodified foodhas“had lab-replicated genes fromother plants, animals and evenviruses added to it to give it newcharacteristics,” according toPreventionmagazine.

Health concerns haveprompt-ed some30 countries to banorlimit geneticallymodified crops.Even though theWorldHealthOrganization, in 2005, opined thatgeneticallymodified foods “arenot likely, nor have been shown, topresent risks for humanhealth.”

Similarly, in1992, theFDAdeclared therewasno “material”difference betweenGMOsandunadulterated crops.

Scientists, like one of today’scolumnists, insist the technologynot only is safe, but also canboostcrop yields andpotentially enddestructive plagues such as citrusgreening.

Detractors, like today’s othercolumnist, however, viewGMOsas the scariest three-letter abbre-viationnot spelled IRS.They insistGMOs could potentially harmecosystems and spawncancersandothermaladies.Most of all,she, like better than90percent ofAmericans in a recentThomsonReuters poll, feels consumersdeserve to know through labelingwhat’s in the food they eat.

Genetically modified foods: Safe?

Darryl E. OwensEditorial Writer

By the numbers■ More than 90 perecnt of corn,soybeans, and cotton are nowgenetically modified.■ Between 60 percent and 70percent of processed foods onU.S. grocery-store shelvescontains genetically modifiedingredients.■ More than 90 percent ofAmericans believe GMO foodsshould be labeled, according to a2010 Thomson Reuters poll.

Today’s moderator