Dissecting the lies about GM crops

Industry is the basis of our society. This means that before we consider anything else, we look to the money. Prospect Magazine showed this mentality recently in its story about Genetically Modified (GM) foods. Like other magazines, it makes it money from advertising, not subscriptions. The opinions of advertisers come first. Next, it's written for the business community, who are interested in where they can make money, before any other concern. What we're seeing as a result is less "news" than a product tailored to what the editors of Prospect Magazine think their consumers will buy. It's closer to entertainment than fact in that regard.

The article starts:

"Public discussion of GM food in the British media, and throughout Europe, reflects a persistent suspicion of GM crops. Supermarkets display notices that their products are 'GM-free.' Sales of organic food, promoted as a natural alternative to the products of modern scientific farming, are increasing by about 20 per cent a year. Indeed, EU regulations, based on the precautionary principle, provide safeguards against 'contamination' of organic farms by GM crops; they require any produce containing more than 0.9 per cent GM content to be labelled as such, with the clear implication that it needs a health warning and should be avoided. This causes a major conflict over GM soya beans imported from America. Some GM crops are taking root in some European countries, but in most they are in effect banned."

It is well-written, but for the most part that is a mechanical, trainable skill. The question we have to ask ourselves as consumers of this information is: what is the goal here, and if the goal does not include critical thinking, what viewpoint is being presented and to what ends? The article summarizes the situation well, but then goes into entertainment-editorial area in a way that is clearly devoid of analytical thinking. I will analyze the four major mistakes made in this article and then summarize an educated conjecture as to why they are wrong and why they were stated as they are, in full view of the article's authors being mentally competent enough to know what the truth of the situation is.

FIRST FALLACY

"The public in Britain and Europe seems unaware of the astonishing success of GM crops in the rest of the world. No new agricultural technology in recent times has spread faster and more widely."

It's always best to compare apples to oranges if you want to sell apples based on their strength and no other consideration. It's a false comparison. In effect, you're saying "oranges aren't apples, therefore apples are superior." Here the article is comparing the fitness of GM crops as an idea to their financial success. That is equivalent to saying a McDonald's hamburger is superior to a steak (or a top-notch curry) because more people buy the McDonald's hamburger.

In other words, the article is claiming to analyze whether or not GM crops are a good idea, but with this first fallacy, it does not address whether GM crops are a good idea. It states instead that they sell well, without offering any argument as to why higher sales suggest greater fitness as an idea. This is not only a logical fallacy but a sleight of hand distracting from the point to the article. The article asks why GM crops aren't more accepted, and then tells us that they make money elsewhere. This disjointed logic probably fools a lot of people.

SECOND FALLACY

"The fact is that there is not a shred of any evidence of risk to human health from GM crops."

Here the fallacy is one of aptitude of measurement. For us to know a gunshot to the head is dangerous takes a few seconds, but for us to know that pouring toxic waste into rivers is dangerous takes several generations while we observe the birth defects, cancers and zombies rising from the mist (and so on). The subtler the changes, the more time we have to observe. For example, pouring cianide in a river takes a few hours to determine unfitness; pouring dioxin in small amounts might require thirty years. Observation of GM foods has at most had a decade, so we don't have a shred of compelling evidence for or against risk from GM crops.

THIRD FALLACY

"They concluded that the 'environmental impact' of pesticide and herbicide use in GM-growing countries had been reduced by 15 per cent and 20 per cent respectively."

This sounds good if you're distracted, but upon further analysis, it also doesn't answer the question. Pesticide and herbicide use are down, but what other damages are created? The article does not address this. Even more damagingly, it does not point out that with the population at its current levels, pesticide and herbicide levels are fixed; however, if more crops were grown, population would also expand, so even at reduced pesticide and herbicide levels more pesticides and herbicides would be required because more crops would be required. It's as if their attention span is limited to today and goes no further.

FOURTH FALLACY

"In the next half century, the world will have to more than double its food production to feed the over 800m people who now go hungry, the extra 3bn expected by 2050 and the hundreds of millions of people who will, as living standards rise, acquire a more western lifestyle and eat a great deal more meat."

Three billion more people acquiring a Western lifestyle sounds good if you want to sell them products, but presents a big problem if they start consuming resources at a Western level, which includes more than crops. Forget food for a moment; do we have enough space, oil and medicine for these people? Even worse, when they all lead Western lifestyles and have lots of kids, won't that mean we have 6bn people to feed? In ignoring the obvious cycle in a zeal to sell products, Prospect Magazine is laying the groundwork for a future disaster.

LEAP INTO REALITY

The truth of the situation is that people in the US and Europe distrust GM foods. We have seen how science, led by industry with its cheerleaders like Prospect Magazine, has unleashed disaster after disaster upon us, making species extinct and poisoning whole regions. We don't trust industry. We don't trust science, either, because like magazines, scientists make their money by catering to lobbyists and de facto advertiser-sponsors. As a result, people do not trust GM foods, because we see the motivation behind them is profit and the consequences are unfounded.

One big worry is the escape of modified genes into the environment, hybridizing with existing plants and destroying seed stocks in the wild. Another worry is that these "supergenes" can mutate and cause other problems, or transfer to other species. We don't yet know how well-founded these fears are, but we do know with 100% certainty that industry (and Prospect Magazine) is not considering these issues at all. It considers only its side of the issue, which is how to make money today -- and to hell with the future.

The leap into reality that we'd like people to take is this: GM foods are not needed now, and will bring about disaster by allowing our population to rise and helping it adjust to Western lifestyles, which will result in billions more people living resource-intensive lives. This in turn will lead to further destruction of wildlife, greater political instability and a need for even more resources in the future. If you look at the small picture and eliminate everything else, GM foods seem like a miracle. But if you look at the whole picture, you see this miracle is as much of a disaster as handing $1000 to a crack addict.