Dear friends (anti-GMO and pro-GMO),
I don’t know about you, but I’m getting tired of the debate over genetically modified crops and food. Tired of the constant claim and counter-claim, the hyperbole, the exaggerations, the fear-mongering, the mis-quotes, the lack of context, the narrow perspectives, the sniping and snarking, the name-calling, the disrespect – all of it. (I generally try to stay polite, but I’ve engaged in some of it, too, I’ll admit – very few of us can claim to be immune, I believe).
It’s getting to the point where it’s almost impossible to broach the subject with someone new without needing to peel back layer after layer of assumed prejudices before a reasonable conversation can take place. Too many people have come to a place, it appears, where they’ll only pay attention to information that supports their own viewpoint – anything that is slightly off-script is immediately considered propaganda from “the other side.” A perfect illustration – at the peak of the debate over California’s Prop 37 on GMO-labelling, I attempted to correct a clearly false claim from an anti-GMO Twitter account, and the immediate response was a reference to “you and Monsanto.” Despite clear and consistent evidence to the contrary, I was “the enemy” for daring to contradict the “gospel” according to the campaign this person was waging.
Please, let’s all take a deep breath and a step back. Somewhere along the way, the loudest voices on both sides have decided that this is a battle between good and evil, science and superstition, progressiveness and backwardness, control and choice. But at its heart, it really isn’t: it’s really about two different ways of seeing the world, two different paradigms concerning our relationship with nature and our approaches to agriculture. Because of that, both sides demonstrate elements from the each of the extremes I’ve listed (and more). As a result, when seen from within the paradigms, the arguments of both sides make sense; but seen from the other paradigm, they’re sheer folly and madness.
How do we bridge the gap? The first step is to pause, recognize our own biases, and seek to understand where the other side is “coming from.” Once that’s been accomplished, we can engage in a meaningful discussion and make effective arguments that help the other side expand their horizons. In my experience, it works both ways – it’s hard to convince someone else to shed their prejudices without having some of your own eroded at the same time. That can be a downright scary proposition. But unless we do it, I think this whole debate is going nowhere fast. Are you ready?
The Fanning Mill 
carolyncares
April 20, 2013
Once again, I feel like you were in my head! I’m so happy you decided to put your thoughts out in a blog!
LikeLike
Anastasia
April 20, 2013
I’m glad you posted this, and I totally agree that putting aside prejudices would go a long way. But I’d like to challenge you to take this a step further.
You say “it’s really about two different ways of seeing the world, two different paradigms concerning our relationship with nature and our approaches to agriculture” – I don’t think that’s true at all.
Have you read Tomorrrow’s Table? In it, Pam Ronald shows how biotech and other breeding methods can be used in harmony with biology based agricultural methods. Of course this may not be true for all traits, but there are many traits that make a lot of sense for biology based (rather than chemical based) farming. Crop rotation goes a long way towards controlling plant disease, for example, but there are still plant diseases that cause big problems – like the recent example of scab in apple and pear. Instead of applying antibiotics or other sprays, doesn’t it make sense to develop scab resistance? And it doesn’t matter how that resistance is developed – both in my opinion as a plant geneticist and I don’t believe there’s a philosophical difference either. All that matters is that we’re intelligently developing traits that can reduce inputs, produce high quality nutritious foods, and that harm the environment as little as possible. It doesn’t matter if the gene from crabapple was brought into a modern apple variety with breeding or biotech method.
Now, do I think the big seed companies are looking to reduce inputs, produce high quality nutritious foods, and reduce environmental impact? Of course their goal is profit, just like profit is the goal of the big organic companies. But that doesn’t mean they can’t produce useful products that do meet these goals, and it doesn’t mean that there aren’t many employees there who care about these goals. It also doesn’t mean that that there aren’t scientists and small companies who do have these very goals in mind.
Now, maybe I’m making an assumption about your paradigm and relationship with nature when it comes to agriculture but I’d be very surprised if it didn’t include biology based methods to reduce inputs, reduce environmental impact, and produce high quality food.
