The Left is Hotly Divided on GMOs

Wow.  Just in the last few days the Daily Show ridiculed an anti-GMO activist.

YouTube Preview Image

The New York Times opinion page carried “How I Got Converted to GMO Food” including this meaty bit:

After writing two books on the science of climate change, I decided I could no longer continue taking a pro-science position on global warming and an anti-science position on G.M.O.s.

There is an equivalent level of scientific consensus on both issues, I realized, that climate change is real and genetically modified foods are safe. I could not defend the expert consensus on one issue while opposing it on the other. 

And on the anti-GMO side, Chipotle announced it’s no longer serving GMO food.

Posted by

Susan Harris
on April 27, 2015 at 10:19 am, in the category Ministry of Controversy.

Comment List

  • Allen Bush 05 / 07 / 2016

    Seeds of Doubt…The New Yorker takes down an anti-GMO crusader.

  • Garden Rant 09 / 09 / 2016

    Glad you added that, Allen. That was a great read, and devastating. Susan

  • Joe Schmitt 25 / 10 / 2016

    Carefully read, the piece is an indictment of the dishonesty on both sides of the argument, and when the respective sources of the two sides are weighed, the embattled small farmer and the marauding multinational behemoth, it’s easy to understand why our sympathies are with the farmer. Monsanto is indeed loathed, and rightly so, not so much for its science as for its winner takes all, profit driven approach to our planetary food supply, while claiming to want only to save the world’s brown people from themselves. In the name of science they have invaded the third world like colonial troops in mufti.
    Food issues simply cannot be lumped in with smart watches in the race to gain market share. The last line of the New Yorker piece couldn’t be truer. We need all approaches to world food sustainability and that includes learning from traditional and indigenous farmers and resurrecting the nutritionally superior and climate adapted minor crops like amaranth and quinoa and ragi and teff that Monsanto’s monoculture mania has all but eradicated.

  • val 08 / 11 / 2016

    Can’t someone be both? I had professors who were working to genetically modify plants to clean up polluted bodies of water, and that is something I can get behind, but modifying plants so that they can take repeated spraying of poisons is the number 1 reason I cannot claim to be “pro-GMO.”
    I am not some purist that cannot understand science, but these technologies have a place–and some uses are wildly inappropriate in addition to not being well regulated.

  • Claire Splan 12 / 11 / 2016

    It seems to me that what you are really against is the use and abuse of pesticides, and there’s plenty of science to support that stance. We need to separate the pesticide issue from the GMO issue because now it has become completely confused in the public’s mind and they think all GMOs are about pesticides.

  • bittenbyknittin 17 / 11 / 2016

    I tend to fall on the non-GMO side, primarily because “they” don’t want to label foods that are GMO, which makes me suspicious.

  • Saurs 20 / 11 / 2016

    Except that the “they” lobbying behind the labelling movement are corporations with a vested interest in keeping the quasi-organic industry prosperous, and that — like Right-to-Work laws — the Right-to-Know banner is a misnomer.

Leave a Reply