Pharyngula

Posted by: Beige | October 26, 2009 9:48 AM

Ugh.. that changemakers site is loading ridiculously slowly for me. Yay for genetics!

Posted by: Michelle R | October 26, 2009 10:00 AM

Done and done. They got mah vote.

Posted by: Evan | October 26, 2009 10:07 AM

Um, yeah - I'm kind of an anti-GMO guy myself. Don't know much about the "Institute for Responsible Technology", which I gather is the leading competition, but they don't look like an industry front group to me.

Posted by: Karl Haro von Mogel | October 26, 2009 10:13 AM

Thanks very much for the plug, PZ! Folks can read all about the contest and our opponent on the blog. Let's shoot this through the stratosphere! :-D

"Ugh.. that changemakers site is loading ridiculously slowly for me."
It's already an awkward site, I wonder if it can handle a Pharyngulation?

Posted by: The Science Pundit | October 26, 2009 10:17 AM

We're up to 139.

Posted by: Raryn | October 26, 2009 10:35 AM

Michael Pollen is the gentleman who writes a lot about sustainable agriculture and how our nation depends too much on subsidized corn. I'm surprised a pro-GMO group would want to meet with him...

Posted by: t3knomanser | October 26, 2009 10:42 AM

Actually, Pollan is pro-GMO, but he doesn't like the approach we're currently using, which I can sympathize with.

Posted by: B166ER | October 26, 2009 10:55 AM

Personally I'm very mixed about GMO plants. On one hand, if grown in contained environments preventing cross breeding with native breeds, they can have amazing benefits, like containing vaccines or being vitamin fortified. On the other hand, irresponsible business practices have led to native breeds being in danger of being hybridized with GMO varieties, having possible detrimental impacts to biodiversity. When a company like Monsanto, who hid the dangers of PCB's for 50 years, controls a huge portion of the GMO patents, 90% of GM soybeans alone, I fear for my food. Really though, I think any knee-jerk reactions along any "they are all good" or "they are all evil" is ignorant to the reality of the situation. I'm more against many of the corporations developing this kind of technology and their tactics then the technology itself.

No Gods, No Masters
Cameron

Posted by: Caine | October 26, 2009 11:00 AM

Voted. Pollan isn't anti-GMO, he does have issues with the stranglehold some companies have and how this applies to farmers in general.

Posted by: Joe | October 26, 2009 11:07 AM

Lyana: Just follow the link from their site, diirectly to their entry. You can vote there.

Posted by: B166ER | October 26, 2009 11:19 AM

@Karl #21

"Personally I'm very mixed about GMO plants." One of the things that we try to talk about on our blog is that it isn't about pro-GMO or anti-GMO, or should be that is. There are issues with genetic engineering that we need to discuss as a society, but the attention that needs to be paid to that is instead going to distractions such as "OMG teh GMOz are going to keeel us!"

That's why I voted for you guys. Like I said in my first post, my problems are not with the science, but with SOME of those getting patents for these organisms. I'm more worried about the possibility of monopolies controlling something as vital as our food supply. Plus, I can guarantee the anti-gmo foods people won't bring any science to the table and will be more along the "TEH GMO'S R GUNNA EAT R BABIES AND BREAK R TIN FOIL HATS!!!1!" Sigh...

And as Karl is posting here for the time being, from all of P.Z.'s minions, welcome to pharyngula and keep up the good work of educating people of the ACTUAL science of the matter.

No Gods, No Masters
Cameron

Posted by: mrgenius | October 26, 2009 11:44 AM

good lord that was complicated. i should have clicked on that 'step-by-step instructions' link.

Posted by: Knockgoats | October 26, 2009 12:12 PM

Then what on earth do you eat? Because it can't be anything that was ever domesticated, plant or animal. - t3knomanser

Crap. Pretending there's nothing new about the techniques now being used is as dishonest as anything put out by anti-GMO groups.

On this one, having had a good look at the blog, I'm on the opposite side. As things are at present, agrobiotech is primarily a tool for concentrating wealth and power in the hands of "Big Farma" companies such as Monsanto.

Posted by: Pam Ronald | October 26, 2009 12:13 PM

Thank you PZ for bringing in the votes. And thank all of you for voting. FANTASTIC!

Posted by: Knockgoats | October 26, 2009 12:25 PM

The bad socioeconomic consequences that GMO can have on agriculture, in the Third World especially, stem much more from the badly broken intellectual property system than from anything inherent to the modified crops. - Steve LaBonne

Indeed, but of course from the point of view of Big Farma, it ain't broken at all.

Posted by: agnosticoracle | October 26, 2009 12:40 PM

Anyone have a link that shows the vote counts for all the competitors? I failed my web foo roll looking for it.

Posted by: The Science Pundit | October 26, 2009 12:48 PM

Right now it's at 326-200, so the non-GMO can still catch up. Keep up the voting!