LikeLike
songberryfarm
April 25, 2013
Thanks for the comment! I haven’t read Tomorrow’s Table, but I’ve heard a lot about it – I’ll definitely try to get my hands on a copy soon. I’m going to respond to the issue of two different paradigms below – for now let me say that in my opinion your assessment that it “doesn’t matter” how biology is used to reach our shared agricultural goals is a product of your paradigm. In addition to that, I still harbor some reservations about the scientific rationale behind your opinion – I hope to explore that further soon.
I’m also not someone who automatically ascribes “evil” motives to any large company; I agree with the points that you make, but I also recognize that corporations can easily fall prey to sociopathic tendencies when quarterly shareholders returns become the collective raison d’etre.
LikeLike
Anastasia
April 25, 2013
“I also recognize that corporations can easily fall prey to sociopathic tendencies when quarterly shareholders returns become the collective raison d’etre.”
Maybe I just haven’t been around long enough to get so cynical, but I think we can separate the legal obligation of a corporation to their stockholders from the goals of the individual employees, and I think it’s very possible for a company to simultaneously make money and want to help people and do good things.
LikeLike
songberryfarm
April 30, 2013
Yes, I do agree that the goals of individual employees in a company can be admirable, and that it is possible to be both profitable and benevolent. At the same time, no cynicism is required to realize that a certain “diffusion of responsibility” or “mob mentality” can make large institutions commit immoral, unethical, or illegal acts – history is rife with examples.
LikeLike
Julee K
April 20, 2013
Great post and so true! It is all getting out of hand. I started totally anti-GMO but am slowly changing my perspective based on what science says. Science says the benefits outweigh the risks.
LikeLike
songberryfarm
April 25, 2013
Thanks for the comment, and for the reblog, Julee. It’s interesting to hear how your perspective is shifting. My own opinion is definitely evolving, too, but I’m always cautious when I hear the term “science says.” Science, too, is ever-evolving: science once said the earth was flat, after all! From my perspective, the benefits of most current GMO products are demonstrably short-lived, and the future potential of other GMOs is yet unproven. When we look at both risks and benefits, we need to consider the bigger picture of how the technology is affecting our world, not just what the biological sciences can tell us. That’s why I continue to believe that we’d be better off pursuing different options.
LikeLike
PythagoreanCrank (@PythaCrank)
April 29, 2013
Science is more a verb than a noun. It’s inherently self-correcting. Being open to the possibility of being wrong is a feature!
I wonder if you could please provide a citation on your claim that science once thought the world was flat.
Thanks.
LikeLike
Julee K
April 20, 2013
Reblogged this on SLEUTH 4 HEALTH.
LikeLike
Kevin Folta
April 21, 2013
I came here from the “sleuth” site above. Your post is a good one, a nice start. Like Anastasia says above, there are not two sides to this discussion. It’s like saying that creationists should be allowed to teach creation in science classes along side of evolution. There really is the hard science and belief.
The trick for the anti-GM folks is to learn who to trust for real information. A lot of us academic scientists have written off anti-GMO fans as kooks– because we can’t reach them. When you try to talk to them about legitimate risks and benefits you’re labeled a shill for monsanto and big ag. Nothing further from the truth.
The sad part is, what suffers? The technology can be outstanding to confront our food challenges– no doubt. Solutions not from Big Ag languish in small labs, academic labs, etc because the regulations are crazy– only Big Ag can forge through them.
More importantly, the real risks go un-noticed. While the movement touts lumpy rats, source-less data, and books written by profiteering fear-mongers, the legitimate problems go unchecked. There are demonstrated, credible reports of changes to water ecology and even amphibian development. But these changes are small and less than would be seen with conventional (or even organic, rotenone is tough on ponds) agriculture. Most of all, they are not as sexy and influential as a rat packed with ping-pong balls.
Read Biofortified.org. Read Tomorrow’s Table. Contact scientists. I’m always here for ya.
LikeLike
songberryfarm
April 25, 2013
Thanks, Kevin, it’s nice to see you joining the conversation. As I hinted above, I believe that you and Anastasia are not quite understanding what I mean when I suggest that we’re seeing a conflict of paradigms. Let me try to explain a bit more.
