On mentioning GMOs to modern consumers, reactions might vary from ambivalence at best to fear and loathing at worst. Along with the rise in modern consumer self- advocacy has come a wide variety of non-FDA labels catering to customer interests. While many of these new product labels lead to better educated shoppers making healthier decisions, one source of turmoil has grown around GMOs and food labels from organizations such as the Non-GMO Project. With the experimental consensus having not found significant risk in GMOs, this appeal to natural products has the potential to stifle growth in technologies central to expanding food access to a growing population. This fear was most likely born of reasonable skepticism given the nature of the means of developing and privately determining how best to use GMO foods rather than from a fear of the technology itself--in short, mistrust of large, centralized agricultural firms such as Monsanto.
The potential benefits of GMO crops are both extremely broad and deep. From adding potato blight resistance, as BASF has recently done to a strain yet to be released on the market, to shortening growing times and increasing crop yields, the initial payoff for GMOs has been massive (Bawa). However, the public reaction is frequently nothing but scorn, and rarely actual understanding. Despite requiring FDA approval, 57% of American adults reported that they did not consider GMO crops safe to eat (Funk). A highly likely cause for this disconnect is not distrust of scientists or “new” products as a whole, but distrust of large companies with histories of deceitful practices pushing these new products.
Monsanto has recently been at the center of a number of international scandals revolving around glyphosate, the active ingredient in its signature weed-killer, Roundup. In one case, Monsanto was reported by Spiegel as having covered up and unduly influenced studies concerning a link between cancer and glyphosate (Bethge). Obviously such practices periodically coming to light would influence consumer views on any and every product related to such companies and industries. While a certain level of skepticism regarding novel ideas or methods is both healthy and in fact necessary, when these products are tied to deliberate efforts to obfuscate safety concerns for financially linked products, as in the case of Monsanto and glyphosate, this healthy skeptic response can easily turn into fear and distrust of all related new products. A key requirement for public trust, is open disclosure of risks and clear behavior towards protecting public health rather than purely pursuing profit above all else. While organizations, such as the Non-GMO Project are not exactly helping smooth public concern, such concern clearly has a basis in reality with such scandalous cover-ups by corporate giants. Accordingly, the roots of this panic most likely come from fear of corporate control rather than from public distrust of scientific research itself.
References:
Bawa, A. S., & Anilakumar, K. R. (2013, December). Genetically modified foods: Safety, risks and public concerns—a review. Retrieved March 24, 2018, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3791249/
Bethge, P. (2017, October 24). Monsanto Faces Blowback Over Cancer Cover-Up. Retrieved March 24, 2018, from http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/monsanto-papers-reveal-company-covered-up-cancer-concerns-a-1174233.html
Funk, C., & Raine, L. (2015, July 1). Http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/07/01/chapter-6-public-opinion-about-food/. Retrieved March 24, 2018, from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/07/01/chapter-6-public-opinion-about-food/
I think this is an interesting idea but I disagree with you. I think fear of GMOs comes form lack of information about them not a lack of trust in large companies. These days people want to know everything that goes into the products they use and especially the products they consume. I think GMOs would be more widely accepted if there was more open knowledge about how and why they were made.
ReplyDeleteThere are so many opinions and different sources of information on GMOs that it is probably difficult for the average consumer to develop a fully educated decision about their stance on GMOs. However, I think the opposition to the use of GMOs indeed comes from mistrust of large companies, a lack of information, and above all else, the moral/ethical implications of playing the hand of "God". Changing the DNA of an organism definitely crosses an ethical line that should be evaluated. To completely stand behind GMOs, proclaiming that science backs it up (as if science hasn't continuously disproved and morphed it's own products throughout history), and not have some moral consideration for rolling the dice is a bold stance that is echoed throughout the GMO debate.
ReplyDeleteI can see both stances on this topic. For one, GMOs could benefit countries that have an unstable food supply by increasing the growth of certain crops, or shortening their growing times. The negative benefits of GMOs could be endless, there's not really a way of knowing until there's been extensive research on it. However, there has already been reports stating the adverse effects of GMOs like the one you stated above regarding glyphosate in Roundup. It's always important to look at each aspect of a new product to see the potential adverse effects it could play in the environment.
ReplyDeleteI think that the scandals that have periodically come out, the lack of knowledge most people have about GMO's, and the various organizations that are advocating against GMO's all are adding to the idea that GMO's are always bad. Although most GMO's are extremely beneficial, there are a few cases that cause people to have an distrust in all of them.
ReplyDeleteAs I wrote about in one blog post, society seems adamantly opposed to things they deem unnatural. Since GMO's seem to be unnatural, they are deemed dangerous. In reality, GMO's are the same thing as selective plant breeding, just accelerated. This technology, as you point out, is mandatory to feed a growing population. Our fear of a perceived danger is holding us back from growing into a brighter future.
ReplyDelete