Get Your Facts Straight
Public Perception of GMOs
When you think of corn, what do you imagine? Probably a long cob of fat, golden yellow kernels encased in bright green husks, maybe with a tuft of silk on top. If you asked ten people, or a hundred or a thousand what they thought of it would probably be similar if not exactly the same. There's no way anyone thought of a tiny, wheat-like grain stalk, that's for sure. In spite of the mental image we all possess of the perfect corn cob, the natural, unmodified version would be similar to the latter description.
 |
| This is the hybridization which resulted in modern corn |
A prototype is an archetypal example of any given object, in this case the corn on the right is our prototype. If you were offered the grains on the left, you would be quite disappointed! We have developed definitional and aesthetic expectations for the world around us, and particularly our food. Everyone has chuckled at a particularly lumpy tomato in the grocery store, and certainly no one bought it. That's the message that commercial farmers and produce companies read loud and clear.
What is genetic modification? As we typically define it, it's the process by which the gene sequence of an organism, in this case foods like strawberries, potatoes, rice and tomatoes, is artificially altered to produce a more desirable trait- usually something like pest resistance. Even this is debatable, however. Many contend that genetic modification began with artificial pollination and grafting.
In recent years, genetic modification has become increasingly popular for several reasons, presenting itself as a solution to many important problems in the agricultural sphere and in public health. It promised to solve issues of pesticide resistance, which can doom the monocultures that are highly prevalent in commercial farming operations, which was seen as valuable in marketing because it allowed the perpetuation of these monocultures- cultivated to fulfill the aesthetic expectations of consumers; It even presented potential solutions to diseases like Vitamin A Deficiency, a nutrient deficiency common in developing countries. In it's wake, however, it left a slew of new problems and a very angry public.
Multiplying Issues
Commercial farming already has a lot of problems. Monocropping has resulted in the necessity of increased pesticides, intensive irrigation, use of commercial fertilizers, and more recently the propagation of GE (genetically engineered) seeds as Grace Communications Foundation explains. Why do farms monocrop if it's so bad? Because using more traditional, biodiverse farming methods leads to those lumpy tomatoes in the store that no one wants to buy. We have developed aesthetic preferences so strong that this is the only option for farming operations, if they wish to be successful.The mentioned increase in pesticide use is due, in large degree, to the fact that in a crop lacking in diversity it only takes one pest, fungus or change in environment to wipe the whole thing out. GMO foods were thought to be a solution, because they embedded the pest resistance in the genes of the plant. Michael Pollan's Botany of Desire points out that this backfired spectacularly when, after only a few years of use, three species of pests developed resistance to these genes. That's compared to only one species in the decades of traditional crop dusting. The result is that many GMO crops still need pesticides and special fertilizers.
So the obvious question, is why not just stop genetically modifying things? Unfortunately legal tie ups and proliferation have made many commercial farming operations dependent of genetic modification. Monsanto and their subsidiaries, for example, use gene patenting as a tactic to absorb smaller farming operations. When a farmer's crop is found to have the patented genes, even if the presence is due to pollen drift or other natural causes, they have two options: join Monsanto or be sued for everything they're worth. Driscoll is another producer known for presenting smaller operations with such ultimatums. Not only that but these larger operations have defined what we expect from our produce- to the public, anything other than this image is unacceptable. Whether it's Driscoll's plum-sized strawberries that are available in the dead of winter, or Monsanto's now-discontinued Flavr Savr tomato which had an extended shelf life- we expect certain things from our produce, and the fulfillment of those expectations is what sells.
In this way, we have to humanize GMO's. With the examples of Driscoll's and Monsanto as context, we see that commercial farming companies not only help to generate and sustain the prototypes we have for certain foods, they also use predatory business models to threaten the farmers that the public values so much. In both the past and present tense, unless farmers are willing to give up their livelihoods, they have to keep growing these crops.
On a more global scale, the GMOs are branded as a potential solution to world hunger and diseases facing many developing nations. Feature's Joel Cohen stated in 2005 that many countries have "products in all stages of the research pipeline, having made significant commitments to GM crops". Because of their purported benefits, they have been proliferated to the extent of generating dependence in many populations.
Public Reception
 |
| 2016 Anti-GMO Rally |
Are GMOs bad for the environment? Yes. Are they bad for small business? Absolutely, the business practices of farms like Driscoll and Monsanto are predatory and terrible. But many people were very quick to condemn their consumption as unhealthy and demonize anyone who dared consume GMO produce- keep in mind, many products weren't and still aren't labeled as GMO, and as addressed earlier many people don't have the financial ability to support such a moral imperative. Nonetheless riots like the one above, from May of 2016, continue with their rallying cries of "Hell no, GMO!".
The question then becomes:
How do we communicate with the public regarding GMOs?
An in-class discussion served to uniquely highlight the issues with the public perception of GMO's. For one thing, what is natural? We grappled with this question and had several answers, "a part of nature", "untampered with by man", "wild" to name a few. The problem is that there are properties of the food we consume on a daily basis that not even an Organic Non GMO Whole Food Cruelty free sticker can take away. We can't define something by what it is not, that is- we can't define "natural" by the absence of genetic modification, we determined very early on that even genetic modification manifests itself in many different ways, and unless you want to eat the wheat-looking corn stalk (I don't) you need a little genetic modification in your life.Grocery stores and produce marketers find themselves in a unique damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't sort of situation. If they don't label their GMO products, legislation gets pushed and riots occur and they lose business because the public feels deceived, on the other hand if they do label their GMO products then legislation gets pushed and riots occur and they lose business because the public is armed with misinformation about the reality of GMOs.
Obviously, transparency is the best option. People deserve to know what they are eating. Store owners and farmers, however, don't deserve to lose business because people don't fact check and believe GMO soybeans made hair grow in rats mouths. Unfortunately, many people don't go to the trouble and opponents of GMOs have the budget and the following to spread such information with impunity- at least for a little while. Encouraging people to critically evaluate sources, as per usual, is at the heart of mitigating public outcry in situations like this. Ensuring that public funds and resources only go to credible studies is also important. Continuing the push for mandatory labeling legislation for GMO foods would be incredibly beneficial, even from a purely democratic standpoint.
 |
| Shockingly enough, this is NOT how genetic modification works |
Fundamentally altering public opinion about something as important as food- especially when it's a change- will be difficult, but worth the effort. A world in which GMOs where not essential to world food production would obviously be ideal, but we won't get there through non communication or ignorance. Making information regarding GMOs readily available- and insuring its validity- will lead to a more well-informed and hopefully more passionate public. It's clear that people have the drive to make a change, and directing them effectively will help food ethics and environmental movements gain even more traction than they already have among the millennial and post-millennial generations to achieve their valuable goals of healthy and sustainable lifestyles for everyone.
Word count: 1535
Comments
Post a Comment