Generally, the term GMO is accepted to mean an organism whose genes are engineered/artificially manipulated in a lab setting, not something that happens in nature. It is important that we are clear about what we are talking about because these discussions and technologies have big impacts.
I understand the point that you and others are trying to make by using phrasing like this. People want to respond to certain beliefs that GMOs themselves will cause harm when ingested, are inherently dangerous, unnatural, etc. But at the same time this response seems counterproductive to me for several reasons. First, because it doesn’t address the main issues of why people are anti-GMO, and second, it muddies the waters when the GMO industry is causing real, substantial harm to ecosystems, people, and our entire planet, right now.
Having talked to many, many people about GMOs and been in agricultural spaces and read a lot by those on all sides, most are less concerned about the GMOs themselves and more concerned about power and accountability. There are people who believe that ingestion of GMOs will harm them, but there are also those who avoid them not because of the genes, but because of factors like concerns about increased herbicide residue. Those who are concerned about the health impacts of GMOs are often simultaneously concerned about the environmental impacts and unlimited power of monopolies. Just “pointing to the science” does little in these cases because there is a fundamental mistrust of scientists as bought off by the same powerful companies. Of course, there are always going to be people who believe in conspiracy theories of all sorts, but if we want science that people can trust, we need to make sure there aren’t powerful companies that can profit off the manipulation of said science and cast doubt on their reliability.
People intend to defend science and many times I will see people say they don’t support GMO companies but do support the science of GMOs. Again, I get it. But at the same time, when a scientific advancement is inextricable from the ones using it, as in our current GMO monopoly, support for one, despite intent, seems to function as support for the other.
Companies producing the GMO crops (which are mostly the same handful producing pesticides, fertilizers, farm equipment, research, and ag college programs) are using their “property” to completely dominate markets, bully governments, and perpetuate a way of farming that is extremely harmful for everyone. My cat, my heirloom tomatoes, and my purple coneflower, all examples of intentional and unintentional genetic changes over time, aren’t doing those things.
Most GMO crops are bred through conventional breeding techniques with an herbicide or pest resistant gene put in. They are specifically created to fit into the damaging system of industrial agriculture where extreme monocultures are ideal. We can talk about hypothetical genetically engineered crops not owned by major corporations used nonharmfully, but again, it’s all hypothetical at this point (although if anyone has any good examples please let me know). At the root of the problem with GMOs is the fact that our agricultural system is fundamentally broken. It’s hard for me to accept that increased yields are feeding the hungry when those same hungry are displaced due to climate change driven by the agricultural practices that produced those increased yields.
When looking at agricultural systems that don’t cause ecological damage and are resilient to climate change, diversity, and thus adaptability, is king. I have trouble imagining a future with both sustainable agriculture and any significant use of GMOs, because I haven’t seen any evidence that they would be more cost effective and less damaging than the variety of specific sustainable agricultural techniques that are currently or historically practiced, though marginalized in our current system, although I accept that I may be proven wrong. But currently defense of GMOs, rather than shifting focus to sustainable agricultural systems, feels like free PR for the corporations and systems that are causing massive harm.
The entire agricultural system is broken, but there are specific harms being caused by the use of GMOs and the companies that own them. People’s response to concerns about the impact of GMO foods seem too often to be condemnation of the companies while accepting the GMO crops, despite the two being intrinsically linked through industrial agriculture. I think that focusing on changes towards sustainable, climate change resilient systems is the solution to a debate that, at its core, doesn’t have much to do with the science of GMOs at all.
