I Do So Like Monsanto And GMOs!
By Collin Maessen on commentDon’t lynch me yet, there’s a point to the title I picked. It has to do with an image I saw on my Facebook feed that uses a drawing from a Dr Seuss story:
I don’t know who originally made this image, but I noticed it via a share from the Facebook page for the organization SumOfUs. Their campaigns and messaging make it very clear that they do not like Monsanto and are anti-GMO.
Monsanto is often portrayed as some evil monster by these groups, but it isn’t. There’s no discussion about the safety of GMOs as they are safe, no matter what this group claims. Studies claiming to show otherwise are either misrepresented or just plain wrong. The support of these groups for labeling GMOs is just a subtle way of banning perfectly safe products.
However, I do get why they picked the image from the story ‘Green Eggs and Ham’:
Do you like
green eggs and ham?I do not like them,
Sam-I-am.
I do not like
green eggs and ham.
The character Sam-I-Am is quite adamant and persistent in his claims that he doesn’t like green ham and eggs; despite him never having tried them. But when his friend finally convinces him to try green ham and eggs this is what happens:
If you will let me be,
I will try them.
You will see.Say!
I like green eggs and ham!
I do! I like them, Sam-I-am![…]
I do so like
green eggs and ham!
I hope you now understand why I picked the title ‘I Do So Like Monsanto And GMOs!’ as that is the message the image conveys. At least to anyone who actually knows what happens in the original story. They will see this mismatch in what the story is about and the intended message of this image.
So can we please stop using a story that’s about overcoming personal biases for the exact opposite?
Updated 2014-04-24 @ 6:32:
Small change to remove a point that was unfair towards Monsanto as it didn’t take into account current practices and legal rulings. My thanks to Soul_Shot on Reddit for pointing this out.
Collin Maessen is the founder and editor of Real Skeptic and a proponent of scientific skepticism. For his content he uses the most up to date and best research as possible. Where necessary consulting or collaborating with scientists.
Of course, almost nothing we currently eat is 100% “natural” and people especially ought to think about the wheat used for pasta.
But here’s a good text case to sort out GMO vs Monsanto:
Wheat rust can devastate large expanses of wheat very fast, and it’s a bit like flu in that it mutates, which means one has to move fast to develop new wheat varieties to fend it off, and that may be too fast to rely on traditional plant breeding methods.
To remove the Monsanto issue, suppose that a nasty variant threatens to wipe out wheat in 2 of the 3 biggest growers, i.e.,, China and India and suppose that researchers @ IIT develop a GMO version that protect against this and save millions from serious problems.
Is GMO OK or not in that case?
Recommended book: Mendel in the Kitchen by Nina Federoff, a past President of the AAAS.
GMO itself is OK to use, it’s just a tool/technology. In the example you mention it would be perfectly fine to use in my opinion.
Indeed.
Certainly in the UK, one of the side effects of irrational anti-GM protests and campaigning is that small companies doing GM research have been basically forced out or shut down.. and the only companies that are left doing the research are the really big ones like Monsanto.
I’m aware of protesters destroying crops now and then at testing facilities/fields. But I haven’t heard anything about companies being forced to move away or shut down. Where did you hear that?
Have to confess that I don’t have supporting links (I still use my memory instead of google sometimes..)
Then I’ll disregard what you say as an unsupported claim. There’s no reason for me to accept that as valid if you can’t provide anything backing it.
Monsanto’s role in agriculture makes me uncomfortable, less because of their genetic modifications than their intellectual property policies. Farmer A plants Monsanto seed. The wind carries pollen from his crop to Farmer B’s field. Farmer B cannot now use his crop for seed without precipitating a lawsuit from Monsanto, even though he didn’t cause the cross-pollination, and indeed couldn’t prevent it if he tried.
Their development of ‘terminator’ seeds is just as reprehensible.
Also, although they’ve divested themselves of many of their chemical holdings, their history with DDT, PCBs, Posilac, and glyphosphates suggests that they’re not very good (and perhaps negligent) in foreseeing the bad effects of their developments.
The claim that Monsanto sues anyone who has a contaminated field is simply not true (here’s a bit more detailed article).
Also your point about terminator seeds is again not in line with what Monsanto does, they haven’t commercialized any plants that can’t produce viable offspring since 1999. Which was a response to concerns and consultation with experts.
And those are just some of the issues I have with what you’re saying. Monsanto isn’t a saint, but they’re not doing what you claimed or as bad as you present them.
Normally I wouldn’t even allow this comment as it’s not sourced and contains factually incorrect claims. But this is exactly the type of behaviour I referenced in the above blog post. So it will currently stand as an example of what I was referring to. However, normal moderation rules will apply for further comments.