First off, I would like to welcome all people, both pro-GMO and anti-GMO, to read my blog, Deciphering the Debate on GMOs: A look into the public perception of genetically modified organisms. The purpose of my blog is not to sway you to think one way or another on the topic, but rather to remind you to step back and take a look at the debate itself. Throughout the posts, we will discuss ways in which the public's opinion plays a role in agriculture, the food industry, and research. Instead of discussing who is right or wrong, we will explore why the conflicting views exist in the first place and the implications that these differing viewpoints have on both the developed and developing countries. It is my hope that after you read some of the things on the blog, you will take a look at your beliefs and critically analyze them. Ask yourself: Do I think genetically modified organisms are right or wrong? Safe or unsafe? Do I know why I think this? Do I have credible evidence to support my beliefs? Would I be afraid to share these beliefs with the people I am close to? Could I provide evidence in support of the opposing viewpoint? Do I know the power my opinion holds?
So now you may ask: why is it important to do this?
In 2002, Zambia experienced a severe famine in which 14 million people were at risk for starvation. However, officials rejected food aid in the form of genetically modified maize based on a "precautionary principle". The aid would have been enough to supply emergency support to half of the affected people (BBC News). As a society, we must decide:
Was it right for the officials to deny food to their food insecure citizens--- based on potential effects?
Zambia's Agriculture Minister Mundia Sikatana said in regards to the issue, "In view of the current scientific uncertainty surrounding the issue... government has decided to base its decision not to accept GM foods in Zambia on the precautionary principle. The country should thus refrain from actions that might adversely affect human and animal health as well as harm the environment" (BBC News).
What is causing this uncertainty? Was the decision really based on scientific evidence or opinion? Is it fair for certain people's opinions to drastically affect what the poorest people in the world eat, especially if these opinions are from people in developed countries? (Africa, because of its close cultural, political, and economic ties to Europe, is heavily influenced by Europe's generally anti-GMO culture.)
It is these questions and the consequences of these questions that we will discuss in the context of this blog, so let's get started! In order to provide a little more context to the debate on GMOs in terms of how, for lack of better terms, ridiculous the types of media used to support both sides of the argument are becoming, I want to walk through a few examples that I have stumbled upon on the web.
First, I like this meme because I think it actually represents how some people feel when they are arguing about GMOs. But it also brings up a good point that I would like to mention about the origin of such extreme arguments. My personal opinion as to the cause of this two-sidedness is simply that emotion trumps science. While scientists were releasing papers and papers explaining why GMOs are awesome and can do so many things, the general public (who chooses not to read scientific papers because they are very hard to understand and just all around awful) back-lashed with their beliefs and their concerns. And this makes sense; all good movies, gripping books, and successful add campaigns make you feel things rather than throwing scientific facts and statistics at you. And now, instead of listening to each other, scientists have built up a wall with their facts to keep the pro-GMO people on their side, while anti-GMO people have built up another wall with emotion to keep people on their side. What's in-between these two walls? Neither progress nor discussion. This relates to the above meme because even though people use some ridiculous arguments either against or in support of GMOs, the anti-GMO people have one thing going for them that the pro-GMO people do not: they are willing to argue and fight and put emotion into what they believe.
Images like this one are pretty typical on the web, whether with corn, or tomatoes, or bananas. I think the point of them is to show that no one has probably ever gotten sick from eating the "MANipulated" version of the banana, so genetically modifying foods are a good thing. But does it do a good job in persuading the viewer that this is true? Even though this photo came up when I searched for "GMO memes", the genetically modifying that has been done over the past 6,500 years (Rhodes) to create the banana we all know and love isn't the type of genetic modifying that we are generally referring to in this blog. Rather than using molecular genome editing techniques in the laboratory, the banana on the right was derived from thousands of years of domestication, or conventional breeding, in the fields of ancient civilizations (Rhodes). In fact, it is derived from the plant on the left called Musa acuminata (Rhodes). So overall, when looking at this photo, I would much rather eat the banana on the right, and I think most people would agree. However, would people think the same if they thought the modern banana was created in a lab, or would they go back to eating the seed-filled Musa acuminata that is "natural"? I think the important thing to take away from this photo is the need to decide whether or not the genetically modifying of foods in labs is the same as conventional domestication of plants, only sped up. If you are against one form of genetically modifying do you have to be against the other?
These types of pictures definitely have to be my favorite. There is so much going on here to talk about, and I think most people would admit that this is a little extreme. But on the other hand, I'm sure there's a lot of people who think it does justice to the topic. Obviously the picture was generated by someone who has a deep hatred for GMOs, but is there more to the story? I think the real hostility here and in a lot of other anti-GMO arguments is more associated with the presence of big-business in agriculture than with GMOs themselves. One big clue to this is the reference to agent orange. Although Monsanto was a producer of this carcinogenic chemical in the 60's and 70's, we need to ask: what does that have to do with genetically modified organisms and our food today? An article we will discuss later talks about the following a little more in-depth, but our current generation is sick of corporations ruling the food and agricultural industries. Instead, they want food fresh from the family farm. So the question here is: do these people really care about being anti-GMO as much as they care about getting rid of large corporations ruling the agricultural industry? If a series of smaller companies and independent producers would have been the first to develop and market GMOs, would the story be any different?
This photo gets a little trickier to talk about. First, no matter how you feel about insecticides or herbicides, you still do not want to get them on your skin. In fact, there is a recommended period of time before one enters a field after it has been sprayed with these chemicals in order to avoid exposure to them. So, in this picture, I believe that the purpose of the yellow suits is not because they are afraid of the GMOs, but maybe because they are testing the effects of a new pesticide on the crops. Also, by looking in the background, you can see that this is in a greenhouse or some type of contained testing facility. Just based on this, I am sure the area is highly regulated in trying to avoid contamination, especially if they are testing products for human or animal consumption, just as any food testing facility is. Finally, have you ever walked through a corn field that is shedding pollen (in the picture it looks as if there are tassels)? I worked as a crop scout for a summer, and I experienced this first-hand. You are covered in a thin layer of the yellow, itchy powder. It gets into your eyes and and causes them to swell and itch, and it makes you sneeze because it covers the inside of your nose. I have even gotten rashes from it sticking to my sweat. So in order to avoid this, it is necessary to wear a full rain suit with a wet towel rapped around your face to prevent the pollen from bothering you; in fact, I probably looked like one of the guys in the picture. Again, the main point of this picture is to remind everyone to take a second thought about what you see because there are so many possible explanations to what is going on.
The main point of the above images is to remind you that when looking at evidence to support your point of view, make sure that you get it from a trustworthy site or take it with a (GMO free) grain of salt. As you can see by the links under each picture, none of them came from sources that I would consider credible. Better yet, look for evidence that conflicts your point of view to see if you can discredit what you think you know before you use it to support your argument. If we can get everyone to do this, we might be able to break down the walls and start having meaningful and progressive conversations about important scientific issues.
References
BBC News. (2002,). Famine-hit Zambia rejects GM food aid. Retrieved April 15, 2016, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2371675.stm
Rhodes, J. (2011). Taming the Wild Banana. Retrieved April 22, 2016, from http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/taming-the-wild-banana-33985103/
No comments:
Post a Comment