What is Pro-GMO?
Richard Green returns to the our blog with an essay on the meaning of Pro-GMO. By default it is used to describe folks opposing the Anti-GMO movement, but does it really apply?
Are you interested in writing about a science related topic? Then check out our information on becoming a guest writer.
What is Pro-GMO? Is it the opposite of Anti-GMO?
That is an interesting question. When I hear that someone is “pro” something, I think of advocates that pursue an expansion of their cause. Pro-Vaccine advocates want to see more folks vaccinate, Pro-Life people want to restrict or eliminate abortion, and the Pro-Choice movement wants to ensure that women have control over their own health care choices. All of these groups actively promote their interests.
We humans like to split things into black and white opposing camps but that mold doesn’t fit well on the GMO debate. The anti-GMO folks are a movement out to promote their agenda. They have successfully put initiatives on the ballot in multiple U.S. states. Lets not forget about the March Against Monsanto, which has international participation. Shouldn’t the Pro side be a counter movement? Where are the cheerleaders promoting more GMOs? I am speaking to large-scale efforts. I know there are nuanced voices on either side and that there are folks that promote the greater use of bioengineering in agriculture, but I wouldn’t say those folks have generated a large publicly active advocacy movement.
Genetic Engineering (GE) has been a boon to medicine by modifying organisms to produce life saving drugs from Insulin for diabetes to the more recent hope associated with a new drug like ZMapp for Ebola. Using GE to bioengineer crops has also given farmers more agricultural options. But GE is ultimately just a tool in a tool chest. It is hard to image a movement that would encourage carpenters to use a claw hammer above all other hammer options. When GE is viewed as just one technique among many, then it makes sense that there is no movement to advocate that pharmaceutical companies, agricultural companies, universities, or plant breeders increase the usage of bioengineering technology. Much like that carpenter, it is up to them to use the best tool for the job. Perhaps that mind set contributed to the slow response to the anti-GMO movement and is how it gained so much traction. What was there to worry about? After all GE is just another tool. Perhaps the misinformation had to hit some kind of threshold (ballot initiatives perhaps?) before science educators, interested laypeople, and the industry could be roused to action.
If there is no pro-GMO movement then what is the response to the anti-GMO movement?
Education on biotechnology is the response used to address those who are against agricultural bioengineering. When you look at websites from scientists like Kevin Folta’s Illumination blog and the Biofortified blog they are writing to correct misinformation. The same is true for sites run by laypeople such as the Food Farm and Discussion Lab or here on the Skepti-Forum blog. Even on an industry initiated site like GMO Answers the aim is to educate. While there is the occasional mention of the potential of GE, the overwhelming focus is on education and the correction of misinformation coming from anti-GMO advocates. As the title of Dr. Folta’s blog suggests, the counter to the fear and misinformation is to send in some light to dispel the darkness of misconceptions.
The failed State initiatives give some credence that this approach is effective. When the newspaper editorial boards from California to Oregon did their homework they came out against the initiatives in their States and helped inform their respective electorates.
I don’t really care what technology is used to make pharmaceutical drugs or plant varieties. I suppose that is why I’m always taken aback a bit when I’m called pro-GMO. I am anti-GMO misinformation, but to frame it in a more positive way, I am pro-BioEngineering Education (pro-BEE). Maybe that will catch on and the two camps will be anti-GMO vs pro-BEE. There is an irony there that would warm my heart.
Image Credit: Richard Green
Richard, a true and interesting observation.
I have observed that the “Pro-GMO” label is used by those against GM crops, not by those who might be in favour of applications. It is similar to the accusations of being in the pay of Monsanto that follow any statement that there might be value in GM crops.
Genetic engineering as you say is just one tool in a toolkit of plant breeding tools. It turns out to be one that can do things that no other tool is effective at, which is why it is used.
Personally, I can live with or live without GM crops, as they are simply a tool to be used. What motivates me to get involved in the discussion (despite the bitter accusations that come my way) is the anti-science nature of the anti-GM movement. This is the same thinking the permeates the anti-vaccine movement and the climate change denial movement. Allowing it to be trotted out unquestioned will have serious impacts.
Thanks Richard. This is a political movement squaring off against science. It is not anti- vs pro- , it is anti- vs. evidence. If the evidence changes, perhaps it will be evidence vs. pro-. Until then, science is all we got. Thanks for the nice plug for the blog. kf
I am pro-GMO. I want to see how far the tech can grow. For example: Is it possible for someone to grow a ton of wheat on one acre? Maybe by 2020 it will be…
Do you have your units right there? The current World record is about 7 ton/acre.
