They say there are two sides to every story, and that is most certainly true when it comes to the story about the genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, in our food chain.
There is the side of producers, and there is the side of consumers.
For producers, the technology of genetic engineering has made the job of growing food much easier. Before GMOs, a farmer had to go out into the fields to cull weeds and pests by hand and machine. With GMOs, crops can be sprayed with herbicides and infused with pesticides, and thus one farmer can now grow thousands of acres of crops with no weeds or pests.
To protect this transformative technology, biotech agriculture lobbied government for a “Farmer Assurance Provision” that would allow their GMOs to be planted anywhere at anytime without interference from laws or courts.
For a significant number of consumers, there is uncertainty with respect to the efficacy of eating foods that have been saturated in herbicides and infused with pesticides, and they have taken to calling that government Provision the “Monsanto Protection Act.”
Two sides of the story: Farmer Assurance Provision or Monsanto Protection Act.
And so we ask…
What does agriculture hope to accomplish with its Farmer Assurance Provision? Why do many call the Farmer Assurance Provision the Monsanto Protection Act? And…
What’s to eat in the Monsanto Protection Act? (Food Chain Radio & Forums #924)
(Tags: biotech, genetically-modified organisms, GMOs, Farmer Assurance Provision, Monsanto Protection Act, pesticides, herbicides, farming, GE food, Terry Wanzek, agriculture, North Dakota)