Genetically modified foods – examining the arguments

There are two strongly differing strands running through arguments presented by those opposing GM foods. People can support both, one or neither, but confusing the two undermines coherent argument, and in particular damages those opposing.

One is that GM foods are harmful. The evidence for this is thin, so in essence it becomes a conservative viewpoint. The frankenfood label applied to GM food by proponents of this argument is one based on fear. A counter applied by GM supporters often involves another label – Luddite. Unfortunately arguing in labels is where the debate often stops, so let’s examine these labels a bit further.

The Luddite’s were a worker’s movement reacting to the impacts of the Industrial Revolution. Painting them as simply a group who were against new technology, which is the angle taking by those using the word pejoratively, is mistaken. A full-blown analysis of Luddite history is beyond the scope of this article, but have a look at Kevin Binfield’s Writings of the Luddites or E.P. Thompson’s Making of the English Working Class for more on the topic.

The term frankenfood comes from Mary Shelley’s novel, Frankenstein. Simplistically, the story is usually understood as being about a mad scientist who overreached himself, and whose life was ruined by his creation. Again, there’s more to the novel, which was subtitled A Modern Prometheus, but that’s for another day.

So, the simplistic arguments boil down to accusations of being foolishly against technology, versus being foolishly for technology. The recent cover of Biophile epitomised the frankenfood argument.

The 4 labels read Nature, Genetic Modification, Humans Playing God and Nature.

GM is a technology. To oppose technology in general based on fear is mistaken. The 3rd image on the Biophile cover was titled Humans Playing God. And that’s an aspect of the anti-GM argument that I strongly oppose. What’s wrong with playing God? The religious belief that humans are helpless and should leave action to the whims of a greater being strikes me as a dereliction of duty. Humans create. We participate. We make mistakes, but the remarkable capacity of the earth to adapt (it will recover from CFC’s, from Chernobyl, no matter how great the consequences) allows a lot of leeway. To try and deny that very human impulse is doomed to failure.

But let’s get to the detail. what is it specifically about GM technology that could be feared? It’s that the consequences of the actions are not clearly understood, and could be disastrous. I said first that this strand is a conservative strand, because it opposes change, and places the burden of proof on the proponents of the technology, the so-called Precautionary Principle.

Perhaps the fundamental point here is the level of risk one is willing to accept. And that’s determined by balancing the likely positive outcomes against the likely negative outcomes, and the perceived likelihood of their occurrence. I’ve made the point in other posts that finding truth is an immensely complicated task. We tend to choose what we wish to believe. It should be based upon how well it coheres with our other beliefs, but quite often there’re all sorts of irrational prejudices as well.

If one believes that the risks are small (of course it’s safe), but that the benefits are great (less pesticides, higher yields), of course one would differ from another who believes that the risks are great (terminator genes creating havoc in the wild, animals and insects reacting badly after eating the food) and the benefits small (it can all be done with organic farming).

I tend to believe that genetic modification is not harmful as a whole. There’s more evidence that pesticides are harmful. There’s some evidence that certain GM products have had harmful effects. And no evidence for others. Tarring GM as a whole with a single brush is not helpful. It should be taken on a case-by-case basis, as the technology may produce harmful products, and non-harmful products. I also tend to believe that the earth is resilient, and can adapt to strange new entities inhabiting its space. Fears of the terminator gene infecting the wild seem unreasonable, as by their design they will be sterile, and hardly likely to spread rapidly. Humans too are adaptable, and if a worst case of mass failures of a particular commercial crop happens due to some unforeseen effect caused by GM, humans will adapt to using other crops. And perhaps realise the harmful effects of mass monoculture at the same time. So there are consequences, but not the doomsday scenario so beloved by certain conservative environmentalists. It’s not prudent to put strange things in your body that may have harmful consequences, but my body is full of things that have been clearly shown to have much more harmful effects. I still all to often eat crisps smothered in gunk. I’ve already undoubtedly eaten GM foods thanks to the poor labelling standards. But what about the benefits?

This brings me to the next of the two strands I initially mentioned. The argument that GM food is of no benefit as it’s intended to make money for corporate interests rather than save the world from hunger, reduce pesticide use or any of the other benevolent aims ascribed to it.

The intention behind anything is important, as it will help shape its impact. Here’s where’s where the line is clearer for me. There is no shortage of food in the world in the way GM proponents often paint it. That message has been marketed partly as a consequence of the opposition to GM in Europe, forcing the biotech companies to target developing countries. What’s key is that the biotech companies aim to force farmers to buy the seeds from them each year. Contracts forbid the storing of seeds, and Monsanto, the most well-known biotech company, is working hard to overturn the ban on terminator technology, which will result in the offspring being sterile, forcing farmers to return each year to buy more. So even if GM food is entirely harmless, the intention is to enrich the owners of the Monsantos of the world, and by doing so to disempower farmers. A tragic example of the latter has been cotton farming in India. Suicides are on the rise as cotton farmers have been persuaded (in many cases in a highly unethical manner) to try expensive GM cotton based on the higher yields it purportedly produces. Unfortunately it’s a lot more expensive, and losing a crop to a year of drought leaves the farmers heavily indebted. With no seeds stored, they have no fall-back, and many have been turning to suicide. There’s also the Argentine example, where black-market seed sales have resulted in Monsanto attempting to claim royalties when GM food is sold, rather than just the sale of the seeds.

It’s this second argument in particular that causes me to come out strongly against GM the way it’s currently being marketed and implemented. However, I can see potential benefits. There’s been a lot of talk about open source GM technology (and a lot of confusion), which isn’t really a correct usage of the term. Nevertheless, what’s meant is the freedom to access information, as well as the freedom to use the information, rather than it existing solely for the benefit of an organisation whose reason for being is to make money for its owners. Let the information out. Highlight corporate interests that push a particular agenda. Label any products clearly and let people choose. True innovation is not driven by money, but rather love of what one’s doing. As Free and Open Source software development has shown, the lack of a proprietary and restrictive license is no inhibitor of innovation. But GM in its current guise is something I cannot support. It’s intention is enrichment and disempowerment, it’s techniques are secrecy and misinformation. Separate the arguments, stop creating false doomsday scenarios, and perhaps the anti-GM movement might win a lot more supporters.