GMO

Last week, I heard an interesting debate on TV5 about pros and cons of Genetically Modified Organisms – more widely known as GMO.

I spent some time to look at this topic and try to make my own opinion on this subject.

I like the concept to use the progress of Science to improve the quality of the product.

However it becomes more frightening when you know the worldwide controversies about GMO and the unlit areas still existing concerning the potential impacts on human health.

Even if Health Organizations officials conclude of no impact on the heath, it remains questionable to know how they can come to this conclusion.

Are tests on animal sufficient to conclude on effect on human being? What is the reliability of these tests? Are these tests and results under control?

Monsanto, American Biotechnological and Agricultural leader remains silent when questioned on this topic and some prooves had been accumulated that showed that Monsanto has falsified some results that showed the negative effects on rat organism.

We may feel nervous as we know that Worldwide producer of GMO and growth hormone is Monsanto. Everybody has in mind the Agent Orange, a highly carcinogenic component produced by Monsanto and used during Vietnam war, which caused the death of more than 500 000 people and caused thousands children to be born with disabilities.

Another question to be asked is if Biotechnological and Agricultural companies considered long term trials to evaluate the potential long-term effect on health.

I am concerned by the fact that the number of cancers has significantly increased as GMO products were introduced in the food chain. A simple and well known example concerns the recent change of the omega3/omega6 in our plate and its effects on our health.

Did any study evaluate the consequences on human health when it was decided to change cattle feeding from grass - well balanced in omega3/omega6 - to industrial corn and soya feeding depleted in omega3 – in order to increase milk, and beef production and make more money?

Probably not as such trials would have taken too much time, would have cost too much money and delayed the introduction of the product for a long period of time. It is probable that economic reasons have prevailed on safety considerations. If it is the case, I wonder how decision makers can consider money in first place before thinking the health of the worldwide population.

On this debate, a specialist said that the United States was the only country that does not require the agro alimentary industry to indicate clearly on the labels if the product is genetically modified. This debate dates from 6 months so decisions might have been taken to resolve this problem.

Saying that and considering the complexity of the topic, I think that everybody should at least have the possibility to make his own choice. An international regulation making mandatory the labeling on packaging on GMO content would be a first step toward a significant improvement.