Harrison Sussman
Green World Blue Planet
Article Summary #2

Nathaniel Johnson, a journalist and researcher of genetically modified organisms (GMO’s), has elaborated on his opinion of the controversy that has surrounded this topic for years. His point is basically that the argument over whether to ban GMO’s is fruitless, no pun intended. He identifies two scenarios: a future without GMO’s due to policy enforcement and a future with GMO’s. Both of these scenarios produce similar results, as they are not really affected by the laws regarding GMO’s. In the first scenario, farmers would use other methods, such as tilling their fields more often, as a means to produce output. In the second scenario, farmers would use less insecticide, less tillage, and more herbicide to yield similar results as in the first scenario. Either way, life continues seemingly unhindered by the presence or absence of GMO’s. After he describes these alternative futures, Johnson likens the debate to the topic of sexual education. He argues that those that are opposed to an institution (GMO’s, sexual education), deny it the technologies it requires (Bt corn, condoms).Johnson continues his argument by analyzing why there is such heated debate over the subject. He argues that people are either for or against GMO’s because they represent a larger matter. Those that are for GMO’s believe that they symbolize a human victory of conquering the apparent problem of starvation and overpopulation. Those that are against GMO’s believe that GMO’s represent corporate control over the food system, something that should be abolished immediately. Johnson claims that the topic of GMO’s is so controversial because of the metaphors it symbolizes. The conclusion that Johnson is trying to convey is that if the conversation about GMO’s was not about metaphorical representation, than there would be no conversation to begin with.