|
So let’s address them in that order, when we talk about health issues related to GMOs the arguments against vary from the baseless and absurd to the deeply concerning. We all want to maintain good health, it’s the natural wish we bestow on each other at suppers and social events. Our concerns about health are in fact existential, and so the fear of an unknown threat is quite understandable. And the thought that a genetically modified organism could somehow modify us is mostly baseless short of nefarious intervention, the vast majority of genetic modifications do not substantially change the nature of the plants and animals we eat so as to make them dangerous. But at the same time there are exceptions, where certain changes to growth hormones could have impacts on humans, and such development should indeed require oversight and be evaluated for the health impacts. Another frequently raised issue is that of antibiotic resistance transfer, but genetic engineering techniques have also evolved away from needing antibiotic resistance especially with plants and animals. Take for example the gene gun with gold nanoparticles bonded to DNA showcased in our video. The primary concern to health should be the nefarious use of said technologies, and we’ll get back to this towards the end.
As for environmental risks, lateral gene transfers are still plausible events though rare and if occurring with genes used to make plants resistant to blights for example, aren’t always a negative occurrence. The environmental arguments against GMOs often involve the use of mono cultures and the loss of biodiversity. Which when we stop to think about it, is not an issue with GMOs at all but rather an argument against industrial agriculture as a whole. Changing our farming practices would go much further in addressing these issues than banning the use of GMO crops, which on the contrary could help us increase the biodiversity of our farmed species by making it possible to grow different foods in different climates. Again, this is something we’ve done via breeding and crop selection for eons, but we find ourselves in a rapidly changing environment where time sadly is no longer on our side. There’s also some push back against Bt crops, that they may have an effect on some insect species, we should compare that to the alternatives, which are the field burnings of organic practices or pesticide use (because yes, to kill the insects and grubs you need to torch the land with propane burners if you don’t want to use poisons). Once again here, it comes down to the implementation of the technologies, which is slowly starting to make me feel like a broken record.
And this brings us to the ethical and cultural component to the argument against GMOs. Here again, there’s a lot of fear mongering that this new technology is somehow meddling in some fundamentals of our universe and that it’s something mankind should never have access to. Ladies and gents, I’ve got news for you, we’ve literally smashed fundamental particles so hard we created new ones. The non-religious answer is that nothing is truly sacrosanct and there is no moral absolute, everything including moral quandaries are relative. A less theological argument implies that we shouldn’t permanently modify nature and commodify it for profit. This one’s interesting because again it doesn’t preclude the use of GMOs on their technical merits alone, just the use of that tool which we could again apply to our entire toolset. Mining irreversibly damages land, we’ve polluted our soils, water and air with forever-chemicals and we’re irreversibly changing the entire planet’s climate. There is something to be said that the profit motive has engendered a certain tendency to damage our environment.
This leads us nicely with the fourth trend of objections, the ones that focus specifically on the socio-economic dimension of genetic engineering. As with many capital intensive endeavours, genetic engineering, computing, manufacturing etc, the technological advances remain under the control of very few un-elected individuals who prize extractive profit making over any other metrics. The use of patents on lifeforms is often used in more moralistic arguments as some sort of a sin but in the more practical arguments the patents represent a form of control companies have over the distribution of their organisms and that it prevents many seed saving practices, and can also force farmers to be reliant on certain chemicals necessary for the modified organism. These are akin to modern subscription fees in all but name, and happen with non-GMO crops too, many pure strain grains and seedlings must be repurchased yearly. Again, it boils down to how we implement our technologies and who gets to control and profit from it. It’s no more an argument against modifying crops as it is an argument against letting greedy people decide how society should function for their benefits.
Finally we get to the crux of the issue, regulations and transparency. Some would argue that consumers have the right to know they are ingesting GMOs, and on the face of it I’m inclined to agree, but as with any labelling requirements, this would imply some unsafe quality to the food item which isn’t necessarily true. The transparency has to go beyond just a sticker or label GMO/non-GMO, as there’s no information there to truly make an informed decision. Much like most of our consumption we’re forced to rely on governmental regulatory bodies like the FDA, Health Canada and the EFSA to enforce standards. GMO crops are the most heavily studied and analysed crops we have, which so long as the certification process can be made transparent and thorough is more than anything breeding programs have to go through.
Here patents are helpful with regards to transparency, as any GMO that is meant to be used commercially needs to be protected. But the tradeoff for this governmentally enforced monopoly is the divulgation of the invention at hand. The issues that arise here is the obviously monopolistic control awarded to an entity, and how the barrier to entry to even apply for a patent and much less defend it is rising higher every year.
|
