If you’ve read any of my posts on GMO, you know that I’ve been following a Grist reporter for the past few months, Nathaniel Johnson, on his deep dive into the science and issues behind GMO. Over the many years I’ve been tracking this issue, I’ve often wished I could do what Johnson is doing…really pick apart the arguments in search of the un-spun, facts only truth. It’s a heated topic and finding the straight story through all influencing factors and misguided science is a daunting task. I think Johnson’s done a fabulous job. He’s a brave guy.
His article last week, What I learned from six months of GMO research: None of it matters, got my attention. My initial thought was, “Crap! He’s giving up.” Fortunately, that’s not the case, and how he got to his conclusion that none of it matters is pretty compelling.
He argues that the debate isn’t actually about GMO, otherwise, due to the wide-range of differences in modification and application, we’d be debating about individual GM plants. I couldn’t agree more and have often been frustrated due to the same observation. Genetic engineering is used in a range of applications: for the creation of medicines, to support the biodegradation of plastics, and others. It’s not just about creating corn and soy plants that can withstand increasing levels of toxic herbicides.
The real truth is the topic of GMO is important because it’s facilitating a much larger philosophical debate about things that may only be loosely connected to the actual subject of genetic engineering. As Johnson states,
People care about GMOs because they symbolize corporate control of the food system, or unsustainable agriculture, or the basic unhealthiness of our modern diet. On the other side, people care about GMOs because they symbolize the victory of human ingenuity over hunger and suffering, or the triumph of market forces, or the wonder of science.
This assessment certainly fits the bill for me. I’ve lost sleep worrying about our country’s unsustainable mono-cropping approach to agriculture (yes, truly). I feel sick when I think about the subsidization of a select number of crops that creates mass quantities of cheap, un-healthy food and as a result is literally fueling the growing obesity epidemic, not only in the United States, but in all the other developing countries that emulate America. As I’ve stated before, I think there’s a role for GMO and the best way to move forward is thoughtfully and transparently (i.e. labeling). Honestly, if I had to choose between getting rid of the current subsidization practices for corn and soy and GMO, I think I’d choose the former. It’s a silly “either/or” question, but it does confirm to me that Johnson is spot on about GMO not really being about GMO.
So, does it really matter where we net out on GMO? Johnson thinks not (you should really read his article to understand why). I’m not sure I’m ready to agree completely. However, even if GMO isn’t the real issue, maybe using it as a decoy for what we’re really debating is an acceptable if not dysfunctional way to create positive change. Whatever works, right?
Like this post? Follow @KeeganSheridan
Image by Steve Rhodes