Alternatives to GMOs

Letters

Editor: Thank you for your editorial on Jewish perspectives on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) ("Lives are in the balance," Jan. 25). This important topic is controversial and I wanted to provide your readers with additional thought for food.

You rightly cite the validity of the Jewish principle of pakuah nefesh, or preserving life, to guide our thinking on GMOs. And as I stated at the Philosophers' Café, most hunger advocates will agree that the leading cause of malnutrition worldwide is unequal food distribution and not inadequate production. Addressing fundamental economic imbalances, they say, will go a long way toward feeding the world.

In terms of increasing food production and reducing pesticide use, particularly in the Third World, many respected authorities claim that improving soil health is key. Rather than following monoculture practices, where rows and rows of a single crop are cultivated, farmers have successfully used proven, safe and low-cost techniques, such as multi-cropping and integrated pest management.

Worldwatch Institute (www.worldwatch.org), the David Suzuki Foundation (www.davidsuzuki.org) and other reputable organizations have documented viable alternatives to controversial GMOs.

Noted European agronomists have joined these organizations in advocating the application of the "precautionary principle" to GMOs. This well-accepted concept calls for authorities to prove something safe before approving its use. Instead, pro-GMO groups openly say "prove it's dangerous, otherwise we assume it's safe." If indeed we follow pakuah nefesh, should we not emphasize proven, inexpensive and safe means to address the roots of hunger?

Steve Lipari, chair
Adam va-Adamah
Environmental Society
Vancouver

^TOP