Facts not fear around GMOs needed in the classroom
Teachers can be some of the most influential figures in a child’s life. Their feedback and opinions can leave lasting impressions on young minds. I have had many teachers who inspired me to achieve more than I ever thought I was capable of, and others whose classrooms I couldn’t get out of fast enough. There is one university professor in particular that made a lasting impression on me. Oddly enough, this story actually has something to do with Rachel Parent as well.
I graduated from the Ontario Agriculture College (OAC) with a Bachelor’s of Science degree in Agriculture this past spring. I was blessed with many wonderful professors that helped shape my career and made me question my own opinions and challenge my reasoning.
This story is about one professor who was particularly impactful. His name was Dr. John Walton. Dr. Walton began teaching at OAC in 1979 after emigrating from England. He was everything you would expect of an elderly British man and everything you could hope for in a professor: he had a quirky sense of humor, was passionate about the subject he taught, and had the uncommon talent of being able to deliver honest praise and criticisms to students in a way that helped them improve.
Dr. Walton had always been one of my biggest supporters, he encouraged me to write and continue sharing agriculture’s story and the science behind the technologies farmers choose to use. A few months ago I wrote an open letter to Rachel Parent, the young woman that publicly offers opinions on food safety and biotechnology. While it’s great to have young people engaged in a discussion around agriculture and food, it’s unfortunate that Parent’s views lack scientific depth or justification.
Dr. Walton and I discussed that I suspected Parent’s stance was heavily influenced by her father, the owner of a multi-million-dollar organic supplement company, Nutrition House. Dr. Walton applauded my letter but he also reminded me that my views were also likely influenced by the people in my life. He challenged me to make sure that I consider every argument that I agree with with the same scrutiny that I use to analyze every argument I disagree with. He encouraged me to always dig out the scientific truth, whether I like it or not.
I’m well-versed in the pro-GMO/anti-GMO debate and the intricacies and politics that can cloud how we see the science. I have read the material that Parent cited in her article, and last fall I attended a lecture given by anti-GMO activist Vandana Shiva. I wanted my opinions to be as scientifically sound as possible and that meant listening to all the arguments.
Parent’s previous article extols the value of presenting balanced information while presenting a narrow, biased view of the evidence. The article cites the alleged dangers that genetically engineered crops (“GMOs”) pose to a child’s health and the well-being of the environment. It fails however to offer any scientific evidence to actually support these claims. Genetic engineering is one of history’s most widely-studied innovations; more than 2000 studies have assessed the impact of this technology on the environment and human health. The scientific consensus is resoundingly positive. There is no increased risk to human health, and only well-anticipated and understood environmental impacts from the use of GM crops, as compared to their conventionally-bred counterparts. You can find some of those references here and here.
The article also raises claims that GM technology is not a universal solution to feeding the world’s growing population. To assume that a problem as complex as global hunger could be solved with the use of a single technology would be incredibly naïve. However, to acknowledge that GM technology is not a cure-all-silver-bullet does not detract from the potential value of these tools for both small, subsistence farmers in developing countries, or for large-acreage farmers in Canada or the United States.
In fact, just this past February the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations stated that GM technology is a valuable tool for global farmers too meet the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and help mitigate the impact of climate change. A short summary of their meeting can be read here. Not using the technology that we have available, or continuing to research and develop new technologies because of scientifically unsupported fears could cause more harm than good.
Parent mentions that food waste is a more serious challenge facing global hunger than lack of production. Food waste is an important concern, and does contribute to global hunger; however, the people I am concerned about face malnutrition and do not have the food to waste. GM technology has the potential to create varieties capable of growing on the marginal land previously unsuitable for agricultural production, as well as providing subsistence farmers with insect and disease tolerant traits.
In the Western world, food waste is being addressed with the aid of GM technology. Two specific innovations, the Arctic Apple (a non-browning apple) and the Innate potato (a bruise-resistant potato), are designed specifically to reduce food waste and provide a longer life span for produce. A win for not only North American consumers but given time could also be seen as a way to get more fresh produce to developing countries where the climate is often not conducive to growing their own produce.
Finally, there is continuous misrepresentation of the impact that corporations have on the researchers and students at universities, and coordinated defamation of scientists whose perspective does not align with the activist agenda. This ‘attack the messenger’ behavior fails to bring any additional value to a scientific discussion, and it continues to convolute an already complex narrative.
The desire to raise a balanced argument is appreciated, however, the presentation of inaccurate evidence to achieve a false sense of balance is no balance at all. I think we would do well to take the advice that Dr. John Walton gave me. Thoroughly challenge your own beliefs with the same enthusiasm you use to dissect the opposing points. Do your best to start with an open mind and trust the integrity of scientific fact and reasoning. We should be teaching students to consult the findings of our leading scientific and medical associations for the answers to their questions, to analyze the evidence and reach their conclusions on their own accord. It isn’t propaganda, it’s sound, honest, peer-reviewed science.
Lauren Benoit is a 2016 BSc. (Agr) graduate from the University of Guelph who was raised on a grain farm just outside of Kirkton, ON. Lauren has a background in crop protection research and is currently working for CropLife Canada as a Science and Regulatory Affairs Intern. She has plans to begin an MSc. degree in weed science at the University of Guelph in January 2017.