You use creationism and evolution as an example, but these are actually both theories (or beliefs, if you will), and not paradigms. If you go back in history, the “leading scientific minds of the time” once accepted creationism as the best explanation for how life developed on earth. The theory of evolution, of course, superseded that hypothesis, to the point where no reasonable person could argue in favour of creationism anymore.
Paradigms, on the other hand, are not subject to being proven or disproven by the weight of scientific evidence. A paradigm is a way of seeing the world that determines people’s actions and expectations; the test of a paradigm is whether it creates sustainable relationships between people, their communities, and their environment.
At the risk of over-simplifying and presuming too much, your “scientific paradigm” holds that the whole is never more or less than the sum of its parts; that objective observation is the most accurate way to view phenomena; that everything can be explained by rational means. Another paradigm would suggest that the whole is often more than the sum of its parts; that true objectivity is impossible (which is actually supported by quantum theory, by the way!), and that our rational minds may never be able to explain the full range of experience.
These paradigms influence our priorities and the way we approach problems. Anastasia wants to invest millions in breeding scab-resistant apples; I want to invest millions in developing agro-ecological systems that minimize the biological niche of the scab organism. Who’s right and who’s wrong in this scenario?
This probably deserves a much longer explanation, but hopefully it helps a bit.
As to the rest of your comment, I fully agree: there’s far too little trust and appreciation in sources of credible information and far too much focus on sensationalist claims targeted at people’s personal fears. There are real risks and larger, more complex issues that are being ignored or overshadowed in the current climate.
Indeed, although I really appreciate the willingness to engage in discussion by those who have commented so far, I’m quite alarmed that no one from the “anti-GMO” side has joined the conversation yet!
LikeLike
Anastasia
April 25, 2013
Just wanted to clarify something –
You say “Anastasia wants to invest millions in breeding scab-resistant apples; I want to invest millions in developing agro-ecological systems that minimize the biological niche of the scab organism. Who’s right and who’s wrong in this scenario?”
I totally want to develop agro-ecological systems that minimize pests and disease first!(although I am hesitant to use the term agroecology because it seems to be used a lot by people who are not friends with science) But I think it’s important to acknowledge that cultural methods won’t solve every problem. To keep with the apple example, fungal diseases tend to spread where the soil is moist, such as in parts of New England and Washington. These areas are otherwise great for apples, and I think we can agree that apples are healthy to eat and all the better if we can grow the apples locally. Now, in some places, no matter how much mulching, etc we do, the environment’s not getting any less moist. So, we need fungus resistant varieties – and my point is that the fungus resistance is a *biological solution* as opposed to adding a *chemical solution* like a fungicide, and it doesn’t matter how we get the fungus resistance into the variety of apple that is otherwise successful in the area and for the customer base. Is that wrong? I hope I’m explaining myself well enough here…
LikeLike
songberryfarm
April 30, 2013
Thanks for the clarification, Anastasia. I agree that we are not going to modify the environment, but there are lots of other approaches – cultural, biological, agronomic, etc., and “resistance” is a continuum, not a dichotomy: the solution probably lies in a combination of the two. However, your statement that “it doesn’t matter how we get fungus resistance into the variety of apple” is once again a product of your paradigm and doesn’t hold true for those of us with different perspectives!
LikeLike
Randi Ellis
April 25, 2013
Wow what a bunch of loosers thinking some how they deserve an opinion with gmo. Listen up zombies I live out in the middel of farm country. Just burried my 58 year old neighbour died do to farm chemicals. I as an #Organic farmer never have or will use anything harmful on my crops so sick of my fellow farmers being poisoned as they poison the land and the crops they grow. Gmo is worst thing sold as soap safe to drink but no one ever backs that up. I used to be a junky farmer now that I am #Organic I see the butterflys on my land only. Scientists take bribes and lie about the truth regarding safety. Mob Santoes gets to test its own products when they have publicly stated ” the safety of gmo is up to USDA we are inthe business of selling as much gmo as possible.” Mob Santose also states “if labels are put on gmos you might as well use a skull and cross bones” if you need an opinon make sure its an informed one not the verbel diareea I read here. Farmer Ellis.
LikeLike
Anastasia
April 25, 2013
Surely, throwing insults and making things up is a great way to get your point across. Good job!
