So what was it for breakfast this morning: a bowl of frankenfood? Or was that "Round-Up Ready" cereal? Was it genetically enhanced, or a genetic mutation? Are you nutritionally enriched, or is your immune system about to collapse?
It all depends on what you read. Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have been in the media for quite some time. Initially press reports would have you believe biotechnology was introducing super-foods into our diet - food which would resist all sorts of insects and disease - and, at the same time, provide humans with a range of essential nutrients through genetic modification. And not only that, but - since resistance to pests and disease means less waste - GMOs could promote a globally sustainable environment. At least, that was the line from the agri-chemical companies such as Monsanto which market these products. Suddenly, nowadays, supermaket chains are nervous, legislators are calling for moratoriums on any further production, everyone is desperate to ensure that all GM food is properly labelled and court cases against GM-crop "saboteurs" in Britain are being dropped.
So what happened? Outstanding campaigning by pressure groups? Or was it scientific evidence, especially the study published early this year, which showed genetically modified potatoes having an adverse affect on the immune system of rats?
Until that revelation, the media had little more from GMO detractors than complicated stuff about corporate monopolies of global seed supplies. Now, however, the panic set in. The coverage stopped talking about "bio-technically enhanced food stuffs"; "frankenfood" started to appear in headlines. However, the scientific evidence showing a GMO damaging the immune system is widely disputed. Many scientists say crop-breeding is a form of genetic modification - so civilisation has been "fiddling around with nature" for thousands of years. So far, there is no evidence that people are dying in their millions from GM-induced immune system failure. So what are consumers supposed to believe? This year's media coverage, or last year's? The tenor of protest coverage changes too. Last year in Ireland, a trial crop of sugar beet genetically modified by Monsanto to resist a certain (Monsanto-produced) weed-killer was damaged by a number of people. Initial reports referred to the group as the Gaelic Earth Liberation Front.
What sort of picture does that conjure up? No member of the group was interviewed; in fact, coverage focused on reaction from Monsanto, which expressed horror at the act. The impression was of a bunch of wackos ripping up some unfortunate farmer's crop.
This year, however, when the case came to court, the tone was different. Reporting on the case, The Irish Times and the Evening Herald referred respectfully to the protesters as "environmentalists". The Independent gave them the rather glamorous, if slightly sinister, label of "green saboteurs". From eco-terrorists to environmentalists: how might this change of language affect your opinion of the issue?
