GMO is a hot topic, one that generates a lot of emotions on both sides. My views almost always boil down to
show me the data
—the role of science is, after all, to understand how the world works and not to make ethical judgements about what should or shouldn’t be done.
That disclaimer out of the way—and please understand this blog post is about the
language
used around GMO, not GMO itself— here’s one tip for looking at written statements to see if they’re biased: replace one category with another equal category and see if the statement still makes sense.
For example, anytime a politician says something about gay rights, replace the word “gay” with “black” and see if it makes sense.
Take Michelle Bachmann:
…the immediate consequence, if gay marriage goes through, is that K-12 little children will be forced to learn that homosexuality is normal, natural and perhaps they should try it.
Re-written:
…the immediate consequence, if black marriage goes through, is that K-12 little children will be forced to learn that being black is normal, natural and perhaps they should try it.
Okay, so a little nonsensical, although I do think we’d all get along a lot better if everyone had to try being black for a week. (Note: this Bachmann quote was the first one I found in two minutes of Googling; I did not have to search hard; and I was searching for “gay politician quotes”, not to pick on Bachmann specifically.)
Monsanto has the following statement up at www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/food-safety.aspx :
There is no need to test the safety of DNA introduced into GM crops. DNA (and resulting RNA) is present in almost all foods–the only exceptions being highly refined materials like oil or sugar from which all cell material has been removed. Thus, DNA is non-toxic and the presence of DNA, in and of itself, presents no hazard.
That’s be like saying:
There is no need to test the safety of molecules introduced into GM crops. Molecules are present in almost all foods–the only exceptions being highly refined materials like oil or sugar from which all cell material has been removed. Thus, molecules are non-toxic and the presence of molecules, in and of itself, presents no hazard.
Uhhh… “DNA is present in food; thus DNA is non-toxic.” That’d be like saying: “Molecules are present in food; thus molecules are non-toxic.
To be clear, my point here is on the language itself, not whether GMOs are good or bad, if such a distinction can even be made.
Meanwhile, would somebody please pass me the arsenic? Thanks.