In class, we read Fedoroff's article "Genetically Engineered Food for All." In this article, she argued that there was no scientific evidence for genetically modified food being harmful or causing adverse reactions. She implored the government to reduce the restrictions they place on such modified crops. In her reasoning, the best way to grow enough cost effective food is to use these modified foods. However, I had several problems with her article.
One problem she had was that she did not really give any sort of evidence to support her claim. She herself says that "(But) now the evidence is in. These crop modification methods are not dangerous." Yet she does not provide any studies or any evidence saying that modification is not dangerous. She does not cite any sort of proof. Where is this evidence she is referring to? Conversely, the documentary Food, Inc. Talked about some of the possible side effects of using modified crops, including antibiotic resistance, and toxicity. On their website, they link to The Center for Food Safety, a non-profit environmental advocacy group. In their argument about genetically modified foods, The Center for Food Safety says that there are studies that show genetically modified foods can be harmful to humans in many ways, including an increase in allergic reactions, immunity suppression and possibly a link to cancer. However, despite making this claim, they also do not provide hard evidence, making it difficult to know who to listen to and trust.
Another issue with Fedoroff's piece is that she stated "Of the 15.4 million farmers growing these crops, 90 percent are poor, with small operations. The reason farmers turn to genetically modified crops is simple: yields increase and costs decrease." The idea that most or even all farmers are turning to genetically modified crops as a way to get themselves out of the hole is a little misleading. Michael Pollan, in his book The Omnivore's Dilemma, decided to chase down the parts of the American diet, and it led him, at first to farmers and corn. Pollan spent some time with one farmer in Iowa. This farmer is going broke, so it is plausible he could be one of the "90 percent" that Fedoroff mentions. However, he and many of his neighbors refuse to use genetically modified crops. Pollan writes "(the farmer) doesn't think it's worth the extra twenty-five dollars a bag (in technology fees) they cost. 'Sure, you might get a yield pump, but whatever you make on the extra corn goes right back to cover the premium for the seed. I'". He finishes with a quote from the farmer he's spending time with. So Pollan's first hand experience seems to contradict the "everyone's doing it" kind of vibe that Fedoroff uses in her editorial.
I think it is clear from looking at these and other sources that there are two sides to this debate, and both of them have strong arguments. I think Fedoroff's main crime in her piece is in not giving the other side any credit and not supporting her own argument. It is hard to believe her claims of there being no risks to using genetically modified crops, when others say there are. And it is another mark against her credibility when she makes it sound like all farmers are jumping on the modified crop band wagon, when another writer's interviews suggest that not all farmers are. The lack of evidence really harms her credibility, especially when contrasting her with other people writing about this issue.
No comments:
Post a Comment