Like most Americans, I enjoy fiction. Whether in print or broadcast form, there’s something undeniably fun about suspending my disbelief for a brief time and reading about scary monsters creeping out from underneath the bed or watching investigators logically solve unsolvable crimes. But there are times when the lines between fact and fiction blur.
Take a recent episode of the popular TV show “CSI: Miami,” for example. Entitled “Bad Seed,” the episode dealt with an unexplained death of a restaurant patron. Long story short, the show’s investigators ultimately traced the cause of death back to a bacteria gene from locally-grown biotech corn, which somehow mutated to create a neurotoxin in the deceased.
Just to add some extra dashes of anti-biotech sentiment to the episode, one character described the biotech corn growing in the field as “mutants, every one,” while another called the process of adding genes to crops “Frankensteining.” The final dig at biotech crops came when one character said this could have all been avoided if the victim “had just ate organic.”
Now, as anyone who regularly reads or watches fictional stories knows, premises such as the one described above take some liberties with established facts in the name of artistic license. As a member of the agricultural community, I know this. Likewise, dealing day in and day out with the inner workings of agriculture, you know this. But does the average TV viewer — someone not steeped daily in ag practices — understand this difference? On this point, I have my doubts. The old saying “perception is reality” comes to mind.
The bigger question is this: Could this work of fiction influence a real world backlash against biotech crops, even though there is an absence of facts to support it?
To answer this question, look to the European Union. Recently, it banned the use of atrazine in response to a public backlash against the 50-year-old herbicide. As described by EU policy makers, this ban was not based on scientific facts that atrazine was dangerous, but as a precaution because it was so widely used by growers it might cause problems over time. This is a perfect example of policy being established based on fiction, not fact.
Then there’s the simmering feud between biotech and organic supporters. In my view, this has the potential to undo decades of agricultural progress as each side looks to discredit the other by creating fiction and distorting facts.
Kansas State University’s Dr. Barry Flinchbaugh agrees. At a recent industry meeting, he called for an end to this potentially destructive fight. “Why do we need to get into a cultural war on how we produce food?” Flinchbaugh asked. “Are there not enough people in this world to feed?”
The truth is that as long as the industry remains divided on these issues, works of fiction that portray one side as evil vs. the other are inevitable. This will ultimately hinder forward progress for everyone who holds ag dear.
