![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
My opinion on genetically modified food
Mar. 9th, 2013 10:30 pmI just had one of those irritating internet arguments with a pseudo-friend where neither of us has ~proof~, because the studies haven't been done, but each of us have our own strong opinions. Which happen to disagree. Now, he's entitled to his opinion, and I'm entitled to mine. I'm going to have a reasoned argument over ~here~ with myself, to try and explain my position. And also to walk away from that argument.
Topic: Whole Foods is requiring label on all GM food in it's stores (the US government doesn't require this). I think this is a step in the right direction (though I don't really like Whole Foods). I think consumers should get to know what they're eating. I personally am opposed to GM food (others may disagree). I find it telling that the producing corporations persuaded the government not to require labeling, it seems an indicator that they know what decision most people would make.
His response: Why would people be opposed to genetically modified food?
My reasons:
A very few corporations own most of the food source (and sell a very few varieties).
I think this is not good news, because part of what makes food work is biodiversity. Large scale "efficient" monocultures are what is currently feeding most of America, but they are not the only option. I believe they are the lesser option. To make monocultures work requires huge energy inputs, and right now most of that energy comes from (pretty unarguably) nonrenewable resources. Nonrenewable bugs some people more than others. I think it depends on how far a person perceives we are from the bottom of the barrel.
Besides the energy problem, monoculture also reduces the gene pool. I am going to refrain from getting into this deeply, at the moment (I'd mostly be regurgitating my readings into this entry, and there's going to be enough of that already), but I would just like to point out that, when everything is the SAME, you're reducing the number of tickets you have in the natural lottery of Bad Things. See the Irish, the Potato, and the year 1847.
Finally, I'm not sure I ~want~ profit driven corporations to be the ones controlling my sustenance. What is best for them is not necessarily best for ME. Or a lot of other people. Which leads me to my next opposition:
Those corporations are doing very terrible things to farmers.
Going to stick with two examples:
One: in a very high-profile case, seed company Monsanto sued a farmer for "theft" of their genetic property. He didn't buy it. He actually didn't want it. But his corn cross-pollinated with a neighbor who had their GM corn, so he got it. Monsanto now demands compensation, and he can't sell his (previously non GM) corn to many markets which were previously available to him. I think Mr. Farmer would argue this is an unappreciated thing. I also argue that it brings up containment issues.
Two: On the subject of things which are good for corporations but under-appreciated outside it- one of the GM companies' Favorite Things is making seeds that don't make viable seeds later. Yay! Now the farmer has to buy their product every year if he wants to keep farming! Never mind that seeds making plants to make more seeds is the whole POINT of plants. I really hope this one transmissible plant to plant.
I don't want to eat a potato or corn partially composed of insecticide.
Yes the insecticide is "generally regarded as safe". No, there has never been proof that it is bad for you. I just say that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and I am choosing to not eat it.
His counterarguments (and my non-replied replies, instead I came to rant here):
Genetically modified food has saved hundreds of millions from starvation
This is, I think, one of the few potentials of GM food. I have no idea of the accuracy of the number, but yes, I know there are efforts to install genetically modified foods in impoverished countries to better withstand drought, provide better nutrition, etc. But again, in a battle between nature smarts vs. human smarts, and I would argue for a system that the locals could maintain on their own over one that requires inputs from a human's limited understanding very far away. If this were all the GM companies were up to, I would be more tolerant, but of course charity work is less profitable, and these ~are~ profit driven organizations. Very little of their work is in this direction.
You make it sound like the plant is secreting some sort of hazardous chemical. I doubt that's what it does.
I don't know the mechanism, I don't know what constitutes "chemical" (can there be natural chemicals?), and I don't know if it's hazardous. As mentioned, there is a lack of data. I know that previously, a potato I might eat did not kill bugs. And now it does. I would like to be able to choose to not eat that potato.
Show me the research that shows what effects the consumption of GM foods has on a person. There is no conclusive research. However, there is a few million years of research showing that non-GM foods keep us alive very well, thank you very much (with the possible exception of the modern western diet). I think I will default to the old fashioned kind of food and decline to be the guinea pig in that experiment.
"I also distrust the movement to eat only organic, natural, gluten-free, unprocessed, unbleached, sea salted, cage-free, low carb, koom-bai-yah tofu madness."
