Nov 23, 2014
Home / Food / Food Safety / Discussing Organics and Biotech with Alex Avery

Discussing Organics and Biotech with Alex Avery

As you all know the debate around food safety continues to rage on.  As we have discussed on this site before, the debate many times comes down to the discussion around combating the theory by many consumers that organic food is more healthy and better for the environment.  What we see on tv is people like Michael Pollan talking about the safety of organic food as if it has been verified scientifically for generations.  To me Pollan’s viewpoints and arguements are extreme.  I sometimes ask myself why do I never hear extreme pro modern agriculture commentators.

Well enter Alex Avery.

When I was at the Tiffin Conference in Lethbridge back in March I had the chance to talk to Alex Avery from the Hudson Institute about the organic versus modern farming debate. It will not take you long to figure out where Alex stands but I think it is important that we do consider some of the things that he says just like we do with Pollan.

I think most people sit in the middle between the views of Pollan and Avery.  People really just want safe food whether it is biotech or organic.  People like the idea of choice and it is not an all or nothing proposition. There will never be a world without biotech or without organics.

I will post more of my interview with Alex in the future.  Let me know what you think of his comments and whether his viewpoints are accurate or misaligned with your feelings.

If you cannot see the below video, Click Here

About Shaun Haney

Avatar of Shaun Haney
Shaun grew up on a family seed farm in Southern Alberta. Haney Farms produces, conditions and retails wheat, barley, canola and corn seed. Shaun Haney is the founder of RealAgriculture.com.

One comment

  1. Food genes are private property and those biotech, chemical companies have been rather aggressive when it comes to patent infringement, I hear.

    Maybe that’s wrong? I think, it should be made somehow into a public patent. If it is after all meant to ensure food security (then profits shouldn’t be the overarching goal), then it should be a public patent in my (naive, fanciful) mind.

    Are we going to alleviate the problem regarding longitudinal studies (or the supposed lack thereof) concerning biotech’s transgenic crops on rats and humans?

    GMOs are generally regarded as safe, according to the FDA, and reportedly very well studied, but is that true? Have we performed repeated, in-depth longitudinal studies (longer than the 90 day period) or are we just looking at the effects of feeding BT corn and GMO tomatoes to mice for only up to the 90 day point and calling THAT safe? I need to do my own research on that one before I point the blame anywhere specific.

    If we’re not doing longitudinal studies, if the goal of these big AG companies are patent profits and owning global food supply, and that’s overriding the altruistic cause of treating problems of global food shortages, then we need to frame the discussion on corporate influence and safety. Those are the two main issues of the anti-GMO camp, which I am humbly a part of (only because the lobby fights so hard against Prop 37). I’m not against the idea of genetic engineering, but I have a gut-feeling that industry has an itchy trigger finger when all they see are dollar signs.

Leave a Reply

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>