The GMO debate won't be settled technocratically | Hacker News Reader

The GMO debate won't be settled technocratically

thenewatlantis.com

11 pointswell_i_never6 comments

https://undark.org/2019/06/27/monsanto-gmo-crusade/ 06.27.2019 / BY Kavin Senapathy "I Was Lured Into Monsanto’s GMO Crusade. Here’s What I Learned. Public debates about science and technology are rarely ever just about the science and technology."

"...Monsanto hired Crowe, a communications strategist, as their director of millennial engagement. ... Crowe preached a scientific gospel of GMOs that went something like this: If you’re pro-science, you must be pro-GMO. If you’re anti-Monsanto, then you’re anti-GMO. Therefore, if you’re anti-Monsanto, you’re anti-science. His objective, it seemed, was to render opposition to GMOs as ridiculous as belief in Bigfoot, and to amass a movement that could be counted on to shout that message from the rooftops. ..."

"... catalyzed an awakening, and suddenly I saw the landscape of the GMO battle with aerial clarity. Everything I’d written and said in support of GMOs was factually correct, but my approach had been all wrong. It’s impossible to have a constructive conversation about GMOs without acknowledging that underlying the unscientific claims made by many GMO opponents is a legitimate desire for trustworthy behavior from the companies that dominate the agricultural marketplace. ..."

"... The entities that push unscientific, fear-based narratives about GMOs will never be defeated if the powers that be neglect to sincerely tackle the people’s underlying mistrust. As I said in a speech to fellow skeptics this past fall on the steps of the Sacramento capitol building, “While the scientific method may be the way we interact with the world, largely by choice, the scientific method is wielded by people, and what drives those people are values.” I’m hopeful that Monsanto will get the message, but I’m not holding my breath."

It's ironic that right after criticising the conflation of science, GMOs and Monsanto, there's a sentence that conflates GMOs and Monsanto. Surely Monsanto's communcations director had the objective to render opposition to Monsanto as ridiculous as belief in Bigfoot.

Keeping closely related concepts separate in mindspace is hard work.

I lack knowledge. Are there competitive alternative OGM makers than Monsanto? Otherwise, GMO and Monsanto can be conflated currently

Bayer, Syngenta, Dow, Pioneer and the list goes on and on and that’s for crops.

The most common GMO product sold to consumers isn’t even a crop but rather the blue rose.

As far as crop GMOs go then the majority of the yield is soybeans for fuel not for human consumption.

This reveals an important issue: Allowing GMOs changes more than just plant biology - it tilts the business landscape further in favor of multinationals. It also allows more options for product optimization. And since their incentives aren't aligned with those of the general population, it's unlikely the changes they make will be entirely beneficial. Look at technology for examples - coffee machines and printers with DRM. Or the processed food industry.

Monsanto has the same incentives as other corporations, so why should we expect them to act any better? And is it wise to let those incentives control food-crop biology to an even greater degree?

GMO debate will be settled by development of crops that will be order of magnitude better than existing varieties. It is easy to dismiss the current GMOs that are a bit cheaper, but something like non-toxic cassava, perennial wheat, or twice more productive variety of any staple crop used in poor countries will get widespread use despite all protestations of anti-gmo people because it will save lives in an apparent way. And after some time people in rich countries too would have to accept that gmos are useful.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com