I agree that GMO crops are likely the biggest change in our food supply, possibly in human history. The introduction of a foreign species via gene splicing is new technology with many implications. This is why we find it very unusual that no long term human safety studies were completed.
There are many reasons that GMOs are not helping to feed a growing population. GMOs are not engineered to increase yield or nutrition. Most all GMOs on the market are only engineered to express their own pesticide or to withstand the spraying of herbicides.
Our exposure to herbicides in our environment is at an all time high. In fact, the US Geological Survey's test results in Mississippi showed Roundup in the streams, air and rain. This is a concern since Roundup has been shown to cause birth defects and endocrine disruption.
World hunger is related to lack of money and democracy. People who have money and resources get to eat. People who do not, starve. GMOs have done nothing to stop this from being true. As a matter of fact, some of the most hungry nations in Africa and Haiti and elsewhere refuse foods which contain GMOs or seeds which have been modified.
The increase in the amount of crop planted per acre increased prior to GMOs. It is a result of monoculture style farming.
I would ask you, if GMOs prove to be a health risk and the exposure to the herbicide they are resistant to makes us sick, are they still the answer to feeding the world?
There are millions of Americans who wish to avoid eating GMOs. In fact, on election day in California over six million people voted for labeling. GMOs are either banned or labeled for consumer awareness in over 60 countries around the world. Those who wish to avoid eating GMOs should be afforded that right. It should not be up to the industry to decide what information we get to have about our food, especially when we both agree, it is the biggest change in food in history.
Thank you again for contacting us. I would be happy to address more of your questions or concerns.