Addressing Fear Over Genetically Modified Food

Michael Spector, a reporter and author of the book “Denialism,” expressed his concern about the public’s fear of science including vaccinations and genetically engineered food and their role in society this week at the American Seed Trade Association’s 127th Annual Convention in San Antonio, TX.

“People are anxious about the future and they don’t understand who is right and who is wrong,” Spector said. “Nothing in the world is without risk and this is something that American agriculture doesn’t address. There is risk. When we get in a car, 50,000 of us are going to die just this year. That doesn’t stop us from driving. Whatever our actions are, there are pluses and minuses that must be weighed.”

Spector said genetically engineered food has been planted for 20-plus years on numerous hectares. “Another word for genetically modified food is ‘food,’” he noted. “Everything has been enhanced thru time — keeping the good and getting rid of the bad. Genetically engineered food is just a more precise way of doing that.”

Agriculture and the seed industry have products with benefits that are truly remarkable, he pointed out. “The seed industry has the tools that almost no other industry has,” Spector told convention attendees, who are gathered June 26-30 to discuss and learn about seed industry issues. “There are tremendous achievements such as engineering foods to have fewer fats and healthier oils, in a nation that is so addicted to food, is outstanding.”

Spector explained that there are plants that have been modified with vitamins that would help many people in developing countries around the world, but they are rejected based on fears.

Top Articles
Pistachio Power: Where Growing and Research Mesh for Success

“This is a way to feed people who need to eat food,” Spector stated. “But, opposition is so severe and so fierce that it stops plants from going into the ground. Vitamin A rice is one example. There is a severe deficiency of Vitamin A, but opposition has put a stop to planting the Vitamin A enhanced rice. Products and developments such as these would save millions of human lives.”

While reporting and writing about scientific issues, Spector observed that people cling to what they believe is reason to deny or run away from something. “Like every technology, things can be used for good or bad,” he said. “Technology moves us forward, not backward.”

He defined “denialism” as embracing fiction instead of the reality of every day. “We embrace it because the alternative makes us angry,” Spector explained.

Businesses in the agricultural world that want to get their products accepted need to do a better job, he said. “For too long, scientists, agricultural people, pharmacists and government have believed if science is on your side then that’s enough,” Spector said. “That’s not the case. Look at vaccinations. Why is half of the United States not vaccinating their children for whooping cough? Eventually polio could come back. Why? Because it is in other parts of the world and we have airplanes. This could happen if we don’t start doing a better job.

“We could pretend this isn’t a problem but that is disgraceful and it’s fooling people. We need to move away from embracing fear to embracing reality.”

Spector said he believes that in order for people to embrace reality, the scientific and agricultural communities need to start talking. “Pharmaceutical companies are terrible about this,” he said. “They are in such a defensive crouch; they don’t want to talk about anything. Others will talk and those who talk and communicate get their story across.”

Agriculture has an amazing story, but people don’t understand it, Spector mentioned. He encouraged convention attendees and others in the agricultural community to start talking.

“Get out there and talk about what you are doing and what your products do,” he said. “We have a semantic problem and we need to address it. Reach out and talk to kids. Talk to everyone.

“Talk about what would happen if there wasn’t farming. Talk about what the world would look like without roads, without automobiles. I know what that world is like, because I spend a lot of time in Africa. When tomatoes grow, they go bad because farmers can’t get them to the market.”

For a billion people to go to bed hungry every night in this world and for us to try to prevent that situation from changing is an enduring shame, he said.

“We’ve got the science and we can change this, but it will never happen or be accepted if we don’t talk about it,” Spector explained. “We have to be willing to acknowledge and talk about the theoretical risks. It’s scary. There are downsides and we need to be willing to talk about them. I believe the benefits far outweigh the downsides.”

“I went to fancy farmers market a couple weeks ago in New York and there was guy selling milk,” Spector told. “But it wasn’t just regular milk; he was selling raw milk. One of the greatest advances we’ve had in this country was to pasteurize milk. To go to a fancy market and buy fancy milk and have some guy selling me raw milk is wrong. I hope you will do your part and help stop this.”

Source: American Seed Trade Association news release

0

Leave a Reply

Avatar for Anonymous Anonymous says:

excellent article….it should be sent over all the internet in America……for sure , the left wing press won’t show it ………..

Avatar for Anonymous Anonymous says:

I agree that Agriculture needs to inform better. But if it is as lopsided as the raw milk example, I’m not optimistic. The advantages of pasteurization don’t make raw milk ‘wrong’ if it is controlled free of pathogens – I like the taste better, its enzymes are unaltered by heat. According to the author’s logic, maybe we should eat only canned vegetables, just because they are convenient and free of germs.

