*UPDATE* Damned Hippies

The following is a transcript of an email I sent to the Odwalla natural juice corporation after I saw this little bit of "socially-responsible" tripe on the back of a wrapper:

"GMOs Go Home! GMOs--genetically modified organisms--are techniques that alter organisms by means that ar enot posisble under natural coniditions. We avoid using GMo's in our products through a superior sourcing system, which ensures we use nature's best foods."

Incensed as I was, I quickly found their email address and penned a reply. However, I also found that this paragon of natural virtue was bought by the Coca-Cola corporation recently, perhaps in part because their all natural, unpasteurized juices led to one death and several debilitating injuries in children from e-coli poisoning. With no Further ado, here's my rant:

To Whom it May Concern,

On the back of your “Odwalla Bar!” product you state the following:

“GMOs...are techniques that alter organisms by means that are not possible under natural conditions.” However, if this is truly your reason for shunning GMOs, should you not by the same token avoid doctors and medications? Do not they also alter organisms in ways not possible in nature? Should people suffering from any number of debilitating and possibly fatal diseases shun treatment by virtue of the fact that the therapies and medications given them are not possible under natural conditions? I hope not. Additionally, is it not the role of the architect or the builder to alter the natural world, in ways it could not be configured under “natural” conditions, to suit human habitation?

There are a countless number of human activities which are impossible under natural conditions—and may even require the alteration or transformation of supposedly natural elements—yet aim at and end in a significant good for humankind. True, humans should not seek to dominate the relationship between themselves and nature, as it is clear how much we as a species are dependent on a certain degree of peaceful coexistence with our natural surroundings. This, however, is perfectly reconcilable with a certain degree of control over our natural elements, whereby we allow ourselves to flourish and better our own condition.

Genetically Modified Foods have the potential, as part of the latter means of benignly changing nature to help mankind (oftentimes in cases where ‘nature’ itself has failed to be able to provide such respite), to make a significant increase in quality of life around the world; blind opposition to them on a weak argument for what is and what is not “natural” seems callous in the face of the current suffering and immiseration of a large proportion of the world’s population. Granted there are some reasonable objections to GMOs, but none of them have any categorical strength. They are as follows:

1. GMOs are untested and have the potential to create new and virulent plant diseases by cross-pollination. They may also have negative effects on human consumers of the crops.

2. GMOs such as ‘Golden Rice’ provide little benefit beyond their natural counterparts

3a. The companies currently promoting GMOs are merely profit-driven

3b. Farmers in impoverished areas will not have access to the new plants or be charged unfairly for their use

With regard to (1), which worries about the danger to the environment and people GMOs might pose, this is only a valid argument assuming that testing is not properly carried out. Clearly this is not specific to GMOs, but in all cases where there is a new invention/product there need be significant research and testing to ensure that it will not result in detrimental or dangerous effects. Any reasonable person would agree that GMOs should not be rushed, untested, to market; no reasonable person however would argue that because something has potential dangers it should not be examined or even tested when we stand to gain significantly if it is a success. Furthermore, just because one incarnation of a technology or procedure has a potentially harmful side-effect does not mean that the course of inquiry should be completely abandoned. Though the atomic bomb was a horrific consequence of research, the peaceful and beneficial results of research into the atom and atomic energy have improved and even saved millions of lives with little detrimental effect. (2) is also a weak position. Even if it is the case that current GMOs have little benefit above and beyond their unmodified counterparts, this does not preclude further development of GMOs and indeed it does not mandate that GMOs are in any way bad. The first airplanes were wholly impractical machines, but with further development they have become a useful, if not indispensable, part of modern life. Virtually all scientific development has proceeded from the originally impractical.

Perhaps the strongest position is (3), but on examination it is not actually a critique of GMOs but of corporate culture. The problem herein is one of motivation, wherein the benefit or appeal of a product becomes merely a rationalization of future profit-making. This sort of reprehensible action is not restricted to large pharmecuitical companies; your company itself engages in a similar profit-seeking motivations. Despite whatever seemingly altruistic motives of providing wonderful pure food or whatnot, Odwalla is in a position where it must make money, extract profit, and engage in the selfsame corporate culture (why else would the company have allowed itself to be bought by the Coca-Cola corporation?). GMOs clearly need to be liberated from the system of corporate ownership and control if really significant benefit is to be seen from them, but whether or not they are does not form an argument for or against their ‘goodness’.

In sum, I think that your stance on GMOs is no more than the belief in and perpetuation of fear-mongering eco-tourism. Such a position capitalizes on people’s concerns over a new idea and does so for the primary goal of making profit, at the expense of promoting potentially life-saving and life-promoting development. This casual lionization of an abstract notion of what is “natural” is narrow minded and callous, catering to a supposedly liberated group of conveniently affluent first-world consumers with trivial concerns over the environment. I would encourage you to think before you act in the future.

Sincerely,

Sherief

And their response:

Thank you for writing to us. It is imperative that we listen to what our
consumers have to say or ask about our products and our brand. Consumer
feedback is essential to our business.

If you have any questions, please call us at 1.800.ODWALLA or visit our
website at www.odwalla.com.

Thanks again for checking in with us and have a great day.

Verna
Voice of Odwalla