I swear, I didn’t mean for Angles on Agriculture to turn into a meditation on all things GMO. I maintain that I am neither pro- nor anti-GMO; to me it’s too big of a concept to be distilled down to such simple, black and white morality. I am, however, fascinated by the debate – it’s a textbook case of what happens when the message on a new phenomenon is not actively controlled and how easily the wrong messengers can exploit peoples’ deepest, most primal fears.
One of the biggest questions around the debate is just what it means for a plant or animal to be in its “natural” state. Pro-GMOers argue that humans have been manipulating genetics for thousands of years, to the point that the fruits and vegetables we eat today are virtually unrecognizable from whatever nature intended.
This series of infographics created by a chemistry teacher in Australia aptly demonstrates the evolution of corn, watermelon and peaches over the millennia. For example, it’s believed that corn split off from teosinte grass 9,000 years ago and eventually became the crop we know today through selective breeding. There is virtually no resemblance in taste, appearance or texture between corn in its “natural” state and the “artificial” plant we eat today.
It’s easy for the GMO debate to stray from the practical into the philosophical. At the risk of getting too personal, I’ll use myself as an example. I have polycystic kidney disease, a trait passed down from my mother. Three times a week, for four hours at a time, I connect to a dialysis machine that filters the toxins in my blood, in essence attempting to correct nature’s mistake (if such terms as “mistake” and “correct” can even apply to nature).
Without human intervention, I would already be dead and it’s sobering to think that just a few short decades ago that would certainly be the case. Would it have been more “natural”—and thus somehow superior – to not let science intervene? Obviously, not from my perspective, and aside from any mortal enemies I’ve made over the years (hopefully not too many), few would argue against my use of this miraculous technology.
It’s not a perfect analogy. One might argue that dialysis is intended to save lives, while GMOs have been created so Monsanto can have a stranglehold over the agricultural process. That ignores the point that GMOs, regardless of the corporate entity financing the R&D and reaping the profits, could well be our best bet for fighting the world’s most prevalent disease: hunger. Why is it okay for human intervention to save my life from my disease and not okay for it to save millions – billions – of lives from malnourishment? If GMOs can feed more people using less farmland, we’d be crazy not to take advantage of them.
At this point you may be thinking I’m some kind of corporate shill, that I’m just regurgitating some bullet points devised in some PR company boardroom. You couldn’t be more wrong. I don’t give a damn about Monsanto’s bottom line. In fact, I don’t agree with many of that company’s corporate practices, but they’re not much different from those of the pharmaceutical companies; they invest in the research and development, produce and manufacture the product and profit from the process. As long as Big GMO owns the technology, farmers are not given a lot of room to improvise by, for example, saving seed. It’s not necessarily right, but it’s reality in today’s economic and political environment.
It seems like many peoples’ opposition to GMOs begins and ends with their blinding hatred for the Monsantos, Syngentas and Bayers of the world. They’re missing a very, very big picture. Patents eventually expire, especially when there’s the political will to make companies accountable to patent law. The great thing is we’ll still have the technology and its primary benefit: in short, feeding us all.
A shout out to Cami Ryan for retweeting the above-linked article containing the infographics.
One of the biggest questions around the debate is just what it means for a plant or animal to be in its “natural” state. Pro-GMOers argue that humans have been manipulating genetics for thousands of years, to the point that the fruits and vegetables we eat today are virtually unrecognizable from whatever nature intended.
This series of infographics created by a chemistry teacher in Australia aptly demonstrates the evolution of corn, watermelon and peaches over the millennia. For example, it’s believed that corn split off from teosinte grass 9,000 years ago and eventually became the crop we know today through selective breeding. There is virtually no resemblance in taste, appearance or texture between corn in its “natural” state and the “artificial” plant we eat today.
It’s easy for the GMO debate to stray from the practical into the philosophical. At the risk of getting too personal, I’ll use myself as an example. I have polycystic kidney disease, a trait passed down from my mother. Three times a week, for four hours at a time, I connect to a dialysis machine that filters the toxins in my blood, in essence attempting to correct nature’s mistake (if such terms as “mistake” and “correct” can even apply to nature).
Without human intervention, I would already be dead and it’s sobering to think that just a few short decades ago that would certainly be the case. Would it have been more “natural”—and thus somehow superior – to not let science intervene? Obviously, not from my perspective, and aside from any mortal enemies I’ve made over the years (hopefully not too many), few would argue against my use of this miraculous technology.
It’s not a perfect analogy. One might argue that dialysis is intended to save lives, while GMOs have been created so Monsanto can have a stranglehold over the agricultural process. That ignores the point that GMOs, regardless of the corporate entity financing the R&D and reaping the profits, could well be our best bet for fighting the world’s most prevalent disease: hunger. Why is it okay for human intervention to save my life from my disease and not okay for it to save millions – billions – of lives from malnourishment? If GMOs can feed more people using less farmland, we’d be crazy not to take advantage of them.
At this point you may be thinking I’m some kind of corporate shill, that I’m just regurgitating some bullet points devised in some PR company boardroom. You couldn’t be more wrong. I don’t give a damn about Monsanto’s bottom line. In fact, I don’t agree with many of that company’s corporate practices, but they’re not much different from those of the pharmaceutical companies; they invest in the research and development, produce and manufacture the product and profit from the process. As long as Big GMO owns the technology, farmers are not given a lot of room to improvise by, for example, saving seed. It’s not necessarily right, but it’s reality in today’s economic and political environment.
It seems like many peoples’ opposition to GMOs begins and ends with their blinding hatred for the Monsantos, Syngentas and Bayers of the world. They’re missing a very, very big picture. Patents eventually expire, especially when there’s the political will to make companies accountable to patent law. The great thing is we’ll still have the technology and its primary benefit: in short, feeding us all.
A shout out to Cami Ryan for retweeting the above-linked article containing the infographics.