Hot!

The Left is Hotly Divided on GMOs

The Left is Hotly Divided on GMOs
Spread the love

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.

10 Comments

    • Allen Bush
    • 1st October 2016

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

    • val
    • 9th October 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
    • 16th October 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.

    • Mary McAllister
    • 7th November 2016

    I agree with you that GMOs are being painted with too broad a brush. In my opinion, the public has become confused by the development of GMO seeds that enable the indiscriminate use of pesticides on agricultural crops. In fact, GMOs are developed for many reasons, including beneficial improvements and harmless modifications.

    • bittenbyknittin
    • 7th November 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
    • 11th November 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.

    • Deb
    • 14th November 2016

    I can’t think of any GMO except the tortillo that would be found in a Chipotle bowl. Or in a home garden for that matter. Grain corn, wheat and soybeans stand a good chance of being GMO seeds, but apart from those, what else are we actually eating that is GMO? Papayas, strawberries with fish genes…that’s about it. GMO apples haven’t hit the market yet…anything else?

    • Saurs
    • 15th November 2016

    GMO wheat has never been available commercially. Monsanto, amongst a few other associated companies, have developed and field-tested some.

    • tara dillard
    • 15th November 2016

    More science, and broader.

    • Amy Campion
    • 15th November 2016

    If you have time to really sit down and read a thoughtful analysis of both sides of the issue, there is a great series of articles on this by Nathanael Johnson of Grist: http://grist.org/series/panic-free-gmos/

Leave a comment