A couple of weeks ago I looked at the bright side of GMOs. Today, I want to look at a timely dissenting opinion, courtesy of veteran Canadian rocker Neil Young:
"I love to start my day off without helping Monsanto/Monsanto, let our farmers grow what they want to grow/From the fields of Nebraska from the banks of the Ohio/Farmers won't be free to grow what they want to grow/If corporate control takes over the American farm/ with fascist politicians and chemical giants walking arm in arm."
- Neil Young, “Rock Starbucks” from his new album The Monsanto Years.
Let’s analyze this stanza a little bit – it’s quite a canny political statement. When Neil talks about farmers having the “freedom to grow what they want to grow” it could easily be interpreted he’s playing to the Tea Party, anti-big government crowd. In the next two lines he starts talking about “corporate control” and “chemical giants” – nemeses of the patchouli and hemp cohort.
Like a good politician he’s playing both sides of the room; he knows that he has fans on both the left and the right (I know because I’ve been a fan of his throughout my journey across the political spectrum). Most fans – most people, really -- would agree that Neil Young is a pretty cool guy (he’s a rock star for cryin’ out loud – that’s pretty much the definition of cool).
At the very least, he’s probably considered a cooler guy than Rob Fraley, the executive vice president and chief technology officer of Monsanto, who despite offering some compelling scientific and social arguments in favour of GMOs will always be silenced by Young’s guitar-driven attack. Young’s message is simple: Monsanto is bad, and because Monsanto has become synonymous with GMOs then GMOs are bad too.
Herein is the problem. It seems that the vast majority of anti-GMO arguments are not so much against GMOs themselves but the business practices of their manufacturers and distributors. We need to take some of the politics and corporate-speak out of the GMO debate in order to look at the potential benefits (more food using less acres, less pesticide use) versus any health and environmental drawbacks we could experience down the line.
In the present environment, I have no idea how we’re going to get that point. Maybe Fraley should grow his hair out and take up the guitar; at this point it’s as realistic of a starting point as any.
"I love to start my day off without helping Monsanto/Monsanto, let our farmers grow what they want to grow/From the fields of Nebraska from the banks of the Ohio/Farmers won't be free to grow what they want to grow/If corporate control takes over the American farm/ with fascist politicians and chemical giants walking arm in arm."
- Neil Young, “Rock Starbucks” from his new album The Monsanto Years.
Let’s analyze this stanza a little bit – it’s quite a canny political statement. When Neil talks about farmers having the “freedom to grow what they want to grow” it could easily be interpreted he’s playing to the Tea Party, anti-big government crowd. In the next two lines he starts talking about “corporate control” and “chemical giants” – nemeses of the patchouli and hemp cohort.
Like a good politician he’s playing both sides of the room; he knows that he has fans on both the left and the right (I know because I’ve been a fan of his throughout my journey across the political spectrum). Most fans – most people, really -- would agree that Neil Young is a pretty cool guy (he’s a rock star for cryin’ out loud – that’s pretty much the definition of cool).
At the very least, he’s probably considered a cooler guy than Rob Fraley, the executive vice president and chief technology officer of Monsanto, who despite offering some compelling scientific and social arguments in favour of GMOs will always be silenced by Young’s guitar-driven attack. Young’s message is simple: Monsanto is bad, and because Monsanto has become synonymous with GMOs then GMOs are bad too.
Herein is the problem. It seems that the vast majority of anti-GMO arguments are not so much against GMOs themselves but the business practices of their manufacturers and distributors. We need to take some of the politics and corporate-speak out of the GMO debate in order to look at the potential benefits (more food using less acres, less pesticide use) versus any health and environmental drawbacks we could experience down the line.
In the present environment, I have no idea how we’re going to get that point. Maybe Fraley should grow his hair out and take up the guitar; at this point it’s as realistic of a starting point as any.