Emma: Vandana Shiva says “owning intellectual-property rights for seeds is a bad, pathetic attempt at seed dictatorship.” The New Yorker piece about her and GMOs goes on to call into question whether it is dangerous to ecosystems as a whole, not just people to genetically modify plants. Is this a legitimate concern? Should we be concerned with unknown consequences when GMOs could help solve the world hunger situation?
Isaac: It seems like there could be some unforeseen consequences to expanding GMOs on a global scale. It might not be a great connection or make any sense, but I’ve had industrial technology in the back of my head for a while now. I don’t think many people predicted the massive environmental impact of global industrialization, but also I don’t think you could go back and argue that developing countries should not have adopted industrial technologies given the economic advantages that come with them. I’m not sure if I made the point I was attempting to, but if we’re not 100% certain about the effects of GMOs on an ecosystem as a whole is it worth it to take a gamble to solve world hunger if it could end up irreversibly damaging the global ecosystem.
Serena: For me, it is more a question of how GMOs are used and who they will benefit. I stand with Vandana Shiva in opposition to seeds which are created for large scale, industrial farms. Mr. Spector himself acknowledges that the vast majority of GMOs are in fact created for this very purpose: to “meet the needs of industrial farmers and their customers in the West”. However, there are also scientists out there who are committed to developing GMOs for the good of people in developing countries. For example, Pamela Ronald, professor of plant genetics at the University of California Davis, is working on a project developing rice for Bangladeshi farmers. In his web series on GMOs, Nathanael Johnson calls such usage “appropriate technology,” and I would certainly agree. I think Shiva is doing the public a great disservice by failing to make this distinction, instead lumping all GMOs together as “seed dictatorship”. I think there is certainly room for middle ground, when we distinguish between developing GMOs that will benefit big corporations versus GMOs that are being used to address the global food shortage.
Emma: I certainly agree that Shiva is being disingenuous when lumping all GMOs together. Her suggesting that all genetic modifications of crops are a “violation of the rules of life” feels very dramatic and philosophical, taking legitimacy away from the scientific aspect of it. I think it’s dangerous to devalue scientific research and knowledge in any realm, and especially in such a complex issue as GMOs. Take Pollan’s piece on the potential of golden rice to add Vitamin A into nutrient deficient diets on southeast Asia. Although I am not convinced that the health benefits of golden rice exist or are as great as advertised, I think that the potential impact it could have on the health of the developing world is serious enough that full consideration should be given to the subject. If we toss aside GMOs just because they are deemed as morally inferior, what kind of scientifically proven health benefits could be overlooking? Pollan calls into question the moral obligation of people living in developed countries to bettering the lives of people in developing nations.
Serena: The more I read about GMOs, the more I am shocked by the extreme rhetoric circulating on both sides of the debate. On one hand, we have Shiva proclaiming GMOs to be “food totalitarianism” and nothing short of “genocide”. On the other hand, the biotechnology industry’s advertising campaign for Great Yellow Hope is designed to tug at the heartstrings of the public, playing up the “save a starving child” image. I certainly agree with Emma, that such language and imagery detracts from any scientific legitimacy. Moreover, I feel that it serves to further polarize the issue, leaving little room for middle ground.
Isaac: It does seem like we are getting a fair amount of information from the extreme viewpoints. At first I thought just the loudest voices were going through, but I think you brought up a good point about there being very little room for middle ground. I followed the link rabbit hole that started with a follow-up on Pollan’s piece. There are some great articles and videos out there chronicling the vandalism and eventual destruction of the golden rice test fields in the Philippines. Lynas’ piece on Slate has an interview with golden rice project manger, where he recounts a raid by an “angry mob” of activists. They jumped the fence at the test site and trampled and uprooted plants. It seems like they are not quite sure who the vandals were, some people think it was GreenPeace and others suggest it was KMP (“an extreme-left organization that promotes a conspiracy theory that golden rice is being produced to facilitate a multinational takeover of the Filipino rice market”). Regardless, it is definitely an emotional issue with tempers running high on both sides. I feel like this GMO debate is very different than the ones we touched on in class on Thursday. So far I’ve felt my opinions on GMOs swing on a case by case basis.
Emma: I wonder if there needs to necessarily be such polar opinions, though. What Isaac said about operating on a case to case basis makes a lot of sense to me. Perhaps having blanket policies one way or the other is very dangerous. It really isn’t that simple. We must think about why a crop is being genetically modified, and to what ends. However, what is clear to me is that genetic modifications cannot be kept behind closed doors. No matter what I think transparency is a requirement in this murky subject. The public deserves to and has a right to know about the composition of their food. That information should be easily accessible.
