|
|
|
MailTribune.com
  • LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

  • State Sen. Herman Baertschiger's and Rep. Sal Esquivel's article on GMO farming (April 28) suggests a "folksy" local approach as opposed to a ban. Unfortunately, they (as well as their supporters) ignore a major factor: the USA has among the most lax existing GMO regulation in the developed world.
    • email print
  • State Sen. Herman Baertschiger's and Rep. Sal Esquivel's article on GMO farming (April 28) suggests a "folksy" local approach as opposed to a ban. Unfortunately, they (as well as their supporters) ignore a major factor: the USA has among the most lax existing GMO regulation in the developed world.
    The USA's GMO regulatory criteria are governed by: 1) focus on the final GMO product, not the development process; 2) regulation based only on verifiable risk; 3) existing statutes considered sufficient to review GMO products. By contrast, the European Union bases its regulatory criteria upon: 1) all GMOs considered as "new food" and subject to extensive study prior to approval by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA); 2) approval criteria include safety, freedom of choice, labeling and traceability; 3) impact upon conventional farming methods.
    We scarcely know enough to allow most GMOs in the first place, let alone assume that the issue can be "worked out" between neighbors. The most obvious concern is GMO seed contamination, but legal implications also are immense. Anyone familiar with Monsanto's history of patent infringement lawsuits against conventional farmers (whose seeds were contaminated by Monsanto GMOs) knows that "Good neighbor farmer" is not in the playbook. — Andrew Kubik, Ashland
Reader Reaction
      • calendar