The essence of opposition to GMOs

I promised in my last post that I would discuss irrational arguments against GMOs. I am not claiming that all arguments against GMOs or genetic technology are irrational, only that some are, or that some are greatly exaggerated. I am interested in the reason behind the arguments, rather than the arguments themselves. I believe many people hold even the more rational arguments for irrational reasons.

Some concerns over GMOs are real. There is a real possibility that genes could flow to weedy relatives, for example. There is a small risk that an alteration in a food could prove harmful to consumers. However, both of these, but especially the latter, apply just as well or more strongly to traditional breeding practices. We have been genetically modifying organisms for centuries. We use selection, irradiation, and hybridization, amongst other methods. Any of these changes could possibly produce changes that are harmful to consumers. There are at least a few known examples in which that has happened. Genetic technology is probably less likely to produce these effects, because only a single gene is usually changed, and we know what gene it is. Likewise, genes for herbicide tolerance produced by traditional breeding could flow to relatives.

With both of these, it is not necessary to single out the process by which they were produced. If there is a small chance that a new variety is harmful, we can look for differences in the food, regardless of how it was produced. So why are GMOs singled out? I think for a lot of people, it is because of a rather mystical notion of natural.

It is common for people to hold natural things as being superior to man made. Natural flavors are better than artificial, herbs are better than drugs, etc. I remember when I was a freshman in chemistry and I realized that a natural flavoring and a synthetic one are exactly the same molecule and there is no difference at all between them. It was a major revelation. A commercial pharmaceutical has the same active ingredient as a "natural" herb, but with a more reliable dose and none of the other possibly harmful chemicals in the herb. None of the plants we use in agriculture are natural--all of them have been drastically changed by humans over the millenia, and many very recently. Natural is a misnomer.

I think the praise of natural as being better is often based on a superstitious spiritual reverence of nature. Opposition to GMOs is common in post-religious communities, such as in Europe and the new age movement in the US. Traditional religion has lost its hold there, but has been replaced with a vague worship of nature. The organic farming movement has unfortunately fallen prey to this. Many of their goals are commendable. Less reliance on added chemicals and other ecologically harmful practices are to be promoted. But organic farming isn't focused on the end of improved ecological impact. Rather it is focused on more "natural" methods. GMOs have the potential to dramatically decrease the environmental impact of farming, but organic farmers have rejected it because it is not "natural".

Even if you grant the superstitious belief in natural versus artificial, it fails with GMOs. It is not at all clear how the use of a naturally occurring vector to change the genetic makeup of an organism is less natural than using radiation, random mutation, in vitro hybridization, or other methods.

Opposition to GMOs is related to opposition to evolution in two ways. In both, the person has an emotional reason to reject something, and then comes up with rational-sounding arguments afterwards to justify their beliefs. In both cases, they may even believe the reasons they give. But in both cases, the belief came first, and they then search for whatever reasons they can to justify them. That is why opponents of GMOs often grab onto arguments that are possible but unlikely, and exaggerate the threat, or fail to realize that the same arguments would also apply to other ways of producing crops. The opposition is not proportionate to the threat and can only be understood when we realize that the opposition is not actually based on the threat. Adding a single protein by genetic technology cannot be seen as a bigger threat than altering many proteins by traditional means. We see the same unequal response when consumers are afraid of artificial pesticides added to foods but have no concern over the many naturally occurring pesticides in food.

The second relationship between evolution denial and GMO opposition relates to thinking in terms of essentialism. Opponents of GMOs think we are changing the essence of an organism. They object more strongly if the gene came from a more distantly related organism, thus crossing more "natural" lines. They see a species as somehow being a natural, independent thing. They see organisms as having an essence that we cannot touch. Creationists also see life through an essentialist lens. They speak of "kinds". Things can change within a kind, but not between them. A kind has a Platonic essence which can't be changed.

Evolution and biology show that is not correct. Biologists know that organisms are in a constant state of change. The line between species is blurry. Distinct species today share an identical common ancestor. There is even lateral gene transfer occurring between distantly related species today. Genes even cross kingdom boundaries. Perhaps a stronger appreciation for evolution would diminish the essentialist thinking about nature.

There is one other very common objection to GMOs that is related to the one I discussed here. In fact, this is the one that I hear by far the most often from students, and it is applied to all genetic technology, not just GMOs. It is that we are "playing God". My experience is that this is usually not a well thought out position at all and people cannot really define what playing God is. It is often also based on a poorly thought out essentialism. I might discuss that in a later post.