Maybe you ’re pro - GM . Maybe you ’re anti - GM . peradventure you ’re OK with genetic modification but only for certain reason . Or possibly you do n’t have an persuasion about genetic modification whatsoever . Whatever camp you eat in , you ’re no doubt puzzle by all of the grandiosity coming from all of the other camp . You might even be confused about the news coming from your own coterie . I am , at least , but I admit that I understand too much food , ag and surroundings news program . ( Like it ’s my job or something . )
So therecent announcementthat researchers at the University of California - Davis limit genetically modified feedstuffs have no negative encroachment on livestock might make some of you cheer . Or it might make some of you need to argue with the researcher . It ’s just one study , but it ’s hard to argue with the data used . The study hoard stock feeding studies from 30 year and 100 billion animate being . Researchers found that food animals consume 70 to 90 percent of all GM crops , and 95 percent of the 9 billion food animals in the U.S. eat GM provender . Take a second to rent that sink in .
Missing PiecesReading this study , I am reminded that we do n’t recognise what we do n’t bang . I ’m not pro - GM for the most part — exceptions always exist — so I read along with peculiarity . After all , there are report showing organic food ishigher in antioxidantsthan conventionally grown food for thought , and these forestall the study record that constitutive nutrient isnutritionally the sameas conventionally raise food . Both sets of researchers believe they are right . So who is , really ? While the farm animal - feeding study intrigue me from an beast - wellness point of view , I understand that it is n’t all - encompassing , and one field of study is n’t going to make me jump on the pro - GMO train . Nowhere in this discipline do investigator declare that GM crops are the best choice overall .
Right after I read the UC Davis announcement , I reada studyin theJournal of Animal Ecologythat says GM crops negatively impact monarch butterfly population . Genetically modified crop and the accompanying pesticide use are also mistrust in bees’colony collapse upset .
Then there ’s the issue of hybrid - pollenation between GM craw , namely canola , and native plants . There ’s also thesuper - mourning band conundrum — herbicide - resistant weeds that have bred themselves through survival of the set — that has GM - crop farmer beside themselves and chemical companies developing more - toxic intermixture that combineherbicidesto take aid of these super weeds .
And there ’s the return of the seed themselves . Farmers do n’t own the GM seeds that they plant ; the company that made the seed owns them . The farmer ca n’t save the seed or apply the seed for any style except for the one that he ratify a contract for . Seed - savinghas become a hot topic around the world with people recognizing the connection between seeds , food and freedom .
Rather than ferment this into an everything - is - wrong - with - GMOs entry , my full stop is that UC Davis ’ GM - livestock - feed study is just one piece of the whole GMO puzzler . It could give way clues to further human - nutrition and solid food - safety studies , too , and some answers in that force field would be ever welcome .
study the wholeUC Davis farm animal eating report , which is being write in the equal - reviewedJournal of Animal Science .
« More The News Hog »
