Defending Innovation Has Become Full-Time Job For Agriculture [Opinion]
March 16, 2015 
Frank Giles
The more I learn from the scientists who are throwing all they have at finding solutions for HLB, the more confident I become answers will come that will save the state’s signature crop.
Will that ultimate solution be a transgenic citrus tree? Perhaps. Will it be another product or practice or a combination of actions that will be the “long-term” solution the industry so desperately hopes for? Maybe.
But, what if it comes down to a genetically modified tree? We all know the public perception problems the technology brings. Rarely a day goes by that my social media feed isn’t visited upon with some fearful post on the consequences of GMOs. These posts are from good and smart folks that by and large have the best intentions in mind. If you hear something could be dangerous, why not share it with your friends and family?
I believe it is worth noting that the first genetically modified crops were planted commercially in the U.S. in the mid-1990s. That was about the same time the Internet really began to take off and become a tool we all used. In a sense, the two technologies have grown up together.
The Internet has acted as a perfect vehicle to spread fears about a technology that has tremendous potential, among them to defeat HLB and help feed a growing global population. Despite the fact that many of the world’s most prestigious scientific organizations have deemed GMOs safe, that can quickly be overshadowed by a picture of an ear of corn with Devil horns and bloody fangs in your Facebook feed.
Kevin Folta, a professor in and chairman of the Horticultural Sciences Department at the University of Florida, has assumed a near crusader status to defend the science behind GMOs and has taken more than a few barbs in the process. He gladly engages and shares his perspective as a scientist when the debate over the safety of transgenics heats up.
Kevin tells me: “These genetically modified crops are the most tested in history, and there is no mechanism that could account for the claims of harm. In university science, we always are concerned about the health and environmental impacts of these products. Every technology has its limitations, and we always have to think about each case carefully, but to date, there are no compelling data that suggests we need to be concerned.”
Of course, people like Kevin who defend genetic technology immediately get tagged for “being in the pocket of ‘Big Ag.’” Setting that worn-out argument aside, since when did scientists not have a right to defend innovation, along with the commercial companies who develop it? The notion that laying out facts in defense of science somehow constitutes a grand conspiracy should give us all pause.
Loading ...In the 1990s, papaya ringspot virus threatened to destroy Hawaii’s papaya industry. USDA and university scientists — not “Big Ag” — developed the genetic science to allow the plants to live virus free.
That brings us back to the question, what if a GMO citrus tree is the ultimate solution to save our citrus industry? Should we proceed? Yes, absolutely. If an easier, faster, less expensive solution comes along, great. But, we should take nothing off the table.
And, I sense the tide is beginning to turn as more and more media and social commentators begin to call out the increasingly cartoonish claims of GMO opponents. The arguments to deny the benefits it could continue to bring forth to the productivity of agriculture and its environmental benefits in the future are beginning to fall flat.
Subscribe Today For