LikeLike
craig
April 25, 2013
The course of the debate over GMO seeds makes sense when you view it for what it is: a power struggle. It’s not about plant science – it’s about the balance of power between the People and transnational chemical/biotech corporations. In power struggles, it is natural to demonize the opposition, to polarize, to promote conflict, to apply whatever strategy and tactic work to transfer power to your side. It’s social/political science, not biology. Without polarization and conflict, there is no social evolution.
Genetic Engineering is an infant technology that is also extremely powerful. This power naturally comprises greater risks. Who should be the sovereign over this new power, and who should be sovereign over Agriculture itself – the People or the Big6 Chemical/Biotech Corporations? I believe it should be the People.
Americans have been very accommodating to the Biotech Industry. Now there is a push for mandatory labeling for GMO foods. Food labels have power – they shift control over GE Tech and Agriculture from the Biotech Industry to the Consumer (to the People – all of us). This is Democracy. If you are a plant scientist, you may feel that Technocracy is superior to Democracy; you may label me “anti-science” or “Luddite” or “Reactionary Ideologue”. That is tactic. I am none of these.
Force gives birth to its own resistance. Currently, the Biotech Industry is forcing GE Tech on the People with inadequate regulation. This is understandable because there’s a lot of money (power) involved, and it is in the self-interest of the Biotechs to employ whatever tactics work for them, including lies and deception of the caliber we witnessed in the CA No-On-37 Campaign. And it is in the self-interest of the People to respond with their own strategy and tactic to get power over agriculture and GE Tech back where it belongs: with the People. Naturally, propaganda is a tool employed by both sides. It is employed because it works, and neither side is innocent of propaganda.
Revolutions never appear to happen for the “right reasons”. But beneath it all, there is a supreme rationale, and that is power. If the People lose power and control over food, lose the power to regulate technology, then democracy is dead. To achieve this end – to get power back to the People – the growing “Food Movement” will use tactics that work, and they will discard tactics that don’t work. The Biotech Industry will do the same. The scientific truth (which, to an honest, intelligent scientist, is still largely in the shadows) is irrelevant. It’s about power, not science.
LikeLike
Foster Boondoggle
April 26, 2013
“It’s not about plant science – it’s about the balance of power between the People and transnational chemical/biotech corporations.” — does that mean that you’re in favor of a GM rice variety developed outside a corporate lab? Where “the People” (in this case of rural southeast Asia, not of wealthy urban areas of the US) might want it if given the choice?
And what about farmers? Are they capital-P People? Aren’t a lot of them choosing to use GM varieties? Or are the “Big6” GE Tech companies sending armed men to their farms to force them to buy GM seeds?
Last time “the People” were given an opportunity to speak on this subject, “the People” decided that they preferred their food cheaper and untainted by scary but meaningless labels, and voted no on Prop 37. You might want to listen a little more carefully before proposing to speak for “the People” again.
LikeLike
craig
April 27, 2013
Foster Boondoggle:
Yes, I am in favor of “a GM rice variety developed outside [or inside] a corporate lab where ‘the People’ (in this case, of rural southeast Asia, not of wealthy urban areas of the US) might want it if given the choice”. I would encourge the people there to get GMO food labeling in place so that consumers as well as farmers really do have a “choice”. In 1999 the Pro-GMO Rockefeller Foundation strongly advised Monsanto to come out “immediately and strongly” in favor of GMO labeling. Their rationale was simply that consumers will not accept GM food unless the food is labeled, unless consumers feel they have a choice.
Yes, farmers are capital-P People, and a lot of them choose to use GM varieties. A relatively small percentage of Americans are commercial farmers, and due to industrial agriculture that number is trending down. The rest of us are capital-P People, too, and together we comprise the authority to regulate technology and determine the course of agriculture, determine how our food is grown (i.e., the “We” in “We the People” is all of us, not any subset).
No, GE Tech companies are not sending armed men to farms to force them to buy GM seeds. However, there is a growing number of consumers who, for whatever reason (and these reasons are diverse and not necessarily “scientific”) want to see GM food labels so that they have a choice. It is not for me to judge their reasons – we each get a vote. In this sense, labels are far from “meaningless” – absent other means, labels proivide the means to vote.
