Arlington, VA (TFC)- Purdue University’s president– a genetically modified food advocate–made a pleading call to industry leaders recently. Republican Mitch Daniels invoked both private and non-private “leaders” to unite as a coalition against anti-GMO rhetoric. Daniels’ personal brand of advocacy, moving away from cold scientific venture, attempts to turn GM naysayer ethos against itself.
“The attack on GMO technology is the most blatant anti-science of the age”, Mitch declared at Arlington’s annual outlook forum, “but it’s far worse than that.” “Lives are at stake”, says Daniels, Tribune Star reports, “and while scientists, regulators, and business people are naturally reluctant to fight back, it’s morally irresponsible not to.”
After citing projections of a 70% increase in food demand by 2050, Daniels plugged Purdue studies and programs on the issue. One such recent university study, Tribune Star reports, details a hypothetical future where GMO’s are banned. If a 17% greenhouse gas emission increase isn’t enough, the study anticipates “at least” a $14 billion increase in annual food costs. “Thousands of studies and trillions of meals consumed prove the safety of biotechnologies”, says Daniels. “We would never withhold medications with a safety record like that, and it’s just as wrong and just as anti-scientific to do so for food.”
The track record of such technologies, however, is not as unblemished as Mitch’s confident endorsements portray. Some of the very same researchers he so zealously supports have also been persecuted as whistleblowers. Many told of lab rats plagued with grotesque tumorous cancers, delicate experiments rushed by corporate time tables, falsified data, suppressed studies, intimidation and exile. All that aside, several more accepted studies relay the ecological hell wrought by GMO agriculture. Unintended consequences like cross pollination and the poisoning of water and land, to the point where life ceases to flourish normally. Before it could make history as the first genetically modified food animal, GMO salmon was boycotted by millions. The unending spraying of augmented pesticides once used in wars, amongst many other “blemishes”, are never acknowledged by Daniels or his colleagues.
In light of such realities, declaring GMO-rejection as immoral is a tad, well, disingenuous. Perhaps genetically modified foods, if created properly under thorough research conditions, are valuable to the future. Their current manifestations, however, are not scientific byproducts but monstrosities which sprang from a diseased womb corrupted by greed and agenda.
Which is more immoral: demanding experimental foods be properly tested, or using subversive politics to empower the agro-industry? Former Governor of Indiana Mitch Daniels, with a long history of cooperation with big-agro, know’s this all too well. His renewed vigor comes as Hungry joins scores of nations who’ve literally set fire GMO crops, and others regulate their use. Such things, when dealing with the opinions of politicians, must be considered when such strong advocacy arises.