A rarity in the world today, the South American nation of Peru has yet to be contaminated by the import, cultivation, or breeding of any genetically-modified (GM) crops — at least not openly — unlike some of its nearby neighbors like Brazil that have openly and willingly accepted them. And the recent decision by Peru’s Plenary Session of the Congress to enact a ten-year moratorium on GMOs, in direct defiance to previous governmental pushes for legalization, represents a huge victory for Peruvians.
Even though a recent test conducted by the Peruvian Association of Consumers and Users (ASPEC), a non-profit organization that promotes and defends the rights of Peruvian consumers, revealed the presence of GM contaminants in about 77 percent of supermarket products it tested (http://www.livinginperu.com/news/14842), at least the country itself will not be contributing to the spread of GM pollution around the world.
Anibal Huerta, President of Peru’s Agrarian Commission, stated that the ban was necessary to prevent the “danger that can arise from the use of biotechnology.” At least someone in a position of governmental authority is willing to admit the truth about GMOs, mainly that they contaminate the food supply with untested “Franken-genes,” put an immense chemical burden on the environment, and are implicated in a wide variety of disorders and illnesses (http://www.naturalnews.com/GMO.html).
He and the many other congressmen who supported the moratorium also cited agricultural biodiversity as another reason why GMOs needed to be banned. Biotech crops, of course, are responsible for replacing formerly diverse, self-sustaining agricultural systems with endless fields of GM crops like corn and soybeans.
“There is an increasing consensus among consumers that they want safe, local, organic fresh food and that they want the environment and wildlife to be protected,” wrote Walter Pengue from the University of Buenos Aires in Argentina, in a recent statement concerning GMOs in South America. “South American countries must proceed with a broader evaluation of their original agricultural policies and practices using the precautionary principle.”
Sources for this story include:
by: Jonathan Benson
If you value what we do here, create your ad-free account and support our journalism.
Your support makes a difference
Dear valued reader,
We hope that our website has been a valuable resource for you.
The reality is that it takes a lot of time, effort, and resources to maintain and grow this website. We rely on the support of readers like you to keep providing high-quality content.
If you have found our website to be helpful, please consider making a contribution to help us continue to bring you the information you need. Your support means the world to us and helps us to keep doing what we love.
Support us by choosing your support level – Silver, Gold or Platinum. Other support options include Patreon pledges and sending us a one-off payment using PayPal.
Thank you for your consideration. Your support is greatly appreciated.