" I want to start with some apologies. For the record, here and upfront, I apologise for having spent several years ripping up GM crops. I am also sorry that I helped to start the anti-GM movement back in the mid 1990s, and that I thereby assisted in demonising an important technological option which can be used to benefit the environment.
As an environmentalist, and someone who believes that everyone in this world has a right to a healthy and nutritious diet of their choosing, I could not have chosen a more counter-productive path. I now regret it completely.
So I guess you’ll be wondering—what happened between 1995 and now that made me not only change my mind but come here and admit it? Well, the answer is fairly simple: I discovered science, and in the process I hope I became a better environmentalist."The absolute honesty of this apology speaks volumes about his personality. Many people find it difficult to own up to even minor faults which occur on a very quotidian scale. The fact that he's owning up to being wrong about a mass-movement is downright honorable. To clarify, being wrong isn't honorable. Just recognizing when you are with grace and humility.
It's impressive that a man spent ~15 years of his life on one side of the fence, and has realized he was wrong. To admit that, and to really learn the science and facts as to why he was wrong, is a rare and impressive quality to possess.
So that's how you spell sellout. I kid. But I've always thought the problem isn't so much the genetic engineering of crops, but how companies like Monsanto (our favorite GMO demon) end up with an extreme amount of control over the food supply. You don't have to look hard to find story after story of Monsanto driving out any farmers who don't buy their seed. Over 80% of the corn grown in the US is Monsanto seed and guess what, you can't save part of your harvest for seed for the following season, you have to go back and buy new seed every season. That level of control and lack of options is what concerns me.
50 years ago, GMO was literally a sci-fi dream that was our only realistic hope for feeding an ever-increasing world population. Unfortunately, yes, Monsanto (and a few others) have more or less ruined that dream. They've found ways (arguably at least) to feed the world and instead of sharing that technology, they seem intent on controlling the world's food supplies and that scares me much more than the GMOs themselves. I don't think anyone would want to deprive Monsanto of their due profits, but not at the cost of ransoming the global food supply.
Agreed, I think it's a similar story to pharmaceuticals. I don't care as much about patent wars when the only thing it affects is my smartphone. However, when people start to 'own' living organisms - that could sustain themselves without human intervention - I think we have gone too far. GM has huge potential to improve the lives and health of billions, but we have managed to create a system that only benefits a relative few.
This may be a stupid question, but why do some people fear GMO? I can understand COMPLETELY why people hate Monsanto but why GMO in particular? Has it been proven to cause any harm?
GMO does reduce biodiversity, and that can present a risk. When most crops have the same genetic make-up, they will all respond similarly to the same threat. Thus, you could have a large-scale crop failure because every plant is equally susceptible to the same pathogen.
Thank you for the explanation, is this the reason that most detractors give? I've always thought it was a health concern i.e. carcinogen etc.
I think a lot of folk probably worry more about the health concern, but IMO that is a far lesser threat. There are also unintended effects that GMO can have on other flora/fauna. Making a crop resistant to a certain fungus or parasite can have unintended effects upon the greater ecosystem. For example, the fungus could then be driven to adapt to eat the GMO, and at the same time gain the ability to wreck havoc on local flora. Everything in an environment is connected, and it’s almost impossible to change one thing without a ripple effect. GMO can be like turning up the setting on one knob in the ecosystem to 10.Thank you for the explanation, is this the reason that most detractors give?
Why would people hate Monsanto more than, say, Apple? They're big companies that serve their consumers and shareholders. Neither is Enron or Freddy Mac. -XC PS - People hate GMO for the same reason that people fear "climate change" - it serves the purpose of people who want money and control and who have media access.
It's their business practices. In my case, I strongly disagree with Monsanto's suing of farmers for patent infringement when they haven't planted Round-up ready seed, but due to cross-pollination with nearby Monstanto crops, the gene has inserted into some of their own. Not that some folk don't really dislike Apple. However, you seem to suggest that "big companies that serve their consumers and shareholders." should all be viewed equally.Why would people hate Monsanto more than, say, Apple? They're big companies that serve their consumers and shareholders.
I think that there are a lot of ethical companies out there that get caught up in peoples political, social, or "brand" issues and that "hating" a company is pretty futile. Seriously, if you have a well balanced mutual fund in your 401K then you probably have Monsanto stock in it. So, yeah, I don't worry too much about Dish Network being a crappy place to work or GSK being a great place to work, or hating Apple or loving Google. I save my corporate directed ire for companies that are unethical. _XC
I dunno, ever listened to Nancy Pelosi or Waters or Aiken? I also note that people (not saying you) often want to "end lobbying" but don't view their own viewpoints expressed to representatives as lobbying. Thus the teachers union wants the NRA driven out and the Coal lobby wants the Sierra club muzzled. Just like when people want "externalities priced" they never want THEIR externalities priced. -XC
Worthwhile read! I always like to see people change their minds. I've heard this before about drugs and the FDA/other drug regulators- the problem is the argument comes from a world where these things are regulated, so we're free to imagine a world of mom+pop GMO labs and all the fun we could have. It's possible that other countries have a more lax drug/food regulation scheme than the US or the UK, does anyone have any data on the prevalence of adverse events correlated to the level of regulation?It now costs tens of millions to get a crop through the regulatory systems in different countries.