Yes, CA Prop37 was narrowly defeated, due largely to the $46 million add campaign waged against it by Big Ag (i.e., propaganda works – that’s why they spent the $46 million to spread it). Since then, the idea to label GMO foods has grown stronger in the public mind, and it has spread to many other states. I could be wrong, but I predict that the effort to label GM food will grow until Americans have nationwide GM food labeling law. And in the meantime we will see conflict, polarization, propaganda from both sides – everything we typically see in any social/political effort.
As to my “speaking for the People”, I call ’em like I see ’em, same as you. I am one voice in the ocean of People. If you believe my voice is unacceptable, then you can always form a coalition aimed at limiting free speech (e.g., campaign for a law that requires me to listen to and believe the people you want me to listen to and believe in before I speak). Until that law is passed, it’s business as usual, I’m afraid.
LikeLike
Janice aka JPlovesCOTTON
May 4, 2013
Rob, I appreciate hearing an actual organic farmer weigh in because so often I face incredible insults from people who claim to be proponents for organic farmers. There Ida’s much myth built around organic farmers as there is GMOs it seems. I recently wrote a post on my personal blog sharing some of my opinions and some info on GMOs it was one of the letter of the alphabet G 🙂 http://janiceperson.com/agriculture/ag-awareness/what-are-gmos-why-do-farmers-plant-gmo-crops/
If you ever want to see what we do at Monsanto, I would love to arrange a visit. The claims people make have become so ingrained in our culture, people don’t even question what they hear. They don’t welcome other perspectives choosing instead to limit contact to people who share their beliefs.
Luckily I have lots of opportunities to interact with GMOs and organics both. I have family and friends across the farming spectrum and the discussion while passionate is at least respectful, unlike a lot of online discussion. Thanks for trying to bring respect, the more of us who do that the better.
I have found that the vast majority of farmers want to leave the land better than than found it, feed their families and communities and generally make the world a better place. That doesn’t seem to differ with production practices in my experience. So I tend to respect farmers wherever they sit on the practices spectrum. Wish more people could open their minds a bit around that.
LikeLike
songberryfarm
May 10, 2013
Thanks for your comments, Janice. I use this blog to share my personal thoughts, and I certainly wouldn’t claim to speak for all organic farmers. The reactions to this post have been very interesting: I’ve been told that I’ve lost all credibility as an organic farmer and I’ve lost Twitter followers (which is a sad comment on people’s willingness to engage in open discussion). The majority of the organic community seems to have politely looked the other way, but I’ve been gratified by a number of positive responses from those on all sides of this issue. I hope to have the chance to share more of my thoughts on GMOs again soon – stay tuned!
LikeLike
Julie P
May 9, 2013
This reminds me of the game of Red Rover. It isn’t easy for any individual from either side to venture into ‘no man’s land’ in the centre but someone has to do it if we’re going to find a way to middle ground. Tough truth to write but I’m glad you did it.
LikeLike
songberryfarm
May 10, 2013
Thanks, Julie. My own suspicion is that there are a large number of people occupying the middle ground of this debate, but they are afraid to speak up for fear of being attacked from both sides at once!
LikeLike
Jackie Robin
June 25, 2013
No one is forcing anyone to buy or use GMO. It is pretty easy to figure out what products contain GM- but that hardly matters, since GM has been proven safe. http://www.agwest.sk.ca/blog/2013/06/just-what-foods-are-gm/ Unfortunately, the target in this debate keeps moving. It is a combination of not trusting science (http://www.agwest.sk.ca/blog/2013/04/why-should-we-trust-science/ ) which causes fear, and not trusting large companies (http://www.agwest.sk.ca/blog/2013/03/anti-gm-concerns-linked-to-distrust-of-companies-not-about-safety/) Yet these same people don’t appear to have problems with using computers, cars, planes, etc. that are manufactured by large companies. It would be ideal to take the best of the organic methods and incorporate biotechnology to get crops that use our resources as efficiently as possible, reduce pesticide use and increase nutritional value.
LikeLike