Amy Harmon’s article, A Lonely Quest for Facts on Genetically Modified Crops, provides a thorough detail of an oft-overlooked topic: GMOs and their various implications across society and its environment. Walk into any chain supermarket and many any of the foods you will see are affected or produced by GMOs- namely produce, beef, poultry, eggs, and milk. So common are these modified foods in supermarkets today that there is now a specially-marked aisle as “organic,” “whole foods,” “good harvest,” or a range of other semantically-pure words to indicate that the items in this aisle do not have direct GMO effects (thus implying that the rest of the store may). According to Harmon, “about three-quarters of processed foods now have such ingredients, mostly corn syrup, corn oil and soy meal and sugar.” This alone places GMOs directly at the center of sustainability debates.
Despite this proximity to the American people, the topic of genetically modified crops and organisms has garnered a shockingly low level of salience. Through this long piece for the New York Times, Harmon intends to shed further light on GMOs and rid some of the ambiguity surrounding their purported effects on food as beneficial or poisonous. This is essential in understanding growth and sustainability of a world food supply with the understanding that the global population is expected to reach nearly 10 billion people by the year 2050. If GMOs are proven safe and sustainable for annual use, it will be an enormous discovery. If not, we risk an industrial collapse not unlike the DDT scare of the 1960s. It is clear that this issue requires a much higher level of salience than is currently given.
Harmon hit on an especially important aspect of the GMO debate in regard to popular opinion’s acceptance as fact in some cases. Oftentimes this opinion will masquerade as a scientific conclusion due to the sheer volume of the argument in circulation. Such is seen on show Real Time With Bill Maher and guest Republican David Frum:
“Mr. Maher’s audience, in turn, recently hissed at a commentator who defended genetic modification as merely an extension of traditional breeding.”
Is Maher distorting the risks of GMOs or basing his arguments on logical conclusions delivered by way of irony and humor? This article vehemently argues the former and offers caution to Maher’s tactics, although it is likely a Republican-based group attempting to dissuade his arguments with political advantage. Furthermore, despite the clarity in which a supermarket shopper can see chicken breasts and legs as far bigger and unnatural than 10 years ago, it is still difficult to validate GMOs’ dangers because it is a relatively young proponent and therefore lacks the longevity to fully see their effects. In other words, Maher’s debate against the GMO corporatocracy is not strong enough to stand alone yet.
In all, Harmon’s characterization here of the public’s distrust of companies like Monsanto and GMO products in general is testament to the ambiguity of the GMO debate itself. What is popular opinion, and what is scientific finding? To find a truly sustainable option (whether or not it is GMO-related) will rely on establishing the relationship between these doctored crops and potential affects on humans in the coming years. This larger sample size will firmly determine the arguments made by catalysts of the anti-GMO movement like Greggor Ilagan and Margaret Wille and generate conclusions to their role in food sustainability.
I concur with most of the arguments stated above. Parallel to a lot of contemporary debates, there exists a lot of ambiguity surrounding the potential effects of GMO’s. As Harmon realized, public distrust of companies like Monsanto were high and any study that would characterize GMOs as safe was summarily dismissed by critics as a conspiracy, media propaganda or funded by giant corporations. As the debate increasingly garners more attention, it has exceeded the simple stage of having knowledge as a problem. Attitudes toward GMO’s now involve a multitude of factors and not just knowledge or understanding of the scientific study. Values, morals, judgments of prudence, and numerous other factors have come into play. For now, Judgments about scientific fact often seem to be secondary.
I totally agree with the statements mentioned above. But also want to make an argument that the whole GMO Ban was a big political scene and either both sides of the parties agree with or against it. GMO’s essentially is a product that serves to the American population. In an actuality it is unsustainable and serves no purpose into serving the population. But although if we get rid of GMO we might have to change the income of most Americans and business will start losing on consumers.