Facts and fear about genetically modified food in Hawaii

boing
121

  1. And again, these crops are deliberately designed to work with these practices, rather than encouraging more sustainable ones.

  2. No, it will not, but allowing their unrestricted distribution will increase that power by puting one more vital resource under the control of a handful of large companies.

  3. And again, you’re completely missing the point of 1, 2, and 3, which is that “X IS A BAD THING. Y ENCOURAGES MORE OF X INSTEAD OF LESS.” Honestly, it’s like hearing someone insist that more tax breaks will fix the budget deficit.

  4. The risk scales. Until now, a new plant took generations of selective breeding and was spread locally for weeks or decades before being distributed more widely. Problems with that strain were localized, and if that entire strain were wiped out, there were still hundreds of other ones which might be more resiliant. Now, we are talking 500 TRILLION SEEDS OVER 300 MILLION ACRES in ONE SEASON. I’m talking about putting way to many eggs in one basket. Gods help us if a nasty blight or an insect or a fungus ever develops a serious taste for that Roundup gene- We’re talking about losing 75% of our corn, 90% of our soy- That’s not a shortage, it’s a famine.

Again, you seem to be missing the point that all GMO products are doing here is making unsustainable practices worse, while doing nothing to fix the real problem of hunger.

2 Likes
122

If GMOs aren’t the real problem or the solution to the real problem, why not focus on the real problem?

123

Persons who freak out about GMOs generally are equally scared about climate change.

Not all persons who are concerned with climate change are freaked out about GMOs.

124

I don’t believe in the one-two punch of pseudoscience and laissez-faire capitalism.

125

People who freak out about GMOs on political sites are often notorious trollies on a wide range of topics. I think there’s the similarity between some GMO skeptics and global warming denial - it’s a chance to trolley people who are are interested in science.

126

I totally agree. Shutting down university research, and largely unprofitable but hugely helpful research (like golden rice) will be much easier for anti-GM activists than denting Monsanto et al, which after all make most of their sales in non-GM crops anyway. My worry is that the baby is easier to throw out than the bathwater.

127

When there have been long-term trials by independent researchers, the results have been disturbing. In 2008, the Austrian government peformed a long-term animal feeding experiment which showed evidence of reproductive trouble including reduced birth, weight and fertility.

This Austrian study was mostly avoided by United States media. I wonder why?

Since you brought it up I wondered the same thing and decided to look it up; this appears to be a copy. I also learned some background on the report. Back in 1999 Austria banned the sale of Monsanto’s notorious Bt corn (known here as maize with the MON18 gene). The country has been wrangling with the EU ever since over the matter, and the Velimirov et al. study was commissioned by the Austrian government as part of that. The European Food Safety Commission’s formal scientific opinion say the following about the Austrian report:

With regard to the recent data presented at the bilateral meeting between Austrian scientists and representatives, and several experts of the GMO Panel and EFSA (Velimirov et al., 2008), the GMO Panel concludes that the methods used for these investigations are not routinely used for the safety assessment of whole foods and feeds, and that therefore neither experience with these models nor data on background variability in the tested parameters exists. Moreover, the GMO Panel identified various deficiencies in data reporting, methodologies and statistical calculations, which do not allow any interpretation. Therefore, the GMO Panel considers that these data do not invalidate the conclusions of the GMO Panel on the safety of MON810 maize.

Based on that, I’d hazard that the reason why it was ignored is because it was a crappy study, possibly commissioned to shore up one country’s protectionist agricultural policy.

Also, IAASTD asked 400 or so scientists from countries all over the world and they concluded:

“this contentious issue is contentious”. At least that’s how the section you quote reads to me. The editors of Nature seem to not have been impressed, at least going by their editorial subtitled “To restore its scientific credibility, the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) should rethink its vision for biotech.”

note: edited for clarity

3 Likes
128

Because they are contributing to the real problem under the guise of solving it.

2 Likes
129

That sums up every place I’ve ever worked.

1 Like
130
The European Food Safety Commission's formal scientific opinion say the following about the Austrian report

Is there any particular reason you trust the word of the EFSA over the Austrian government?

And, since you brought them up. Isn’t this the same EFSA that has documented cases of basing their decisions upon industry data instead of independent science? Also, isn’t this the same EFSA whose panel members have conflicts of interest with biotech, food and pesticide companies like Monsanto?

Once again, why do you trust them ahead of the Austrian government? What’s your basis and evidence?

possibly commissioned to shore up one country's protectionist agricultural policy.
Do you have any evidence whatsoever to back up this accusation or this just just a convenient, unsubstantiated bash against the Austrian government?

