Experts respond with real science after The Independent runs pro-GMO articles

(NaturalNews) Leading the charge for more honest inquiry and debate, a cohort of scientists, professors, academics and other leading experts in agriculture is challenging a series of articles published in The Independent, a UK paper, that promote biotechnology and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) as the solution to world hunger.

After running several pro-GMO articles recently, The Independent began receiving letters from folks familiar with the science behind the controversial technology, warning that it isn't what it seems. The science is inconclusive on the safety and effectiveness of GM crops, many of them explained, and yet the mainstream media continues to trot out stories of unfettered support for their use.

One of the articles countering claims that GMOs are the future of food explains how, contrary to popular belief, they haven't actually reduced chemical inputs or improved yields. Many farmers are abandoning the technology, in fact, because it doesn't work, and it locks them into a perpetual system of corporate control and debt.

"The industry's claims that GM crops yield more are countered by stories of American farmers moving back to higher-yielding non-GM varieties," wrote Peter Melchett, policy director at the UK-based Soil Association, for The Independent.

"An industry-supported paper claiming GM crops led to a dramatic reduction in chemical sprays is countered by scientific papers using US government data which show, overall, spray use has increased since GM crops were introduced."

GMOs are making it harder to farm, are causing more pollution and aren't delivering higher yields

Melchett goes further to explain that GMOs aren't feeding the world but are actually making it much harder to farm in many areas where so-called "superbugs" and "superweeds" have taken over as a result of chemical-induced pesticide resistance.

"People are hungry today because they do not have access to nutritious food -- lacking either the money to buy it or the land or other means to grow it -- not because of an insufficiency of food produced, GM or otherwise," added Clare Oxborrow, along with Melchett and a number of other scientists, professors and experts, in a separate letter to The Independent.

"The real scandal is not opposition to GM crops, but why GM continues to get funding and political support when it is failing to deliver; when the plethora of innovative and sustainable agricultural practices delivering real solutions for farmers, communities and the environment globally get minimal support."

The real solution to world hunger is to diversify and decentralize agriculture, not consolidate it into the hands of a few powerful multinational corporations. Low-input, organic farming methods, in other words, are the best bet the world has at generating enough food to feed a population that is expected to grow to 9.6 billion people in 2050, according to the Pew Research Center.

"The science of GM food risk assessment has progressed much since 2004, and a small, but troubling share of peer-reviewed studies point to previously unforeseen risks," added Dr. Charles Benbrook from the Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources at Washington State University, in yet another letter to The Independent.

"The recent reclassification of glyphosate as a 'probable human carcinogen' by the World Health Organisation is the latest in a series of ominous developments in the world of GM food safety."

To learn more about the dangers of GMOs and why they aren't at all necessary -- and are actually detrimental -- to achieving truly sustainable agriculture, be sure to check out the Earth Open Source GMO Myths and Truths report, second edition:
EarthOpenSource.org.

Sources:

http://www.independent.co.uk

http://www.independent.co.uk

http://www.independent.co.uk

http://www.independent.co.uk

http://www.pewresearch.org

http://earthopensource.org