Every few years, it seems, there is a hot button issue that divides people in a way that goes far beyond disagreements–the differences are sharp and deep. We’ve seen it in debates over abortion, gay rights, climate change, guns and fracking…and now over genetically modified crops and foods (GMOs). There is almost no middle ground–kind of like in the picture that accompanies this story.
Is there a chance for dialogue in the current rancorous debate over the future of food? I question whether that’s possible. The best parallel is not to gay rights or climate change, where facts can edge people’s views one way or another, but to abortion. If you believe life is so sacred that aborting even a damaged fetus violates the natural order, there is no middle ground. That doesn’t make abortion opponents wrong; just ridged. Abortion opponents hold a religious view that is impenetrable by science or compromise.
Most GMO opponents fall into the same category. There is a lot of faux talk about labeling and the desire to help consumers make informed decision, but we all know, and most GMO leaders candidly admit, that labeling is merely a means to the end of banning all GE products. To them, GMOs are as abhorrent as abortion is to right to lifers. It’s a religious violation of a perceived natural order, ordained by Nature itself, or God. I find this religious-like certainty scary, whether coming from the left or the right; but others, not so much.
I may be too cynical. Tamar Haspel, the gifted food writer for the Washington Post thinks so. She’s a classic middle roader, seeing excess on both sides of the debate but a campfire up ahead where heavily armed opponents have laid down their swords to join hands singing Kumbaya.
She boils down the differences to 5, and offers what she believes are potential points of agreement. Number ONE is that we should all agree that GMO foods are safe to eat, citing the worldwide consensus by mainstream science groups. She’s right; but hardcore GMO opponents will never acquiesce to that point. And even so-called moderates, like Michael Pollan, who often provide lip service to the “GMO’s are safe” consensus talk out of both sides of their mouth–saying one thing to NPR while riling up he anti-fervor when amongst friends. Chalk that hope up to wishful thinking.
Number TWO, Haspel tries to find a middle ground on the labeling date, saying that rejection of labeling on the grounds that GMOs are safe misses the point: people want them to be labelled. But do they? While 90% of consumers asked if they want GMOs labeled–a classic ‘pull poll–agree with questioner, the percentage falls to under 5% when consumers are asked, neutrally, whether there is any additional labeling they’d like on foods. And what would be on a label? In Vermont, GM corn would be labeled but not Vermont cheeses made with GM ingredients. Colorado would label GM soy products but not local craft beers or Budweisers made with GM ingredients. Why? Because consumers really don’t care much about this. Opponents are using the label issue as a wedge–get the skull and crossbones in place and the boulder is rolling down hill.
Number THREE: she questions that anti-GMO common wisdom that only Big Ag benefits from the technology. Except for a gratuitous swipe at GM crops that are herbicide resistant–they’ve allowed for the substitution of less toxic chemicals for more dangerous ones–she nails that. But accepting that premise would be ‘game over’ for the antis. It will never happen.
Number FOUR: Crop biotechnology supporters should get over their meme that ‘we’ve been genetically modifying crops for thousands of years.’ Personally, I think she’s nailed this one. While that statement is technically correct, it misses the point; people know that genetic engineering is not identical to conventional breeding. It is in fact more precise and may be safer, but it’s not the same. Haspel nails it: Making this argument to reasonable skeptics makes one sound silly.
Share this article
Finally she hopes that the antis stop calling anyone and everyone who embraces the science of genetic engineering a shill and that opponents should not all be labelled anti-science. I’ve never quite felt comfortable slinging the anti-science label mud at GMO opponents, though I’ve used it a lot. Most of them are ignorant of the science of GMOs but that’s kind of beside the point. You don’t influence any views that way, and isn’t that why we are engaged in this discussion…to encourage genetic literacy?
Do her prescriptions make sense to you? Weigh in and we’ll pass them along to Tamar.
Jon Entine, executive director of the Genetic Literacy Project, is a Senior Fellow at the World Food Center, Institute for Food and Agricultural Literacy, University of California-Davis. Follow @JonEntine on Twitter
