The Rhetoric of the GMO Food Debate
Since the first engineered crops were sold in 1994, scholars have produced papers and research on the GMOs and their effectiveness in food production. "The Truth About GMOs" by Pamela Ronald, a professor at the University of California, Davis, presents a distinct and well-formulated stance that aligns with Pro-GMO sentiments. Consider this excerpt from the article, where Professor Ronald points out the relationship of modern genetic engineering to similar, historical practices of the past:
"Given that modern genetic engineering is similar to techniques that have served humanity well for thousands of years and that the risks of unintended consequences are similar whether the variety is derived from the processes of [genetic engineering] or conventional gene alteration, it should come as no surprise that the [genetically engineered] crops currently on the market are as safe to eat and safe for the environment as organic or conventional foods [...] In the seventeen years since [genetically engineered] crops were first grown commercially, not a single instance of adverse health or environmental effects has been documented." (Ronald 17)
Professor Ronald's choice of words are deliberate: consequences that are "unintended," crops "currently" on the market, and no "documented" instances of adverse health or environmental effects. In each of these instances, Professor Ronald is not speaking with a purely scientific rhetoric; she has implied a rhetoric of liability. These implications follow:
This rhetoric substantiates Professor Ronald's claims and partially protects them from being used against her in legal action. The legal aspect of this rhetoric reinforces the scientific by implying that legal precedence still favors data showing that GMO foods have no harmful effects on health or environment. While this is a rational conclusion in the strictest scientific and legal senses, is the so-far absence of acknowledged evidence substantial enough to suggest that evidence of harmful effects do not exist?
To the advantage of this discussion, Professor Ronald is thorough in her points of argumentation and addresses multiple subjects of GMO debate in her article. She acknowledges the economic priority of for-profit companies like Monsanto as that of producing "high-quality seed for farmers in the developed world," while also calling for "strong investment in public-sector research to develop improved seed" as well as "regulation of the seed industry to ensure fair dealing and to avoid the rise of a single company monopolizing the world's seed supply" (Ronald 18). Professor Ronald is aware of the economic factors that influence scientific research into GMO foods and intends to make her stance clear: there is a need for regulation and research funding in order to dispel misinformation on GMO foods and to simultaneously continue the growth of GMO food research and economic industry. In her promotion of GMO food safety and importance to modern food production, Professor Ronald consistently demonstrates a scientific rhetoric with an implied rhetoric of liability and economy.
- "Unintended consequences" absolves responsibility for malignant, intentional, and reckless action
- "Crops currently on the market" limit context and protect from actions taken outside of this context
- "Undocumented" instances invoke legal precedence, where there is no history of court-acknowledged adverse health or environmental effects
This rhetoric substantiates Professor Ronald's claims and partially protects them from being used against her in legal action. The legal aspect of this rhetoric reinforces the scientific by implying that legal precedence still favors data showing that GMO foods have no harmful effects on health or environment. While this is a rational conclusion in the strictest scientific and legal senses, is the so-far absence of acknowledged evidence substantial enough to suggest that evidence of harmful effects do not exist?
To the advantage of this discussion, Professor Ronald is thorough in her points of argumentation and addresses multiple subjects of GMO debate in her article. She acknowledges the economic priority of for-profit companies like Monsanto as that of producing "high-quality seed for farmers in the developed world," while also calling for "strong investment in public-sector research to develop improved seed" as well as "regulation of the seed industry to ensure fair dealing and to avoid the rise of a single company monopolizing the world's seed supply" (Ronald 18). Professor Ronald is aware of the economic factors that influence scientific research into GMO foods and intends to make her stance clear: there is a need for regulation and research funding in order to dispel misinformation on GMO foods and to simultaneously continue the growth of GMO food research and economic industry. In her promotion of GMO food safety and importance to modern food production, Professor Ronald consistently demonstrates a scientific rhetoric with an implied rhetoric of liability and economy.
We should then examine the implied legal and economic rhetoric.
A Note on "The Truth About GMOs"
Pamela Ronald's "The Truth About GMO's" is accompanied by a number of equally informative responses from scientists and scholars involved in the field of biotechnology. The variety of their approaches and expertise provides a versatile addition to not only understanding Pamela Ronald's scientific reasoning, but also offers insight into the relationship between science, law, and economy, which is a primary analytic focus of this website. Those responses may be read to supplement Pamela Ronald's presence in the ongoing analysis.
-Read Pamela Ronald's "The Truth About GMOs"
-Read Pamela Ronald's "The Truth About GMOs"