[Razor Ramon HG]

As another lefty and sciency person, I've had this frustrating conversation with probably half my friends by now. I think the fear of it stems primarily from a lack of understanding of what GMO actually is/does, so it's become a conversation around basic intro-level education more than anything else. It reminds me a lot of having to explain the concept of evolution to someone who fought against it but didn't understand what it actually claimed. At this point it goes basically like this:

GMO is a form of technology which allows scientists to take small segments of genetic code from one organism and insert them into the genetic code of another organism. These segments of code are responsible for producing certain characteristics in the original organism which it evolved naturally over millions or billions of year. This is a technology which could be used to create organisms that would then be used for good purposes, bad purposes, neutral purposes, etc. In this way it's no different than any other technology, in that it can be harnessed for the purposes of the user.

We have in fact been modifying plants and animals to suit our needs since the dawn of agrarian civilization, by selecting for agriculture which randomly mutates in a direction we find beneficial (bigger produce, more pest resistance, etc). The difference is that in the past we had to rely on the random nature of mutation and then pick the best, while with GMO we can intentionally grab genetic code which has already evolved in other ecological niches and use it wherever it makes sense.

So, what can we do with GMO?

* Create healthier agricultural products. Inserting genes that code for the retention/production of nutrients like Vitamin A, β-Carotene, Iron, Iodine, etc would allow us to turn staple calorie-rich foods into healthier "superfoods".

* Create more robust agricultural products. This could take the form of natural pest resistance (to drastically reduce the use of pesticides, which have harmful side effects), resilience in the face of droughts and temperature extremes (reducing waste), and longer lasting produce (reducing spoilage).

* Boost yields in every dimension. More produce per land used, more produce per fertilizer used, more produce per water used, more food per CO2 expended by farming equipment, etc. To be clear, this is a green initiative. More food with lower footprint.

So, why do people fight against it?

* Mansanto. This company gets a terrible name due to their business practices (creating expensive dependencies, suing farmers, aggressive IP litigation, etc). Unfortunately this negativity has bled over to GMO as a general technology, because they are such a huge name in the industry today. Think of it like cable companies... everyone hates their cable company, but it's not because we hate cable or internet, it's because we hate the poor customer service and obnoxious business practices of our company specifically. Today Monsanto is the big name in GMO, and they suck. But that doesn't mean GMO sucks.

* Fear of unforeseen consequences. One common claim is that crop blights would do more damage resulting from lack of genetic diversity (the claim is often made that GMO crops will all be the same so they might all get killed off at once if the right disease hits). This one is particularly misguided in my mind because GMO is creating genetic diversity faster than we've ever had it before, and because it gives us tools to target and fight blights we've never had before. If we have to rely on the arduous and random process of natural mutation to increase genetic variance in our products, we are approaching the danger of crop blights with one hand tied behind our back.

* Argument in favor of customer choice. The "natural living" idea is big and growing in western culture, and along with it things like all-organic, vegan, paleo, etc diets. One of the arguments against GMO from this side is that it will reduce their ability to chose a "natural" lifestyle as GMO products proliferate and become commonplace.

* GMO as a technology could be intentionally used for nefarious purposes (engineering of more effective biological weapons, for example). This is completely separate from agriculture, though you will find some people that argue against researching GMO technology at all out of fear. This is not a viewpoint I hold.

The bottom line? GMO as a technology is not intrinsically good or bad. It has the potential to do very many good things and to avoid every one of the bad things depending on how it is implemented. It also has the potential to do just the opposite.

So, why do I support the concept of GMO? Besides all of the potential benefits of developing GMO agriculture I already listed, ultimately we live in a global society, which means we certainly aren't going to stop companies and governments around the world from developing and harnessing this technology whether we like it or not. So what do we do to prevent the Monsantos of the world from screwing us over? Throw ourselves into it head first and foster an environment of competition, innovation, and oversight/regulation. Embrace and invest in developing this technology for good, so that we can be healthier, feed more people around the world (not just empty calories, but nutrients as well), and do it all with lower impact to the environment.

lucilletwo comments on GMO Truthers need to be kicked out of the Progressive movement

This was on the front page of reddit.