These 3 words in the same sentence get the strongest reaction out of people. The obvious reason is that there are those who instantly fear them: there are weird substances being put in the foods, lots of chemicals that can endanger and poison us! And then there's the unobvious: frustration and anger at an ignorant populace that refuses to acknowledge that GM crops are the best answer for securing our food supply and possibly ending world hunger!
The more vocal, obvious, former crowd always has leverage in the forms of news stories that prove we are eating dangerous chemicals that endanger our children or that show GM crops will be the doom of the world's poorest. I want to focus on that second article in particular, as it links back to what I was talking about in my discussion piece about pesticides. That second article looks at the various tragedies in Paraguay as a result of the rapid and vicious expansion of GM soy fields there; it is a sad picture of terrible regulation, chemical misuse, environmental distruction, lack of proper legal protection for the vulnerable and corruption. However, the article is never blaming the actual GM crop; as ever, these tragedies are the result of human greed and misuse (and lack of empathy with their community). Even more reason to stamp out GM crops, so the alarmists would claim.
But it's articles like this that make people lodge pesticides and GM foods together in a messy clump, without prying the two apart and investigating closely. Separating the elements and investigating closely is precisely what a good scientist does. But what a good scientist, who wishes to proclaim the (possible) virtues of GM crops, doesn't understand, is that those who don't properly understand how science works hear the terms 'genetically modified/engineered/altered/produced' and instantly conjure up an image of Resident Evil-style monsters. Sad but true.
Now if that article explaining the situation in Paraguay was a straight forward one saying: "This innocent kidney bean, which has been genetically altered but grown organically, was launched as a brand new product yesterday and was hailed as a great stride forward in biochemical science. However, when consumed by a healthy family, said family died the next day." Well then, yes! GM products the world over would be classed as Satan's spawn and banned like no tomorrow. Except that has never happened. In fact, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if you at least chuckled at my crappy faux-newspaper report.
I found this helpful article that summarises both the pros and cons of GM crops without taking a side. The key reasons why many in the scientific community believe this avenue of crop-growing should at the very least be investigated are that they can be grown in non-arable areas (erego reducing the impact of droughts) and less or no pesticides can be used to grow them. Such reasons make me a tentative supporter of GM crops, but don't get me wrong. Such products need to be rigorously tested, properly researched, highly regulated and internationally licensed before being made available on the market. It is even more important that these stringent guidelines are followed and enforced in our day and age, since this technology is still very new and young and we certainly don't want a zombie apocalypse brought about by a careless idiot.
Also, just because GM versions of crops become available on the market, doesn't mean organic will stop being profitable or popular.
No comments:
Post a Comment