Michael Gerson's May 15 op-ed column, "A polluting discourse over GMOs," ignored the reason many or most of us want to avoid foods made with genetically modified organisms: We don't want to consume glyphosates, the active ingredient in most herbicides.
Mr. Gerson ticked off a list of organizations that have given GMO foods the okay. Did he really not find any reputable counterarguments?
Terry Carter, Alexandria
●
Michael Gerson should do his homework. Slow, selective breeding is not the same as inserting the genes of unrelated organisms in a lab setting. There are similarities — and there are also huge differences.
Genetically modified technologies have subtle but far-reaching and potentially harmful consequences to human and animal health. Alterations to genes penetrate the entire organism. Those genes then carry information foreign to the human or animal who ingests the organism. Even if there are no immediate health consequences, long-term side effects for human and animals could include allergies and altered digestion. More devastating indirect side effects are possible through increased toxic chemicals in farming. Glyphosate is just one concern. Use of GMOs eventually requires stronger pesticides and herbicides to be used in food production, leading to the depletion of trace minerals and the destruction of critical soil microbes crucial to human health.
The Agriculture Department’s National Organic Program does not allow genetically modified foods, synthetic herbicides or pesticides for a reason. The human body does not thrive on them. It thrives on food grown following sound farming methods in naturally managed soils. Many small farmers are returning to natural farming, matching and sometimes out-producing the chemically dependent farmers in volume and quality.
Outi and Bill Denny, Elkton