Genetically Modified Food vs. Emotionally Modified Arguments

Mentioning the phrase "GM foods" in the public arena has the uncanny ability to split, divide and sometimes even offend people. It is the new religion, it comes attached with a label that says "tread carefully" and as with religion it is probably not discussed enough because of this. What is more is that those against genetically modified foodstuffs have come under criticism for using ideologies and rhetoric much of the time to argue their point rather than clear headed thought and logic. Are you seeing the link?

Anti-GM, forget Scientology, Christianity or Islam, this is it the new theory built on very little factual evidence. In The Daily Telegraph today it was suggested that those against GM food 'are more motivated by "emotion" than "reasoned" argument' and that many are sceptical of science in general and not just this specific area.'

To me, being sceptical of science makes no sense at all, it is like being sceptical about the existence of people. Moreover, those who claim to be science sceptics I don't think really are. It is all very well saying there so but these people believe whole heartedly in science when they are watching television, flying at sixteen thousand feet or even reading the paper. Science is inescapable so it is not only invalid to be a science sceptic but meaningless, it is gobbledygook in the purest sense.

So it is not surprising that the same people use emotional language over rationality when discussing GM foods.  For the very nature of arguing something with reason is by employing science. At the abstract level you are employing philosophy but that is know as the father of science.

Therefore blurting out such a loaded phrase as "Frankenstein food" is utter nonsense. It bears no significance on the subject matter but simply attempts to concoct a sense of disgust and fear in relation to the subject matter. It is pure rhetoric utilised to persuade on no solid ground.

So what are the rational arguments that the opposite side possess? Well for starters, consider that genetically modifying food has been happening for thousands years in an indirect process. Long before the discovery of genes, in fact nearly as soon as the farming profession began, people realised that breeding the big fat juicy tomatoes produced many more of a like generation than selecting the scrawny ones. OK, so now we delve into the fruits programming code, as it were, itself but it's simply a short cut.

A huge deal is made out of this because someone who doesn't really understand how these things work is worried that they are going to bite into a big juicy apple one day to find it has a face on it. A good example of such a person is the Prince of Wales, someone who I personally would not trust to persuade me on the lightest of matters. It is no surprise that a person who got some of the finest one-on-one tutoring at and still only managed to get two A levels does not trust science.

Finally, I would like to tackle the one "rational" argument, if you can call it that, that the anti-GM people possess. Yes, there may be an increase in fertilisers and pesticides used but that is only because the growth yield will increase. The same amount will be used per gram, but more in total is required because the fruit, vegetable, etc. are 50% bigger.

Let us face facts, genetically modified food is not a horrific thing like the scaremongers will have you believe. It has about as much in common with Mary Shelly's novel as a container of inert gas. The debate about whether GM would reduce starvation continues and is another matter, however one thing that is for sure is that it will increase productivity and reduce cost which is never a bad thing. So the next time someone tells you that GM food is "unnatural", "dangerous" or "Frankensteinian" ask them to prove that in reasonable, rational and clear terms.