There are many arguments for why GMOs are good, and many about why they ate bad. This article is not meant to pick at those arguments, list them, or start debates. I recently had a conversation with a colleague about this topic and I wanted to share it. He asked my why I do not like GMOs, because without the built in pesticides the crop populations were being doused in surface chemicals of all kinds that could then be ingested. Furthermore, he said, without the use of chemicals or the GMOs, the surviving crops farmers would be able to produce with the amount of natural pests, would not be enough to support the world population. While I have a completely different opinion on world population, that I won't go into now, I gave him my reasoning, and he said I was the first person he'd ever spoken to who gave a logical, arguable reason.
I have encountered this time and time again, people say they don't like GMOs because they are unnatural scientific creations created in a lab. Unfortunately, that argument falls short, because pretty much everything humans use has been created in a lab in one way or another, prescription medications, sunscreen, plastic packaging and storage devices, computers, televisions, polyester fabric on the couch, that is pretty unavoidable. Before labs, all the meat products we have today are species that were bred a specific way to have specific traits,and while not made in a lab, their genes were still manipulated through selctive breeding, which arguably is still a form of modifying genetics of an organism.
To me, the majority of people have been jumping on the anti GMO wagon because it is trendy and cool. While that may be bringing more attention to the matter, it is almost worse, because if people support a cause without doing their research and give false claims or have flimsy arguments, that reflects badly on the people that are actually making a stand because it is important to more than just the most recent fad.
As I told my colleague, I don't particularly trust the GMO industry, but I am less against it as a food source, because I have been ingesting GMOs for years, and so has the majority of the population, and so far nothing significant has happened to me. I told him I don't think there is enough science or testing to prove one way or another whether they actually impact people negatively. I also am a firm believer that most primate species, human and non human, have very resilient digestive systems and are able to consume and digest just about anything, but my largest reason for not supporting the industry is because of the effect GMOs have on the global environement. The bees that have been dying off by the millions are being effected by the genetic changes of their natural pollen sources, and that is just the beginning. If bees are being effected and go extinct, it is predicted that humanity and most other life on earth would have a maximum of four years to live before we would all be wiped out. That is how important something as small as bees can be to a global ecosystem. I explained that if bees are effected in that scale, we don't know what other species are being effected, or what species will be effected as time goes on, and how that will impact the world.
So, as I am not so sure they make a negative food source for sustenance, I do believe that GMOs can have a negative effect on our internal systems, such as reproductive systems and any life we may try to produce going forward. Again, there isn't enough science in either direction to prove that point.
My colleague admired my statement that I am against GMOs for the fact that they have, so far, had a negative impact on the world environment. He countered by asking about how if humanity abandoned GMOs and still avoided surface chemical use, then how will we as a whole be able to grow enough crops that aren't pest infested to support the world population. It took my quite a while of thinking to come up with a response to that question. I generally see the reason for GMOs existence as the human population has surpassed that of which the planet can support without harming other species, both plant and animal, so I think the overpopulation problem should be addressed along with the impact of GMOs on the environment, but that was not the answer I gave him.
My answer was this, Global Education. If there could be a program to educate every country, down to every person, of the human impact, on a global and individual scale, on the environment, then perhaps there would be no need for GMOs and deforestation and a scramble for natural resources such as crude oil. As unrealistic as it is, the only real way to change anything and fix some of the damage already done, would be to show people of every walk of life, rich, poor, third world country, island dweller, indigenous tribe, how each species on the planet is important to life, human life, all life, or else they wouldn't have all evolved together. Teach the world how one plastic straw in the ocean, or a soda bottle left on the side of the road, or the clear cutting of several square miles of forest for farmland, or the over hunting and poaching of animals already on the brink of extinction has a global impact to not just people but plants and animals.
Of course this is unrealistic, and not everyone agrees that each life form is as important as the next, but the point being, my colleague was very impressed that I had logical and arguable facts and opinions, that if properly implemented could make a real difference. It was one of the first times I spoke to someone pro GMO in which we were able to have a civilized conversation that didn't turn into a heated debate. Maybe there is hope for opening communication between people with differing views after all.
No comments:
Post a Comment