I often browse Knight Science Journalism Tracker for leads on what to read.  A recent post had the provocative title: Guns and GMOs: Why consumers might be right to fear GMOs (Not what you think).  Paul Raeburn commented on two stories (guns and GMOs) where opponents piled on to someone who was trying to be thoughtful and rational about a controversial topic.

Regarding GMOs, “[o]ne would hope that liberals and conservatives could agree on the facts, even if not the regulatory actions that should be taken.  But of course that’s not the case.  And here’s one reason: For many in the public, this conflict is not between proponents and critics of GMOs; it’s between industry and consumers…. Monsanto and Dow versus farmers and consumers.”

He goes on to say that Monsanto used genetic engineering, “this profoundly important and valuable technology,” for corporate profit, not to fight world hunger.  Also that modern genetic engineering is “completely new and different” from traditional plant breeding and GMO proponents should stop using this “decades-old” defense.  He feels “that the industry brought some of these problems [of opposition] on itself.”

For example, when local communities (in the Hawaiian example) pushed to ban Monsanto from developing GMO seeds on their island, Monsanto tried to have the State legislature ban local governments from banning GMOs.  This attempted end-run only angered the locals more and the local GMO ban passed.

I am struck by the level of emotion on all sides of the GMO issue.  Commentators on the post dumped all over Raeburn, accusing him of bias and hating on Monsanto.  They pointed out that many GMOs improve nutrition (golden rice) or offer natural protection that reduces pesticide use (papayas in Hawaii); that Monsanto is a business and not a charity; that farmers are not forced to use GMO seeds; that only hobbyists and destitute subsistence farmers save seed from year to year; and that GMO opponents are “pathological.”

I have a little personal knowledge of how companies manage in controversial industries.  I worked for the copper  mines around Silver City , New Mexico for a few years.  Once, the mines had all the power.  They built and controlled the surrounding towns.  They created an Anglo/Latino divide (which was also an American/Mexican divide) which has vestiges today.  But “the people” acting through the state of New Mexico tipped the power balance.

The mines still provide the best private employment in our poor, rural county, but the company feels it needs to do more.  To maintain their mining permits, the company works the politicians (contributions buy access, a chance to make your case directly to politicians at fund raisers).  They also work the community, providing grants, scholarships, and worthy contributions every year.  They move slowly to withdraw services – only recently did the mine stop taking some of Silver City’s municipal wastes for disposal on mine property.  They tried to shut down a potable water tap on their property behind “no trespassing” signs.  Locals complained bitterly, saying they had used the tap for years.  The company donated money to a community water system to build a new tap and re-opened the old one in the interim.  In short, the mines may have learned the lesson Raeburn suggests Monsanto ignores.

(For a fascinating insider view of a controversial industry, see RF_alum’s book about a nuclear weapons plant .)

Many people are deeply invested in their position on GMOs.  For those dedicated to the issue, there are groups that generate a sense of loyalty and reinforce existing beliefs.  No further discussion or new information is likely to change their minds.

Here are my predictions.  Problems will occur with GMOs, but they will be managed.  The debate will fade as the pubic experiences no significant harm.  Boutique farms will offer alternatives for those who care.  A core of opponents will exist forever, just as we see with other issues.  Occasionally there will be surges of opposition, but GMOs will spread through agriculture, even to places in the European Union that resist them today.  I see the benefits of GMOs as too compelling to ignore.