The Rhetorical Dilemma of the Debate
The rhetorical dilemma is self-evident: legal precedence and economic impetus favor scientific research that evinces "safe data" on GMOs by placing the burden of proof entirely on research that evinces "unsafe data." There is no legal safeguard to prevent food producers from conducting research in order to fulfill standard requirements rather than conclusively determine that a GMO food is indeed safe. Without legal requirement for supervision from third parties equipped with necessary funding, economic forces procure scientific evidence that will, by the inevitable directive of for-profit entities, fulfill the safety quota they must meet in order to market their product. There is no legal protection of scientific inquiry in the current structure of GMO food safety--that legal protection is purely economical.
The Pro-GMO and Anti-GMO stances can be translated, with these rhetorical examinations in mind, as follows:
The Pro-GMO and Anti-GMO stances can be translated, with these rhetorical examinations in mind, as follows:
*OLD* Pro-GMO Claims:
|
*NEW* Pro-GMO Claims:
|
*OLD* Anti-GMO Claims:
|
*NEW* Anti-GMO Claims:
|
The Pro-GMO and Anti-GMO debate cannot truly be separated as purely scientific or purely economical--not until legal precedence establishes regulations for scientific research methodology. As demonstrated in Professor Ronald's article, scholars who support GMO foods are keen to fund independent GMO research, just as scholars who do not support GMO foods. Their difference of opinion results from diverging notions of how scientific methodology can be applied and put into practice. In a way, scientific concerns are deferred by economic and legal concerns. This is evident in the culture of scientific research already examined in GMO safety regulations, where the responsibility of funding and executing scientific research and gathering data is given to the same entity that is bound to and sustained by an economic directive: to produce and market a food product. The priority of scientific research is compromised in these conditions; withholding production for the integrity of scientific research is a bankrupt alternative.
"Future actions by seed developers, farmers, and regulators will determine whether the seed industry will continue to provide safe and beneficial GE crops that are accepted by consumers--or whether GE seeds will become yet another abused and ineffective agricultural technology. If a strong, but not stifling, regulatory system can be implemented, and if GE seeds are used with sustainable practices that minimize environmental impacts, public confidence will improve, and the technology's enormous promise will be given the opportunity to be realized." (Jaffe 23)