The backlash against genetically modified food, which was introduced without much fanfare and without the general public having much of a say, has reached a fever pitch in this new information age.
Sales of GMO-free and organic products are skyrocketing and more and more farms are being converted to organic as companies scramble to meet consumer demand.
Much of this change has happened as people have discovered how their food is really made; in the case of Americans that process often begins with genetically modified seeds in a laboratory.
Around 20 years ago Monsanto introduced genetically modified food, and how they responded to public concerns was the source of a question asked by the UK’s newspaper The Independent in a recent interview.
The company responded with “hubris” and “naivety” in those days, their CEO Hugh Grant said in the interview.
In other words, Monsanto used a “great or foolish amount of pride or confidence (the Webster’s definition of hubris)” when they introduced the seeds to the U.S. market, one whose food consumers essentially had no say in whether they wanted them or not due to a lack of labeling.
Now it’s 2015 and consumers are still kept in the dark about GMOs, with no mandatory labels for the foods, a right afforded to citizens in over 60 countries.
And despite the growing suspicion of GMOs, the Biotech industry still relies on its own flawed science while ignoring independent studies showing their products cause harm.
Mr. Grant also reiterated another myth: that GMOs are needed to “feed the world,” which was debunked yet again by another new report released a few days ago.
While Grant’s honesty appears to be somewhat refreshing on the surface in admitting the “hubris” that led to the growth these foods that offer no benefits and plenty of risks to the consumer, it’s time we expand the conversation toward discussing the true “hubris” that’s still in play here: Monsanto’s continued insistence of forcing unlabeled GMOs on an unwilling populace.
That would be a true revelation.