Do regulatory agencies really have our best interest at heart?
Originally the blog I had intended to post was about food and how it affects our physical and mental health. As I am not a scientific expert in this area, I sent a draft to someone who has worked in the field of food, agriculture, and food systems for many years. Basically the feedback I received was to be careful of my suggestions about the harms of GMO’s on our physical and mental health; that while my concerns were understandable, there were no peer reviewed studies to support the conclusions I was making. In short, what I was saying needed to be backed up by research.
Now this advice was valuable in several ways, not the least of which is the importance, when addressing the public, to evoke trust. Not having substantiated proof to support what’s said simply becomes another opinion – among a myriad of opinions – that can do more harm than good with regard to public discourse and evolving our collective consciousness. The most valuable insight I gained from this suggestion though was the question it sparked: “what peer reviewed studies have been done to claim that GMO’s are safe in the first place?” For that matter, what rigorous peer reviewed testing has been done with regards to most of the chemicals used in are food system, in our homes (like cleaning supplies, personal hygiene products, et al), and in our communities, to prove they are safe?