I don't like GMOs. My reasons for not liking them, however, when looked at honestly, are complex. Because of this, I've decided to clarify them, both for my own awareness, sanity, and for (should the occasion arise) arguing with the bozos.
A) Who benefits? This is probably my main question, and while it isn't precisely an "objection," it does pretty clearly imply one. Are GMOs needed? Are they really necessary? Most of what I've read suggested that they aren't. In any case, there seems to be no indication that other methods, many of which have been used for millenia, couldn't be just as successful in continuing and improving agriculture. GMers often claim that GMOs represent just one "tool in the toolbox" of developing better agricultural practices, but if there are better, cheaper, less tech-and-corporate intensive methods that are just as good (if not better) than why bother? Sure, it's always good to have a back up. But that's not how the most strident GMers are promoting GMOs. In any case, we'll return to this issue of utility in a bit.
B) Regarding health: the science is, to put it mildly, controversial. Several trusted organizations and experts seem to agree that the risk of negative health effects from consuming GMOs is vanishingly small. There are those who say just the opposite - that GMOs present a clear and present danger to human health - but these dissenters tend to be obvious crackpots, and they've resorted to some flagrant lies and distortions in the past. But while their voices are loud, they don't constitute a significant contribution to the conversation, so we can set them aside for now. On the other side of the debate are those who claim, in what seem to me to be measured, rational, and civil tones, that it's still too soon to tell. They concede that the results we've seen so far are encouraging, but these "responsible skeptics" (as I'll call them) would like to see different tests - longer, more rigorous, more transparent, and more obviously independent. They claim that politics and corporate power have muddied the waters. This would seem to be a truism, but it bears mentioning, given the haste of so many pro-GMO partisans to end the conversation entirely. For my own part, I'll avoid GMOs where I can, but not spend nights awake worrying about the GMOs I've undoubtedly ingested, and will probably ingest in the future.
C) Regarding the environment: Here's where the meat of the issue is, for me. It seems that the various transgenic innovations that have occurred so far have mostly served to perpetuate the Industrial Agriculture model that has done so much damage to the planet and its people. While proponents point to instances of pesticide use reduction, opponents point to the proliferation of superweeds. While GMers point to drought tolerance, skeptics point to a severe deficit of evidence that these engineered plants will ever live up to the hype, and to instances where GMOs have actually required greater water and fertilizer inputs. Both sides can have a tendency to cherry-pick, but the overall picture is clear enough: GMOs fit hand-in-glove into the Big Ag paradigm. They're mostly made and sold by big corporations as a for-profit enterprise, and take full advantage of the State-Corporate complex in terms of trade deals and patent monopolies. Certain yield increases and specific reductions of some pesticides exist on the record; but other studies show organic methods being just as effective, if correctly used. So again - why do we need these? Who benefits from their use?
- GMOs are a crutch. They do nothing, at least as they are employed now, to solve the overall problem of Industrial Agriculture, and nothing to move the world from that unsustainable system. It's a perfect illustration of the fundamental cynicism of capitalism: a solution from the very same people who brought you the problem. As many have noted, it only speeds us further down the "treadmill of dependence" on non-holistic technological solutions. It furthers the paradigm of competition with Nature, which we are doomed to lose. GMOs get us a little farther down the line, but their endgame is still disaster. They are a treatment of symptoms, not causes.
http://www.bostonreview.net/forum/truth-about-gmos/aggravating-problem
D) Regarding the social aspect: Setting aside questions of health and environmental safety and soundness, we come to the other great manifestation of the debate: the question of labeling. I was initially surprised to see how many GMO proponents were also opposed to labeling. Looking back on it now, this seems obviously naive. There are obvious reasons why Monsanto et al. are opposed to labeling; they see it as a threat to their continued market dominance, and as the incurring of a cost they'd rather not pay. But there are a lot of commentators out there, without a financial stake, to whom the benefit of the doubt can be given, who are still utterly opposed to labeling. Why? When the majority of Americans, according to polls, want labeling, why would they be so opposed? People are taking an interest; they want to know what's in their food. Why do so many want to deny them this information?
- It's an admission of defeat. Part of this is just pride; the GMers see labeling as a vindication of their opponents and a tacit indication that GMOs are unsafe/unhealthy.
- They see labels as being misleading; the idea being that they would only serve to sow confusion.
- They dislike what they perceive as the imperfections of labeling; that there are exemptions, etc.
- A generally elitist and undemocratic view. People are too foolish to be trusted with this information. They'll only screw it up; Monsanto will suffer unjustly.
D) Regarding the spiritual angle. Here's where things get a bit slippery. But viewed another way, here is where things get truly substantive. Qs of arrogance, of control. The idea of Nature having rights. Can we believe that Nature is sacred and still futz with it? Is this setting the bar too high? Berry being a major touchstone here. How do we act as good stewards? How do we behave respectfully, humbly, towards Nature, both for the inherent good of that, and for our own survival?
E) The Proponents: their reflexive recourse to sneering, to lecturing, to ad hominem attacks, their exceptionally thin skin, their frequent apologism for Monsanto et al. Their haste to end the discussion, rather than have an enlightened one.
Additional objection: GMOs are a crutch. They don't do anything to significantly shift us away from the current model of Industrial Ag.
9.23.13
Some interesting news in the Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/20/business/misgivings-about-how-a-weed-killer-affects-the-soil.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0&src=rechp
No comments:
Post a Comment