Serena: I agree with both Isaac and Emma – GMOs are enough of a grey area that it seems neither fair nor productive to try to categorize all GMOs as “good” or “bad”. That being said, I also think there is something to be said about the importance of involving stakeholders in this discussion. I keep coming back to the question that a farmer from the Indian village of Dhoksal asked of Michael Spector. After telling Spector about the many benefits he had been experiencing since the introduction of Bp cotton, the man asked: “Why do rich people tell us to plant crops that will ruin our farms?” While I had earlier noted that part of my issue with GMOs is the power it affords big corporations, I am equally concerned that Shiva is silencing the people who are most affected by this – small, rural farmers. I think if we really want to have this debate, we need to get all parties involved, not just the ones with the money or the power. Of course, this is a whole lot easier said than done.
Serena: On a separate note, I would highly recommend reading Ben Paynter’s piece in Best Food Writing 2014. In “Monsanto Is Going Organic in a Quest for the Perfect Veggie”, Paynter offers an interesting perspective on the corporation and its products. (Again, we see the power of narrative to sway readership on controversial issues.) I personally was shocked to learn about the work Monsanto is doing on flavor engineering, some of which doesn’t even involve GMOs. I am only beginning to understand the extent to which scientists are able to manipulate the food we eat (which is both fascinating and a bit scary!) Such readings could not have come at a better time – just yesterday I had the pleasure of speaking with Maya Warren, Carleton alumna and ice-cream scientist (you may recognize her from the CBS reality TV series The Amazing Race). Truth be told, I had never stopped to consider the role that science plays into creating our processed and packaged food. When I asked her what she liked to cook, she burst of laughing, making it clear the difference between a food scientist and a chef – both deal with food, but from very different angles and areas of expertise. Most of my exposure to food has been from the culinary side – but it is shocking to realize the extent to which science is a part of our everyday culinary experience. And thus we find ourselves back at the moral questions that GMOs raise: to what extent it is “natural” to interfere with our food, to whom do such interferences benefit, and what potential dangers do such modifications pose to humans and to the environment.
Emma: It’s really interesting that Serena brings this up, because I had just been thinking about Dan Barber’s book The Third Plate which takes us on a chef’s journey to radically change eating habits and move beyond the “farm-to-table” ethic. Barber’s learning journey about food systems is beyond just one of understanding and goes more to the taste of foods. He traveled to South Carolina and learned all about different heritage rices, and to eastern Washington to learn about heritage wheat crops. There is a whole range of varieties of food that we totally miss because big corporations have so totally taken over the market place. The type of wheat that we are used to eating is, according to Barber, incredibly bland. It’s interesting to think of how flavor manipulation can work in two directions– some GMO items are designed to have better flavors, while apparently some are designed to simplify flavors– but then again, maybe that’s what the average consumer wants. Serena is totally right in being afraid of the amount of power GMOs give to big corporations to dictate big trends in our eating culture. Do GMOs have the power that foodies wish they had?
Isaac: Little tangent of Dan Barber because I’m a big fan. I’ve read about his restaurant outside of New York, Blue Hill, and it sounds like an interesting place. It just as much a farm as it is a restaurant. They have a full operation on site where they grow all of their ingredients and also sell produce in bulk. Pretty cool way to guarantee you’re eating local (though looking at the menu it looks like you definitely pay a premium for feeling good about the source of your food). Ok back to GMOs. Paynter’s piece on the science of engineering taste really led me to look at GMOs as just another tool in the arsenal of food growers. If there’s a way to replicate flavors without causing serious harm to the growing environment or the internal environment of the consumer, I say why not. I’m not sure how comfortable I would be with this type of crop dominating the market, but for now it feels like it can fill a solid niche. Given a recent run-in with a batch of gross jelly-beans, it is safe to say flavor technology is fairly advanced, so I don’t have many qualms in letting it advance further. Emma, I really liked the point you brought up regarding the lack of variety in our choices. I think it is applicable outside of the food world too, like in the music or art world where you can think you have free range, but you really only see what is put in front of you. I wonder how quickly we’ve adapted to these limited bland options that Barber describes and become content with them. How do you break out of this corporation controlled market-place, are farmer’s markets fair game or are they shilling similar products with morality mark-up?
Recent Comments