Or is it simply that you just don’t prefer independent research over Monsanto’s own research?

"this contentious issue is contentious". At least that's how the section you quote reads to me.
Or, you could just read the quote and take it at face value instead of glazing over parts you don't like. Perhaps you missed these parts?

… uncertainty on benefits and harms … environmental, human health and economic risks and benefits of modern biotechnology; many of these risks are as yet unknown. … GM crops indicate highly variable 10 to 33 percent yield gains in some places and yield declines in others. …

You also seemed to have stumbled over Lotte’s paper on the fact that there isn’t solid scientific consensus on GMO like we see with climate change. Did you miss that part?

The editors of Nature seem to not have been impressed,
Ok, you've played your card that you feel that Nature should be an authority and I'll take you up on that.

Nature also agrees with me that research on transgenic crops must be done outside industry.

source: Fields of gold | Nature

Nature also agrees with me that the bigger GMO picture is “nuanced, equivocal and undeniably messy”. For example, the scientific community remains split on whether transgenes have infiltrated maize populations in Mexico and other major issues.

source: Case studies: A hard look at GM crops | Nature

Like I already said, I certainly don’t think all GMO in all forms are “evil” and bad in all cases, but there needs to be more independent studies. Corporations like Monsanto need to stop making that more transparent process difficult. If they’ve got nothing to hide, then goddam stop acting like it.

What I want to know through more independent and transparent studies is all the downsides so I can properly wiegh that against all the purported upsides we get from opaque, industry sponsored studies from the likes of Monsanto, etc.

Do you have a problem with that?

4 Likes
131

And, since you brought them up. Isn’t this the same EFSA that has documented cases of basing their decisions upon industry data instead of independent science? Also, isn’t this the same EFSA whose panel members have conflicts of interest with biotech, food and pesticide companies like Monsanto?

This sounds a bit too much like what global warning deniers say about the IPCC for my comfort . The Austrian scientists were not neutral, independent researchers, they were commissioned by the Austrian government to support the government’s policy. That doesn’t make them wrong! It does mean that there is a potential for bias to keep in mind. Because of the purpose of the study it was not published in a journal. That means that the only substantive peer review it received was by the EFSA panel it was written for. That panel had 21 people with no known conflicts of interest (see the second footnote on the first page) who unanimously (ibid.) arrived at the conclusion that the submitted study was too poorly designed to offer useful information. Based on that evidence I’m inclined to ignore the study. I also suspect that it was weak due political considerations, but that’s a possible explanation for it sucking and not a reason to reject it.

As for those Nature links, I agree with them 99.99%. I would note that the super-weeds mentioned in the first one are indirectly caused by GMO due to over-use of the associated herbicide and not by direct gene-transfer. Still, the resistance problem was foreseeable and foreseen and failing to mitigate it was stupid.

Since you asked I’ll look more closely at the Lotter paper. Googling him I see that he has a doctorate in agro-ecology from UC Davis, and currently works on an agricultural development project in Tanzania (it’s a long story, but doing development work in Tanzania automatically gives someone brownie points in my eyes). His paper was published in International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food, a peer-reviewed publication. I don’t see any bias, though the journal leans towards social science and GMO is not his specialty. Looking at his substance, he starts off with Pioneer Hi-Bred and how their new soybean ended up containing an allergen. They knew that was possible, caught it in testing and so dropped the project, so I’d call that an example of how the system should work. He lists Velimirov, et al, which I’ve already discussed. He lists several cases of food allergies which are sourced to Jeffrey Smith, the non-scientist author of a book entitled Seeds of Deception. I’m done; those are enough bad cites. Dr. Lotter is a guy outside his specialty published in a non-technical journal citing poor sources, including non-scientists, spreading Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. I hate to say it, but this looks like a perfect example of GMO opponents acting like climate denialists. While we absolutely need “independent and transparent studies”, “quality, peer-reviewed” has to be there in front.

2 Likes
132

Yes, the horrible thing that never actually happened and it was like 25 years ago. Is there no statute of limitations, especially for nonevents?

1 Like
133

Well we sure do agree heartily on that one! Laissez-faire (which is a darling of the GMO advocating megacorps, although not necessarily favored by human beings who are against regulation of GMOs) is the opposite of well-regulated, and the winner of an unregulated capitalism is generally Murder, Inc…

I am strongly in favor of regulated commerce, including comprehensive labeling laws, sin taxes, and other dreaded socialist nemeses (that didn’t used to be called socialism) as opposed to the anti-labeling forces, who basically want sellers to have legal permission to hide information from buyers if it might diminish profits.