Avatar for Anonymous Anonymous says:

As growers our responsibility is to our consumers , not to market share for the largest seed companies. In my 35 + years of vegetable production , I’ve found it best for my business to listen to what my market wants , not to convince them of what they should want. I have read enough well researched information to know that there are very sincere and serious questions about the overall safety of genetically engineered foods.Dr. Vanda Shiva’s work has been very helpful in this area and for clarity about why engineered Vitamin A rice is not needed. We have no actual need for this approach in food production. In medicine , sure ,but for food no.
I don’t think we should allow ourselves to be pushed into using crops our market clearly doesn’t want. And if we are forced to use engineered crops , we should at the very least label them as such to allow our customers to be able to opt out of eating them.

Avatar for Anonymous Anonymous says:

The article makes a lot of sense, if it concerns only the developed world. The top most problem of most of the developing world is low crop productivity caused not by disease but by lack of scientific know how to raise a crop successfully. The genetically modified varieties do not adddress this problem since such varieties are not known for productivity improvement but only disease control and quality improvement in crops. For example, in the case of Bt cotton its role in productivity improvement per se is none other than through insect control. In fields where there are no infestation of insects, however, the productivity remains as low as ever. Under such circumstances, when the genetically modified seeds are marketed at 4 to 5 times more than regular seed costs, the farmer finally go broke and in contries like India they commit suicide due to financial hardship. If companies peddling high cost seeds can help these farmers with modern crop production technologies as well, to reduce the crop productivy gap that exists between developed and developing countries, it would be financially and ethically right. The gap between cotton productivity of Indian farmers and farmers in California is almost 6 to 8 fold. Bt cotton is helpless to bridge that gap, but production technologies based primarily on plant nutrition will.

Avatar for Anonymous Anonymous says:

I think the author of this article is not just a little biased toward their product, and the example of big pharma cowering in the corner is laughable. Big pharma has done some good, but there is pretty concrete evidence that their biggest money-makers, cholesterol medicines and a host of others, do as much damage as good. I think people need to learn how to be healthy, not how to rely on technology to try (key word) to fix our poor diet choices. If we need more vitamin A in our diets, we don’t need more rice, we need more vegetables! As for the billions of people who are starving, they couldn’t possibly afford to buy the hugely overpriced GMO seeds to get the crops that they desparately need to feed themselves. Their starvation is not from a lack of food available in the world, but from poverty cause by a number of reasons, mostly social corruption, and climate. We cannot allow ourselves to be fooled into thinking our technology will make the whole world healthy wealthy and wise. Of course we need to address the things we have control over. But we, as a country, have been trying for too long to “fix” all the other countries, who refuse our brand of fixing.

Avatar for Anonymous Anonymous says:

As a capitalistic country we concentrate too much on the economic possibility of the ability to make money off a scientific technological achievement.
We do not explore the drawbacks or possible drawbacks that come with them or the domino effects down the line on other distant but related consequential activities. We think and choose short term sure profit over long range possible drawbacks. Too much “corporate welfare” profit thinking; not enough respect for what is really good for the public or what they want to have or not have. Add to that that the inside “experts” always seem to know what is better for me than I could possibly be able to decide and you have a system that is way too biased toward technological profit margin driven achievements. There are way better ways to grow more food that overpriced overprotected GMO food. Cheap food is not neccesarily good for you food; what kept you living when you were younger may just end up killing you when you are older.

Avatar for Anonymous Anonymous says:

Why is Michael Spector so opposed to consumer choice? Like a growing number of American’s I prefer to drink carefully produced full fat unprocessed raw milk. As an informed consumer, I am aware of risks and consequences involved consuming milk, both raw and pasteurized. http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a921092742
Yes, pasteurized milk also comes with risk. It was pasteurized milk that was responsible for a massive outbreak of Salmonellosis in Illinois in 1985 (Journal of the American Medical Association vol. 258. 1987). In 2000, pasteurized milk from a dairy plant in Pennsylvania was responsible for a multi-state outbreak of Salmonellosis. In 2007, an outbreak of Listeria, that sickened five people and killed three men and one unborn child, was linked to pasteurized milk in Massachusetts (Journal of the American Medical Association vol. 301, 2009).

Avatar for Anonymous Anonymous says:

excellent article….it should be sent over all the internet in America……for sure , the left wing press won’t show it ………..

