2 ms·
The GMO debate is one of the great "we lost the message" moments. I feel like there was a time, probably right after WWII or so, when we tended to feel like sc
by hakfoo 6y ago
The GMO debate is one of the great "we lost the message" moments. I feel like there was a time, probably right after WWII or so, when we tended to feel like science was actually moving us forward as a species, and in the last few decades, it's slipped away to the point where we can't even maintain trust in strong scientific consensus (see: anti-vax)
The opportunities for genetic modification are boundless: more nutrition! Higher yields! Reduced allergens! Not to mention complete green-field things like bacteria designed to clean up industrial waste. These are things that could make ordinary people say "we're moving forward as a species."
So what's the face of this brilliant new industry? A mediocre tomato whose primary selling point was a few days longer shelf life in the store, and some staple crops sold with the explicit feature of "you can pour MORE herbicides on them!" GMO didn't hit the market as a way to make good things better, it was a way to make lousy things viable. We blew the launch, and the entire product category has to spend decades building the goodwill it should already have.
Yes, it's oversimplifying to the level of malpractice to put it that way, but marketing and presentation matters.
- nearbuy 6y agoHerbicide is how they're using GMO to give higher yields. Farmers aren't buying herbicides just to throw away money. Higher yields means we can produce the same amount of food while converting less natural environments into farmland. So it's not all bad here.