The GMO Conspiracy

A big issue that I see discussed often (and which seems to be a hot-button for some people I know personally - sorry folks, some of you won't like this much) is GMOs. After a recent incident where a well-known scientist had made cautionary statements about their prevalence, then later announced publicly that he had changed his mind, I did a little a research on the matter inspired by - but in a slightly different direction from - someone else's post [1]. That one is an interesting read, and gives some little-known information on the history of public opinion's "Most Evil Corporation" [2].


My argument here is not so much the morality of any one entity, but that the idea that the "scientific community" in general is in the pocket of big corporations is a naive one.

Monsanto, over the past five years, earned an average of $13.3 Billion, (for comparison, that's just shy of Starbucks' $13.4 Billion in the same period). ExxonMobil earned an average of $394.3 Billion, and yet more than 97% of published studies (which the scientists themselves generally have to pay to get published) on the issue of climate change say that it is real, and most of them agree that human-generated carbon emissions are the reason it's happening at such an accelerated pace (via the greenhouse effect). Even the name "Exxon" is associated in the public consciousness with tragedy and corruption. BP took a major hit in 2010, but has been steadily building since, it’s average being $224.2 Billion, but not many have forgotten their disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. [3]

Yes, some scientists can be bought, but if anyone could organize a conspiracy of the entire scientific community, wouldn't the oil industry have set the standard? Canada's GDP and the value of our Dollar largely depends on the oil industry, and yet rather than buy off the scientists, our government has just muzzled them, taking the obvious PR hit instead.

When popular science educator / comedian / Mechanical Engineer Bill Nye (Not just TV’s “Science Guy”, but president and CEO of the planetary society, occasional NASA advisor and former member employee of Boeing) wrote last year about the dangers he perceived to be associated with GMOs, he probably expected a backlash. It came not from the expected source though, but from other scientists - ones with expertise in fields like biology, genetics, chemistry, and ecology. After taking the time to talk with these scientists, including a visit to Monsanto facilities, he has changed his views, and is about to release a second edition of his book wherein the relevant chapter has been completely revised. Still there are those out there who will accuse him of being an industry shill. That he admitted to visiting Monsanto will not help his case.

But here's my counterpoint:

How difficult and expensive would it be to sow doubt and create controversy where it really doesn't need to be? All you have to do is arrange equal or greater media air time to fringe groups making extraordinary claims, and get a few prominent politicians to support your side in exchange for campaign funding. Oh, and get a few celebrities on your side, they're practically worshipped already, and so their word spreads fast.

This easily explains the climate change controversy, since political links to oil industry are well known. But what about the anti-GMO lobby? Well, the sale of so-called "organic" foods has been a multi-billion dollar industry in North America and around the world for years. I'd say that it's a safe bet.

But let's not get too sensational about it, here's a hypothetical instead. Say a small group of organic producers, maybe between them taking up a small fraction of their nation's market, didn't like how the big GMO companies were controlling so much of the greater food market. They might work together to form a sort of advertising co-op. It's all well and good to promote their way of doing things, regardless of any actually merit in the process, but the big guys still have more advertising power, and their products are heartier, so a bad season will wreak havoc on the relative "little guys". So they pitch in for a new strategy: undermining the big guy. Word of mouth, some ads on TV, appeal to a perfectly natural fear of what most people don't understand (and can't, because they haven't spent years studying it...) and get consumers to talking. Word of mouth is a powerful tool, especially when people believe they're helping David to slay Goliath. And when someone who actually knows what they're talking about speaks out, well they rely on biotech for their livelihood, so they have no choice but to toe the party line! They may even be getting a nice bonus for doing so.

Of course, I doubt it's as easy as I make it sound, but with even a few million dollars at your disposal, it's probably a lot easier than fighting for market share directly. And you don't need to drown out the other side of the argument, just make enough noise to spread some doubt.

---

[1] The post that inspired this one was found on Quora.
[2] Evil Corporations survey.
[3] The corporate info was collected from a site that provides stock market analysis for investors, MarketWatch.

[4] For an example of another scientist reaching out to Nye regarding his former opinion, try here

[5] Information on organic food retail was found here, here and here.