The Changing GMO Debate (Coursework Sample)

The Changing GMO Debate
The argument of technology embodying unanticipated safety risks forms the base of the debate on GMO as well as food labelling. Opponents of GMO technology and genetically modified foods argue that GMO technology carries healthy risks that make genetically modified food unfit for human consumption and foods have to be labelled to help consumers identify GM foods from non-genetically modified foods. On the other hand, supporters of GMO technology refute the dangers associated with such technology dwelling on the benefits enjoyed from supply of genetically modified foods. As a consequence of these extremely dichotomous views from both sides, the arguments are mostly “she said, he said” discussions characterized by steep grassroots and media campaigns. Each side stoutly defended its position but of late both sides have expressed wavering stance.
Starting with a series of articles authored by Nathaniel Johnson in the Grist Magazine that concluded GMO conversation as overblown, misdirected and clichéd, the GMO debate begun swinging to the centre. There was outpouring support as well as hate responses to the articles by Johnson with the support coming from professionals who feared shunning or bullying in case they openly presented their opinions. These articles reveal conversations that no longer dismiss GMO technology and GM foods in entirety, but budding-thoughts from low and high profile individuals that abate the opposing stand against GMO technology and food. The emerging thoughts hint at welcoming GMO technology.
Several deductions are possible from the conversations reflected in the articles. For instance, mischaracterizations and shunning of GMO technology are comparable to the notion that anti-GMO is anti-science. Staunch opponents of GMO have showed signs of changing their stance in their published articles; Michael Pollan (the New Yorker) and Mark Bittman (the New York Times). Pollan and Bittman indicate that they do not oppose GMO technology per se, but are worried about technology propping up usage of herbicides and pesticides as they threaten sustainability practices. Thus, they are able to maintain their pro-organic support without anti-technology accusations towards them. This change is ricocheted in the National Geographic Future of Food event in which the two involved panel grappled with the same topic.
Second, pro-GMO allies no longer directly advocate for GMO. They are coy about the issue stating that they believe current plant-breeding technology (biotechnology) is essential in agricultural practices where new applications make possible disease resistance, sustainable practices and improved nutrition. In this way, they advocate for the GMO technology while downplaying its role thereby exposing it to criticism. Additionally, they often rely on the consumers’ crave for it rather than scientific evidence for their argument. Thus, reading between the lines suggests their shaky stance, either embracing GMO or turning to GMO-free food; they do not show resolute GMO support.
Conclusion
The GMO debate is not bound to take another course. The pro-GMO advocates are not firmly supporting it just as the opponents are softening their stance. However, the both sides are referring to sustaina...