RF_alum has written an informative string of postings on GMOs. Here’s my two cents.
The GMOs that cause controversy are foods. No one seems to want to stop producing insulin or vaccines using GMOs, or to ban oil-eating bacteria used to clean up spills in the environment. Furthermore, I read negative opinions mostly about food crops farmed on an industrial scale, (especially corn, wheat, and soy beans), GMOs that resist Roundup or incorporate biocides, and anything produced by Monsanto.
Since we all agree that healthy food and sustainable production are good things and starvation and high prices are bad things, what causes the public policy controversy?
Many people hold moral and spiritual objections to GMO foods. They draw on one of humanity’s six moral foundations (see book reviewed here):
Sanctity: People know that some things are noble and pure while others are degrading and base. These sacred values bind groups together.
People also show a practical skepticism about any new or unfamiliar risk. Both views are important to the debate. Public policies must consider moral values, and no one should get away with lying about the science.
Too often, the media seems to balance cheer-leaders with doomsdayers. I find this to be counterproductive. The “impartiality test” explained in this posting seems a better way to identify reliable sources. I try to keep in mind that all these sources are just people; that people are both good and bad, smart and stupid. One of my favorite poems says “Exercise caution in your business affairs; for the world is full of trickery. But let this not blind you to what virtue there is.” ( Desiderata )
The controversy over GMOs seems to me to be an extension of debates over organic vs. conventional food.
I am a member of my town’s food co-op, a place stocked with free-range eggs, local honey, organic produce, and bottles and bottles of dietary supplements. (Which is odd, I think, since the organic food is supposed to make you healthy.) Personally, I don’t seek out “organic” food. I joined my local co-op to find products that big groceries don’t carry, and because some of their bulk products are cheaper than Wal-Mart. (Who’d expect that.)
Organic farming is not obviously better than conventional farming. Studies have shown there is no nutritional difference between conventional and organic food, though farmers may favor different varieties of a given crop which can lead to differences. Most organic farming is “big business” just like conventional farming. Fertilizer contamination of the food and lands surrounding the farms happens in both types of farming. Lower yields from organic techniques means more acres of land must be farmed to grow a given amount of food. Yet most of my fellow co-op members are dedicated to organic products, and are willing to pay a premium for them.
On both organic and GMO food, I’m enough of a libertarian to believe people have the right to make their own decisions. Labeling foods enables choice. Let producers purchase certifications from private companies (for example, organic, Fair-Trade, natural, humane, salmon safe, non-GMO, OneCert). I have no strong objection to a USDA organic certification, since it is so popular, but establishing dozens of different government standards seems excessive to me.
I value science, but in the end, I think most of us will make decisions on food based on our moral values. Please, when you justify your decisions, don’t abuse the science.
I hope you are interested in the science behind GMOs. Take a look at http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4037 for a checklist on how to spot pseudoscience and keep the impartiality test in mind. Personally, my bottom line is supportive of GMOs.