Avatar for Anonymous Anonymous says:

I agree that Agriculture needs to inform better. But if it is as lopsided as the raw milk example, I’m not optimistic. The advantages of pasteurization don’t make raw milk ‘wrong’ if it is controlled free of pathogens – I like the taste better, its enzymes are unaltered by heat. According to the author’s logic, maybe we should eat only canned vegetables, just because they are convenient and free of germs.

Avatar for Anonymous Anonymous says:

As growers our responsibility is to our consumers , not to market share for the largest seed companies. In my 35 + years of vegetable production , I’ve found it best for my business to listen to what my market wants , not to convince them of what they should want. I have read enough well researched information to know that there are very sincere and serious questions about the overall safety of genetically engineered foods.Dr. Vanda Shiva’s work has been very helpful in this area and for clarity about why engineered Vitamin A rice is not needed. We have no actual need for this approach in food production. In medicine , sure ,but for food no.
I don’t think we should allow ourselves to be pushed into using crops our market clearly doesn’t want. And if we are forced to use engineered crops , we should at the very least label them as such to allow our customers to be able to opt out of eating them.

Avatar for Anonymous Anonymous says:

The article makes a lot of sense, if it concerns only the developed world. The top most problem of most of the developing world is low crop productivity caused not by disease but by lack of scientific know how to raise a crop successfully. The genetically modified varieties do not adddress this problem since such varieties are not known for productivity improvement but only disease control and quality improvement in crops. For example, in the case of Bt cotton its role in productivity improvement per se is none other than through insect control. In fields where there are no infestation of insects, however, the productivity remains as low as ever. Under such circumstances, when the genetically modified seeds are marketed at 4 to 5 times more than regular seed costs, the farmer finally go broke and in contries like India they commit suicide due to financial hardship. If companies peddling high cost seeds can help these farmers with modern crop production technologies as well, to reduce the crop productivy gap that exists between developed and developing countries, it would be financially and ethically right. The gap between cotton productivity of Indian farmers and farmers in California is almost 6 to 8 fold. Bt cotton is helpless to bridge that gap, but production technologies based primarily on plant nutrition will.

Avatar for Anonymous Anonymous says:

I think the author of this article is not just a little biased toward their product, and the example of big pharma cowering in the corner is laughable. Big pharma has done some good, but there is pretty concrete evidence that their biggest money-makers, cholesterol medicines and a host of others, do as much damage as good. I think people need to learn how to be healthy, not how to rely on technology to try (key word) to fix our poor diet choices. If we need more vitamin A in our diets, we don’t need more rice, we need more vegetables! As for the billions of people who are starving, they couldn’t possibly afford to buy the hugely overpriced GMO seeds to get the crops that they desparately need to feed themselves. Their starvation is not from a lack of food available in the world, but from poverty cause by a number of reasons, mostly social corruption, and climate. We cannot allow ourselves to be fooled into thinking our technology will make the whole world healthy wealthy and wise. Of course we need to address the things we have control over. But we, as a country, have been trying for too long to “fix” all the other countries, who refuse our brand of fixing.

Avatar for Anonymous Anonymous says:

As a capitalistic country we concentrate too much on the economic possibility of the ability to make money off a scientific technological achievement.
We do not explore the drawbacks or possible drawbacks that come with them or the domino effects down the line on other distant but related consequential activities. We think and choose short term sure profit over long range possible drawbacks. Too much “corporate welfare” profit thinking; not enough respect for what is really good for the public or what they want to have or not have. Add to that that the inside “experts” always seem to know what is better for me than I could possibly be able to decide and you have a system that is way too biased toward technological profit margin driven achievements. There are way better ways to grow more food that overpriced overprotected GMO food. Cheap food is not neccesarily good for you food; what kept you living when you were younger may just end up killing you when you are older.

Avatar for Anonymous Anonymous says:

Why is Michael Spector so opposed to consumer choice? Like a growing number of American’s I prefer to drink carefully produced full fat unprocessed raw milk. As an informed consumer, I am aware of risks and consequences involved consuming milk, both raw and pasteurized. http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a921092742
Yes, pasteurized milk also comes with risk. It was pasteurized milk that was responsible for a massive outbreak of Salmonellosis in Illinois in 1985 (Journal of the American Medical Association vol. 258. 1987). In 2000, pasteurized milk from a dairy plant in Pennsylvania was responsible for a multi-state outbreak of Salmonellosis. In 2007, an outbreak of Listeria, that sickened five people and killed three men and one unborn child, was linked to pasteurized milk in Massachusetts (Journal of the American Medical Association vol. 301, 2009).