by Tom Moran
Osage Group Chair
Bioengineered or genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) seem to present a double-edged sword to environmentalists. On one hand, they (are claimed to) reduce pesticide usage, reduce land use (through more product per organism), provide “better quality” foods, etc. On the other hand, there are seemingly valid concerns over pesticide use, pesticide production, “horizontal” gene transfer, corporate policy and decision making, and liability and overall safety issues.
The debate on the validity of all these concerns should remain firmly fixed on scientific grounds in order to facilitate the decision making process, for only science (and ethics) has the terminology and resources to deal effectively and intelligently with this complex issue. For either side to mount an offensive using rumors or half-truths will be counterproductive. I have seen outright fallacies on both sides of this contentious issue.
Living in Columbia, home of University of Missouri (and being trained in plant molecular biology myself) gives me another vantage-point, in that this is a very research-oriented community. While scientists are supposed to remain open-minded, even on subjects near and dear to their hearts (and pocketbooks), this, in reality, does not always occur. Too close to the issue, even respectable scientists can lose sight of the broader issues being discussed, and can become mired in “truths” handed down from potentially profit making industries who occasionally fund their research programs. Even worse, they sometimes feel they are the experts, and cannot be wrong in their thinking, a very dangerous position indeed!
The environmental movement may eventually take a black eye in its generic opposition to GMOs, these modern-day wonders, but to err on the side of caution should be understandable. No other technology since the advent of nuclear weapons has the potential for such destructive force if something goes wrong.
We, the Sierra Club, (and other concerned groups), being the self-appointed watchdogs of government, industry, and social justice, need to make concerns about this technology heard. There are just too many concerns over the method and desirability of the release of these organisms into the environment to ignore the potential problems. Corporate profit, we feel, should not take precedence over sound and unbiased scientific studies, not only on desirable characteristics, but on problematic issues as well. The latter have been given very cursory attention in the scientific community, or have been mendaciously struck down as “unscientific” by the GMO industry. Please remember: it is VERY unscientific to have biased former employees appointed to federal regulatory bodies whose charge is ruling on safety issues of products arising from their former employment. This (too-common) corporate behavior tends to make opponents much more concerned about what is happening!
Recently, concerned citizens in Europe and elsewhere have pressured their governments into banning GMOs or sponsoring research on GMOs until much more comprehensive research is done. Sadly, the US government seems to be acting as a high-pressure salesperson for the GMO industry, trying to muscle other governments into blindly accepting this profitable (for whom?) technology. We need to support calls for more thorough studies of this interesting, promising technology here at home before trying to push it off onto other, less experienced developing countries. We need to keep our minds open to potential rewards and pitfalls, while observing prudent and precautionary measures in releasing such technology into the environment.
Time and again, corporate America has tried to tell consumers what is good for us (them?). Let us not believe them again, without truly scientific and comprehensive studies and safety testing of this technology. We have too much to lose.