So, disagreeing with my lifestyle is what got my back up. Mind, I'm not into tofu or sea salt, and I love carbs too much to swear them off (I also wish he wouldn't include gluten-free in there, it has nothing to do with the rest). I certainly don't mind that he chooses to not follow that method. But the "distrust" bugs me. Where is the risk?
Topic: Whole Foods is requiring label on all GM food in it's stores (the US government doesn't require this). I think this is a step in the right direction (though I don't really like Whole Foods). I think consumers should get to know what they're eating. I personally am opposed to GM food (others may disagree). I find it telling that the producing corporations persuaded the government not to require labeling, it seems an indicator that they know what decision most people would make.
His response: Why would people be opposed to genetically modified food?
My reasons:
A very few corporations own most of the food source (and sell a very few varieties).
I think this is not good news, because part of what makes food work is biodiversity. Large scale "efficient" monocultures are what is currently feeding most of America, but they are not the only option. I believe they are the lesser option. To make monocultures work requires huge energy inputs, and right now most of that energy comes from (pretty unarguably) nonrenewable resources. Nonrenewable bugs some people more than others. I think it depends on how far a person perceives we are from the bottom of the barrel.
Besides the energy problem, monoculture also reduces the gene pool. I am going to refrain from getting into this deeply, at the moment (I'd mostly be regurgitating my readings into this entry, and there's going to be enough of that already), but I would just like to point out that, when everything is the SAME, you're reducing the number of tickets you have in the natural lottery of Bad Things. See the Irish, the Potato, and the year 1847.
Finally, I'm not sure I ~want~ profit driven corporations to be the ones controlling my sustenance. What is best for them is not necessarily best for ME. Or a lot of other people. Which leads me to my next opposition:
Those corporations are doing very terrible things to farmers.
Going to stick with two examples:
One: in a very high-profile case, seed company Monsanto sued a farmer for "theft" of their genetic property. He didn't buy it. He actually didn't want it. But his corn cross-pollinated with a neighbor who had their GM corn, so he got it. Monsanto now demands compensation, and he can't sell his (previously non GM) corn to many markets which were previously available to him. I think Mr. Farmer would argue this is an unappreciated thing. I also argue that it brings up containment issues.
Two: On the subject of things which are good for corporations but under-appreciated outside it- one of the GM companies' Favorite Things is making seeds that don't make viable seeds later. Yay! Now the farmer has to buy their product every year if he wants to keep farming! Never mind that seeds making plants to make more seeds is the whole POINT of plants. I really hope this one transmissible plant to plant.
I don't want to eat a potato or corn partially composed of insecticide.
Yes the insecticide is "generally regarded as safe". No, there has never been proof that it is bad for you. I just say that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and I am choosing to not eat it.
His counterarguments (and my non-replied replies, instead I came to rant here):
Genetically modified food has saved hundreds of millions from starvation
This is, I think, one of the few potentials of GM food. I have no idea of the accuracy of the number, but yes, I know there are efforts to install genetically modified foods in impoverished countries to better withstand drought, provide better nutrition, etc. But again, in a battle between nature smarts vs. human smarts, and I would argue for a system that the locals could maintain on their own over one that requires inputs from a human's limited understanding very far away. If this were all the GM companies were up to, I would be more tolerant, but of course charity work is less profitable, and these ~are~ profit driven organizations. Very little of their work is in this direction.
You make it sound like the plant is secreting some sort of hazardous chemical. I doubt that's what it does.
I don't know the mechanism, I don't know what constitutes "chemical" (can there be natural chemicals?), and I don't know if it's hazardous. As mentioned, there is a lack of data. I know that previously, a potato I might eat did not kill bugs. And now it does. I would like to be able to choose to not eat that potato.
Show me the research that shows what effects the consumption of GM foods has on a person. There is no conclusive research. However, there is a few million years of research showing that non-GM foods keep us alive very well, thank you very much (with the possible exception of the modern western diet). I think I will default to the old fashioned kind of food and decline to be the guinea pig in that experiment.
"I also distrust the movement to eat only organic, natural, gluten-free, unprocessed, unbleached, sea salted, cage-free, low carb, koom-bai-yah tofu madness."
So, disagreeing with my lifestyle is what got my back up. Mind, I'm not into tofu or sea salt, and I love carbs too much to swear them off (I also wish he wouldn't include gluten-free in there, it has nothing to do with the rest). I certainly don't mind that he chooses to not follow that method. But the "distrust" bugs me. Where is the risk?