Guess not. To be honest, I’m not too knowledgeable about farming. I’ve only heard about a ton grown on a hectare.
Yeah, it is way more than one ton per acre, some farmers have recorded almost 9t/ac in some isolated field areas.
GMO…. now that’s a mind altering, nutrition depleting subject. GMO is a product of an idea and theory of man. Therefore, it’s not a process of natural formation. The characteristic growth and development of a living organism has a reproductive residency through nature’s make-up. When altering its make-up “for man’s idea towards better results”, can and has had damaging ramifications which are not being considered as being harmful. Turning a natural process into a nonproducing plant or animal, creates a definite
extinction of a species. GMOs will/do lessen nutritional values, and soon will
turn the modifications of targeted species, which are a nutritional source,
into an inert substance.
You should change your profile name immediately as it is misleading. By the contents of your comment, you have zero knowledge of what you speak. Since you are repeating falsehoods, misinformation and naturalistic fallacies, you should not speak of it at all.
Turning a natural process into a nonproducing plant or animal, creates a definite
extinction of a species.
Wow, so I guess you are anti seedless watermelon.
OMG, the sterile seedless organic watermelons!
How was they ever created?
“GMO is a product of an idea and theory of man.”
And so is pretty much every crop plant created over the last 10,000 or so years…
Are you an anti-dentite, too?
Calling someone “pro-GMO” is like calling them “pro-chemistry” or “pro-electronics”. Any technology can be used for both good and bad. Chemistry and electronics have both been used intentionally to kill thousands of people (explosives, nerve agents, missile guidance systems – what have you). Supporting the existence of a technology doesn’t mean supporting all possible uses of it.
I describe myself as anti-anti-GM
Anastasia Bodnar’s Why I’m not pro-GMO (in the way anti-GMO people think) | Biology Fortified was influential in the early days of my GMO science advocacy efforts. I would shy away from being “pro” for sake of clarity. But most of my efforts were spent dodging the question of admitting I was “pro”. That just made me look shifty. While it may not be technically correct, it’s more correct I feel in the environmental context we find ourselves in. I’m “pro-vaccine”, why would I not then be “pro-GMO”? So we decided to just come out as pro. Why are we Pro-GMO | VeganGMO
I’m only pro because there IS a con. Feminism is a funny word too right? I mean, if we believe in the equality of all then why is it fixated on women? It’s because of the context we find ourselves in that women are unfairly discriminated against.
Even “GMO” is technically incorrect. We all know that. Why do we keep saying it? It’s because it’s come to mean something beyond a mere technology. It’s a lebel describing a movement against genetic engineering. If you are not pro-GMO, then simply stop saying “GMO”.
Being right isn’t always being correct.
Nice
post Richard. From a strictly logical/linguistic point of view, the contrary of
being “anti-GMO” is not being “pro-GMO”, but “being not anti-GMO”. It may look
like a wordplay, but: first, it is correct; second, it gives a sense of
openness, it does not give the idea of being “anti-anti”, something that tends
to irritate our “anti-GMO” friends 🙂
The delicious irony of pro-BEE vs. anti-GMO makes me very happy. I would love to be a part of a large-scale movement for promoting genetic engineering. It’s so easy to be reactionary 99% of the time, especially when I regularly have conversations like this that put me on the defensive: “You’re studying Food Science? Like Nutrition?” “Not necessarily. I’m studying rice.” “Oh, not GMO rice, though, right?” “No… but I’m pro-GMO, so I would love to work with genetically engineered rice one day.” “You’re PRO-GMO? Don’t you know that GMOs cause cancer???” Etc. I describe myself as a biotech advocate, but I have to spend most of my time debunking rather than advocating.
[…] Richard Green, guest blogger for the Skepti-Forum, doesn’t think so. In his blog, What is Pro-GMO?, Green suggests that being Pro-GMO means that you’re anti-GMO […]
I call myself pro-GMO because I am pro-biotechnology, in that I want it to continue. It is an important statement to say we want and support biotechnology, versus saying we are indifferent but against antis. Remember that the antis think in black and white, good and evil, keep or ban. Nuance is lost on them. If we waffle and stop saying we are pro-GMO, that will be seen as a weakness that they will leap on and add to their arsenal. This is a war on science, and we must battle against them, or they will win while we pat each other on the backs for being “technically accurate” with our terminology. Image is everything, so I am proudly pro-GMO.