Human-driven, genetically-modified organisms have been around since 12000 B.C., but genetic engineering with the direct transfer of DNA first appeared in 1973. Regardless, the studies on GMO safety have been accruing, and the consensus is: GMOs are safe. What happens to studies that show GMOs are not safe? They have been heavily refuted or even retracted from journals for misleading the reader.
Now, after 10 years of consensus that there is no negative effect of GMOs, alongside regular testing of new modified organisms by the FDA, liberals (like Vermont’s Bernie Sanders) are fighting to place labels on all GMO foods. The goal is to treat the modification like we do an allergy warning, fueling the current public fear of genetic engineering from companies like Monsanto. Monsanto, with its belief in privatized water sources and its unethical business practices, has turned Liberals mistrust of corporations into a denial of evidence.
So, what can I do to get liberals back on track? I can’t make them accept evidence that has been staring them in the face, but I can give them more incentive to. GMOs have been used to infuse rice with Vitamin A, targeting up to 2.8 million preventable deaths a year, and raising the health of others with poor diets. The association of poverty, or even the working class, and poor diet in the United States should be enough to think of GMOs as a gateway to improve the well-being of disadvantaged Americans. Thankfully, at worst, Liberals would have to continuously fight a losing battle if they hope to turn Americans off of GMOs. One, the fear of new products fades over time (especially when no one is truly hurting from them). Second, it is economically infeasible for companies to move away from them at this time.
The problem is, the public gives a 93% support for GMO labeling, so why would a politician change their mind? Hopefully liberals begin to care about their image of being pro-science again and we can leave this whole mess behind us.