The end of the GMO era?

Even Monsanto appears to be backing off

By
January 30, 2014

Back in December, the journalist Elizabeth Royte penned a piece for Modern Farmer titled "The Post-GMO Economy." The article — in part, a profile of a farmer who had embraced GMO seeds until they no longer worked quite so well at fending off pests — suggested that the GMO era might be over, with farmers returning to conventional seeds.

“Not only are the seeds expensive (GMO corn can cost $150 more per bag than conventional corn), they’re also driving farmers to buy and apply more chemicals,” wrote Royte. And consumers have pushed back enough against GMO foods that, Royte noted, major retailers such as Whole Foods and Target are veering away from them.

Now comes a report by Tom Philpott on Mother Jones asking whether Monsanto — the big daddy of GMO seeds — is moving on from its own products as well. It’s not just that farmers and consumers are turning away; as Philpott pointed out, “GM technology doesn’t seem to be very good at generating complex traits like better flavor or more nutrients, the very attributes Monsanto was hoping to engineer into veggies.”

More significantly, the company doesn’t seem to have very many new GM products in the development pipeline. The major exception, a new type of GMO that interferes with RNA replication in insects, might help the struggling honey bee fend off the varroa mite, but it might also turn out to kill other beneficial as well as harmful pests.

Plus, as Nathanael Johnson declared recently on Grist, after researching GMOs for six months, the whole GMO battle might really just be a tempest in a scientist's teapot. “We oppose GMOs because we oppose the unsustainable agricultural system they serve,” he wrote. “But . . . our unsustainable food system is going to keep on chugging along whether we allow the use of mitigating technology or not.”

And whether GMOs turn out to be a game-changer for the planet or not, we’re still arguing about their real story. As Johnson put it:

People care about GMOs because they symbolize corporate control of the food system, or unsustainable agriculture, or the basic unhealthiness of our modern diet. On the other side, people care about GMOs because they symbolize the victory of human ingenuity over hunger and suffering, or the triumph of market forces, or the wonder of science.
Subscribe
Comments
There are 2 comments on this item
Add a comment
1. by Caroline Cummins on Jan 30, 2014 at 9:49 PM PST

And here’s Monsanto’s official response to Philpott’s article.

2. by Michaelyn Erickson on Feb 16, 2014 at 2:59 PM PST

“People care about GMOs because they symbolize corporate control of the food system, or unsustainable agriculture, or the basic unhealthiness of our modern diet. On the other side, people care about GMOs because they symbolize the victory of human ingenuity over hunger and suffering, or the triumph of market forces, or the wonder of science.”

I feel like there is something missing in this simplified explanation. I hear this over and over and each time my ears twitch. It’s not that GMO’s symbolize sloppy agriculture, or that they symbolize our scientific progress. Those things are irrelevent, and they create a false screen of black or white options.
Because:
We have choices that combine the wonders of science with responsible and well-tuned agriculture. We must not confuse genuine scientific progress with profit driven scientific progress; and we must not forget that scientists outside the realm of corporate biotech have also been working on technologies all these years. We have the technologies in all the fields (i.e. rooftop farming, rainwater harvest, solar and wind energy collection, thermal mass heat, aquaponics, food forestry, ect.) to design significantly more sustainable cities. And we have the passionate ecological scientists such as those who developed “Vata La Palma” in South Spain, or those behind the commerical fishing ban in Palau, or the folks building earthships.
Through the integration of these new disciplines, we no longer need to fight for either sustainability or scientific progress because we can have both! We can have our cake and eat it too, we can have our cities and our Nature too!

Add a comment

Think before you type

Culinate welcomes comments that are on-topic, clean, and courteous. For the benefit of the community we reserve the right to delete comments that contain advertising, personal attacks, profanity, or which are thinly disguised attempts to promote another website.

Please enter your comment

Format: Bare URLs are automatically linked; use this style: [http://www.example.com "place text to be linked here"] for prettier links. You may specify *bold* or _italic_ text. No HTML please.

Please identify yourself

Not a member? Sign up!

Please prove that you’re not a computer


Advertisement
Dinner Guest

The gamification of cooking

Earning points

Most of the time with cooking and eating, the rules are clear.

Subscribe
Graze: Bites from the Site
First Person

The secret sharer

A father’s legacy

The Culinate Interview

Mollie Katzen

The vegetarian-cooking pioneer

Reviews

Down South

Barbecue, tamales, cocktails, and more

Local Flavors

A winter romesco sauce

Good on everything

Editor’s Choice