ICYMI: Washington Post op-ed emphasizes morality in GMOs

This post was originally published on GMO Answers' Medium page.

Purdue University President Mitch Daniels recently published an op-ed in The Washington Post about the importance of GMOs – and how they will help feed the world’s growing population. Daniels’ op-ed makes several critical points.

1.There is a clear lack of scientific evidence behind those that argue against GMOs.

“Here, there are no credibly conflicting studies, no arguments about the validity of computer models, no disruption of an ecosystem nor any adverse human health or even digestive problems, after 5 billion acres have been cultivated cumulatively and trillions of meals consumed.”

2.GMOs are the latest technology in a long line of crop science – and they’re sustainable.

“Today, their scientific successors are giving birth to a new set of miracles in plant production and animal husbandry that cannot only feed the world's growing billions but do so in far more sustainable, environmentally friendly ways. And though the new technologies are awe-inspiring, they are just refinements of cruder techniques that have been used for centuries.”

3.Agriculture leaders in developing countries want access to GMOs.

“Travel to Africa with any of Purdue University's three recent World Food Prize winners, and you won't find the conversation dominated by anti-GMO protesters. There, where more than half of the coming population increase will occur, consumers and farmers alike are eager to share in the life-saving and life-enhancing advances that modern science alone can bring.”

4.Wealthy countries advocating against the use of GMOs is immoral.

“For the rich and well-fed to deny Africans, Asians or South Americans the benefits of modern technology is not merely anti-scientific. It's cruel, it's heartless, it's inhumane — and it ought to be confronted on moral grounds that ordinary citizens, including those who have been conned into preferring non-GMO Cheerios, can understand…Efforts to persuade them otherwise, or simply block their access to the next round of breakthroughs, are worse than anti-scientific. They're immoral.”

You can read Daniels’ full op-ed here.