2 Likes
134

That’s terribly sad, and you have my deepest sympathies. Honestly.

1 Like
135

Comprehensive labeling laws can be… profoundly dumb. I think “GMO” labeling is kind of meaningless and would end up similar to this wonderful label I get to see everywhere:

Gee that label really helps me… uh… er… feel a pointless, vague sense of dread everywhere I go? Thanks prop 65, you added a label that really improved everyone’s life!

I do not think it is wise to advocate labeling of this sort. “Look out! There is a giant bottomless pit in front of you!” sure. Somehow “Look out! We aren’t sure but maybe something bad might happen at some unknown indeterminate point in the future but we don’t conclusively know anything!” does not have the same… utility. And I would argue that kind of required-by-law labeling has a cost, it adds a very real burden to businesses and society.

2 Likes
136

I’ve already provided several reasons that such labeling would not be “meaningless”.

But sure, labeling can be silly. Humans can be silly too - but that’s not grounds for exterminating all humans. Similarly, the existence of silly labels is not a viable argument against mandating labeling that the majority of the citizens would like to have - not even if what the citizenry wants is silly (which in this case, it clearly isn’t).

In my experience the worst labels are created by the legal departments of manufacturing concerns in order to justify their fat paychecks, and then later talk radio pundits cite those labels as evidence that industry is over-regulated. “My ladder was so covered with warning labels I slipped on them” for example; you hear that one all the time.

1 Like
137

Bacigalupe’s writing (check out some of his short stories set in the same dystopian future as “Windup Girl”) is one of the better explorations of my major concern with GMOs, loss of biodiversity - which is rarely part of anti-GMO conversations, IME.

I am in a similar place as many posters in this thread - I’d prefer transparency about pesticide/herbicide use, I have issues with patenting seeds and treating them as intellectual property, etc. but I don’t see GM as inherently frightening or bad, and I am frustrated by the anti-science bent of much anti-GMO rhetoric. And at the same time, I’m frustrated by the corporatism of some of the forces aligned to promote GMOs.

I am currently neutral on labeling laws - on the one hand, I am usually pro-consumer-information; OTOH, I worked at Whole Foods for a couple of years, and I am intimately familiar with the way the food industry uses meaningless labels like “natural” to convey a false sense of security to consumers. And I’ve seen ignorant Crunchy Granola types freak out over being given information they have no idea how to use - “this yogurt has BACTERIA in it???” or “I can’t eat sugar, so I need cookies sweetened with rice syrup!!!” and so on.

The article originally linked here was, I thought, an excellent exploration of the problems with knee-jerk anti-GMO rhetoric.

4 Likes
138

It’s hard to see how a GM warning is currently justified, but there are other types of labeling, for instance ingredient information. As I’ve noted before: we list things like potassium benzoate or citric acid as ingredients when they’re added, though not when they’re a natural part of the food.

The same could be done with genes that were specifically added, listing things like wheat (added Agrobacterium genes). It would mean companies would have to track what GM produce they use along with additives. But as with the chemicals that doesn’t necessarily imply harm, just allow people information about their food, and anyway that tracking is what helps ensure something doesn’t hurt anyone.

2 Likes
139

I think people like yourself, who have valid concerns about label content but are not ideologically opposed to all labels, should continue to speak up.

The fallback position of the laissez-faire crowd will be to make sure any labels are useless and uninformative, and they will try to expand the definition of GMO so that everything has to be labeled (you can see that tactic in embryo in pretty much any bOINGbOING GMO thread).

2 Likes
140

Well, if you want to get technical, any hybridized plant has been genetically modified. That’s the point after all! :smile: But seriously, you just crystallized my objection to label proposals so far: just slapping “GMO” on the front doesn’t provide useful information to the consumer. The term covers covers a diverse set of concerns while also being prejudicial, and that’s not a good thing. Here’s a non-exhaustive list of GMO objections mentioned here:

  • Monsanto’s business practices
  • overuse of synthetic pesticides/herbicides
  • exposure to natural pesticide/herbicides
  • exposure to allergens

If your goal is to stick to Monsanto ,putting a general GMO label on golden rice isn’t helping you make decisions. If you’re worried about food allergies putting a general GMO label on RoundUp ready crops isn’t helping you make decisions. Furthermore, some GMO objections are not directly related to the safety of food on the shelf. Sure, seed patent trolling sucks, but that’s really not my concern when trying to decide if those corn chips are safe for me to eat.

3 Likes