News: Barbara Kingsolver in Small Wonders "A Fist in the Eye of God" Re-Published by the Organic Consumers Organization (2002)
This is technically not "news" per se, but fits under the umbrella of popular science writing. My feelings about genetically engineered crops will be very clear in this post, and since this topic is one of much controversy and strong feelings, I hope that my opinions do not offend!
This piece of writing by Barbara Kingsolver came to my attention from my mom actually, who sent me this link on the first day of classes this fall (thanks mom!). I originally approached it as I did most pieces of popular writing on GMOs, with skepticism and judgement. From previous experience, I have come to approach articles such as this or this with complete loss of faith in the non-GMO movement (I cannot even read past the first few paragraphs before getting upset, they DO NOT CITE ANY RELIABLE EVIDENCE). These articles are misleading and inaccurate, and fail to provide the necessary citations that back up the controversial claims they put forth (yet hide that fact by using scientific jargon and vaguely referring to "studies" or "work done by ___" without addressing the relevance of those "studies"). But that is not the reason why I am angry with articles like these. While the specific claims that these articles have made may be irrelevant or unlikely problems, there are still reasons why GMO-based agriculture is not the best system of agriculture to rely on. And the fact that these articles are arguing against GMOs with flawed logic opens their conclusions up to scientific critique, and causes people to be distracted from the truly important issues (and at the same time creates a bad rapport for the non-GMO movement).
Barbara Kingsolver, in this small excerpt from her book Small Wonders, describes in great detail and accuracy the issues that exist with GMO-based agriculture. I will paraphrase her arguments (which are nuanced and well constructed) with a simple issue: food security. Kingsolver suggests that the greatest food security lies in an agricultural system based on biodiversity and genetic hetergeneity in crops. I whole-heartedly agree. And I believe that the true cause for concern over GMO crops is not their immediate health impact on humans, but their ability to provide a sustainable source of food and jobs.
That is not to say that GMOs are bad. Coming from a background in plant molecular biology and phytopathology, I believe that GMOs can be an extremely useful and effective tool in agriculture. Additionally, there is very, very little scientifically sound evidence that GMO crops are harmful for ingestion by humans (although there is the question of the rare, mild allergic reaction, and the idea that "a tomato is not a tomato" meaning that agricultural method may affect food quality). The bottom line is that there is MOST LIKELY no health risks associated with the consumption of GMO foods.
The effects that GMO farming has on food security and on the environment is a more contested area. While the monarch butterfly issue that Kingsolver brought up was found by the scientific community to be a non-issue, this example is not the only way that GMO farming can affect an environment, and it is important that the scientific community continues to ask these kinds of questions.
However, the most solid, clear, and plausible cause for concern about GMOs are in the sustainability of GMO-based agricultural systems. To ignore the natural framework of an agroecosystem is a flawed approach to agriculture, as Kingsolver points out when she talks about sex and genetic variation. There are additional issues that come up when we talk about food security and GMOs, and many of these have been brought up by Michael Pollan and Vandana Shiva. But a great way to start this conversation is to read this beautifully written, scientifically understandable, and reasonable critique of GMOs by Barbara Kingsolver.
This piece of writing by Barbara Kingsolver came to my attention from my mom actually, who sent me this link on the first day of classes this fall (thanks mom!). I originally approached it as I did most pieces of popular writing on GMOs, with skepticism and judgement. From previous experience, I have come to approach articles such as this or this with complete loss of faith in the non-GMO movement (I cannot even read past the first few paragraphs before getting upset, they DO NOT CITE ANY RELIABLE EVIDENCE). These articles are misleading and inaccurate, and fail to provide the necessary citations that back up the controversial claims they put forth (yet hide that fact by using scientific jargon and vaguely referring to "studies" or "work done by ___" without addressing the relevance of those "studies"). But that is not the reason why I am angry with articles like these. While the specific claims that these articles have made may be irrelevant or unlikely problems, there are still reasons why GMO-based agriculture is not the best system of agriculture to rely on. And the fact that these articles are arguing against GMOs with flawed logic opens their conclusions up to scientific critique, and causes people to be distracted from the truly important issues (and at the same time creates a bad rapport for the non-GMO movement).
Barbara Kingsolver, in this small excerpt from her book Small Wonders, describes in great detail and accuracy the issues that exist with GMO-based agriculture. I will paraphrase her arguments (which are nuanced and well constructed) with a simple issue: food security. Kingsolver suggests that the greatest food security lies in an agricultural system based on biodiversity and genetic hetergeneity in crops. I whole-heartedly agree. And I believe that the true cause for concern over GMO crops is not their immediate health impact on humans, but their ability to provide a sustainable source of food and jobs.
That is not to say that GMOs are bad. Coming from a background in plant molecular biology and phytopathology, I believe that GMOs can be an extremely useful and effective tool in agriculture. Additionally, there is very, very little scientifically sound evidence that GMO crops are harmful for ingestion by humans (although there is the question of the rare, mild allergic reaction, and the idea that "a tomato is not a tomato" meaning that agricultural method may affect food quality). The bottom line is that there is MOST LIKELY no health risks associated with the consumption of GMO foods.
The effects that GMO farming has on food security and on the environment is a more contested area. While the monarch butterfly issue that Kingsolver brought up was found by the scientific community to be a non-issue, this example is not the only way that GMO farming can affect an environment, and it is important that the scientific community continues to ask these kinds of questions.
However, the most solid, clear, and plausible cause for concern about GMOs are in the sustainability of GMO-based agricultural systems. To ignore the natural framework of an agroecosystem is a flawed approach to agriculture, as Kingsolver points out when she talks about sex and genetic variation. There are additional issues that come up when we talk about food security and GMOs, and many of these have been brought up by Michael Pollan and Vandana Shiva. But a great way to start this conversation is to read this beautifully written, scientifically understandable, and reasonable critique of GMOs by Barbara Kingsolver.
Most citations are posted as links in the body of this post!
Read Kingsolver's piece here: http://www.organicconsumers.org/gefood/SmallWonders.cfm
Image of Small Wonders book cover from here: http://www.amazon.com/Small-Wonder-Essays-Barbara-Kingsolver/dp/0060504080
Read Kingsolver's piece here: http://www.organicconsumers.org/gefood/SmallWonders.cfm
Image of Small Wonders book cover from here: http://www.amazon.com/Small-Wonder-Essays-Barbara-Kingsolver/dp/0060504080