The Stances in the GMO Food Debate
Two major positions in the GMO food debate focus on product labeling, and health and environmental safety. Pro-GMO positions contend that GMO technology is safe in food production and does not have harsh consequences on the environment. Anti-GMO positions argue that GMOs are potentially harmful to our health and our environment, and that current standards of testing and safety are not sufficient enough to determine that GMOs are, in fact, safe.
Pro-GMO Claims:
|
|
Anti-GMO Claims:
|
|
The two camps are divided on these subjects to demonstrate that, within the scientific debate on GMO foods, there is a reference to economical and legal factors, particularly on the regulations of safety testing and research, and on the application of labeling food products that contain, or are derived from, GMOs.
Note that the analysis on this website will not be focusing on media stories concerning the biotechnology industry or food production corporations. While these are also essential in gaining a complete scope of analysis on the debate on GMO foods, these avenues explore social, economical, and legal aspects in great detail at the cost of ignoring the science of the GMO food debate. To focus on the science, this website first examines a scholarly piece by Pamela Ronald, a professor at the University of California, Davis, and then examines the effects of U.S. legislation regulating GMO foods and the companies that produce them. The analyses hereon seek to demonstrate that the science of GMO food research is narrowed and restricted by legislative and economic conditions, and is reflected in a scientific rhetoric contaminated by an implied legislative and economic rhetoric.
Note that the analysis on this website will not be focusing on media stories concerning the biotechnology industry or food production corporations. While these are also essential in gaining a complete scope of analysis on the debate on GMO foods, these avenues explore social, economical, and legal aspects in great detail at the cost of ignoring the science of the GMO food debate. To focus on the science, this website first examines a scholarly piece by Pamela Ronald, a professor at the University of California, Davis, and then examines the effects of U.S. legislation regulating GMO foods and the companies that produce them. The analyses hereon seek to demonstrate that the science of GMO food research is narrowed and restricted by legislative and economic conditions, and is reflected in a scientific rhetoric contaminated by an implied legislative and economic rhetoric.
Let's begin with a look into the rhetoric of GMO foods in the scientific community.
A Note on the GMO Food Debate in the Media
The opposition of Pro-GMO and Anti-GMO stances can be easily accessed in the controversy over Golden Rice, a genetically-modified rice grain that has been altered to include beta-carotene, intended to alleviate nutrient deficiency in under-served populations around the world. A variety of information is available in public ,media as well as in scholarly science, and both Pro-GMO and Anti-GMO sentiments are present in each sector.
There is an abundance of controversies, lawsuits, and authorial opinions available in most newspapers, online journals, web sources, and videos outlining a variety of stances on the GMO food debate. Following are two Youtube videos exemplifying this.
The video below is an example of Anti-GMO sentiment that focuses on labeling GMO food products and ridiculing corporate practices of companies like Monsanto Co.
|
The video below takes a more moderate critical approach to the GMO food industry and biotechnology.
|
|
|