Posted by: The Science Pundit | October 26, 2009 1:00 PM

Anyone have a link that shows the vote counts for all the competitors? I failed my web foo roll looking for it.

Biofortified

Non-GMO Project

All competitors

Posted by: Rufus | October 26, 2009 1:22 PM

I did look through all of the others, they are the only two that are in three figures.

as it stands (or stood before I came back here) it was 356 - 205

Posted by: Ivan | October 26, 2009 1:30 PM

Oops, shoulda refreshed. My link to all the entries is slightly better, though. ;^)

I checked the rest of the competition with some nerd-fu, and here are the top four entries:

373 Biofortified

208 Non-GMO Project

80 TOWARDS HOUSEHOLD FOOD SECURITY...

63 ORGANIC FACTS

The rest of the entries have 34 votes or fewer.

Posted by: Kagehi | October 26, 2009 1:46 PM

Crap. Pretending there's nothing new about the techniques now being used is as dishonest as anything put out by anti-GMO groups.

Also completely irrelevant. Please explain to me how selectively breeding a crop so it has X, Y and Z traits, it 100% homogeneous (or as close as possible), so that all of your product is the same when it hits the market, *and* you are growing it in lots of places that it didn't exist before, as food, is "different" than rapid engineering something that is similarly invasive? Its the same fracking thing. If your corn crop that is sweeter happens to reproduce better, then it **will** cross with other corns, and mess with the "existing crops", just the same as a GE one will. To claim otherwise is the same sort of absurd thinking used by the organics people, which claims that "natural" automatically means - more nutrients, even if you have it in poorer soil, and not at all bad for you, no matter what it is, even if you are growing, I don't know.. foxglove?

No, the worries people have are based on two things - 1. There will be something horribly wrong with the crop, so its bad if it does mix, and 2. It will be too similar, so susceptible to diseases. The former is a big, "maybe, but bloody unlikely", and the later already fracking happens with non-GMO, all the damn time. So, its meaningless.

Posted by: Knockgoats | October 26, 2009 2:10 PM

Please explain to me how selectively breeding a crop so it has X, Y and Z traits, it 100% homogeneous (or as close as possible), so that all of your product is the same when it hits the market, *and* you are growing it in lots of places that it didn't exist before, as food, is "different" than rapid engineering something that is similarly invasive? - Kagehi

Not so, because biotechnology can and does insert genes from completely different organisms including, for example, antibiotics (used as markers) and genes for herbicide resistance.

Posted by: Ewan R | October 26, 2009 2:33 PM

#44 - it is possible to get herbicide resistance through traditional breeding (or by accident...)

A big difference being.... you know what has been inserted with a genetically engineered doodad, but the results of breeding generally you know what you got, but not how you got there.

The idea that an undefined number of randomly mutated genes which give an end product (more yield, herbicide resistance, yellower flowers, etc etc) are safer/better than selected genes inserted into a plant (and then thoroughly tested etc) is a little bizarre to me. (this at least appears to be what you're getting at)

On a totally unrelated note... lets hope the competition doesnt attempt to grab votes from various creationist sites etc... although the convoluted voting system is probably enough to keep out the vast majority.

Posted by: ERV | October 26, 2009 3:09 PM

... but the results of breeding generally you know what you got, but not how you got there...
True story: Some friends of mine were trying various manipulations to get a cold-resistant plant. Breeding/sequencing/tons of sciency stuff for years and years, got a cold-resistant plant! YAY!

Know what made it cold-resistant?

Virus.

Had nothing to do with the plant genetics.

All her plants were infected with a virus that let them be more resistant to cold temps.

LOL!

Posted by: Knockgoats | October 26, 2009 3:24 PM

Please explain to me how selectively breeding a crop so it has X, Y and Z traits, it 100% homogeneous (or as close as possible), so that all of your product is the same when it hits the market, *and* you are growing it in lots of places that it didn't exist before, as food, is "different" than rapid engineering something that is similarly invasive? - Kagehi

Not so, because biotechnology can and does insert genes from completely different organisms including, for example, antibiotics (used as markers) and genes for herbicide resistance.

Posted by: Knockgoats | October 26, 2009 3:32 PM

Anastasia,

I'm not the slightest interested in "naturalness". Try reading what I've written, instead of slotting me into a predefined category.

Posted by: Knockgoats | October 26, 2009 3:36 PM

Sorry about the accidental double post @44 and 50. My wireless link playing up.

Posted by: ERV | October 26, 2009 3:47 PM

Shit! I lied-- it was drought resistance, not cold resistance.

Posted by: Steve LaBonne | October 26, 2009 4:13 PM

The point at issue is the claim that biotechnology is not significantly different from conventional selective breeding.

And that claim is true, as ERV's story indicates. The improvement offered by genetic engineering is quantitative (time and convenience) rather than qualitative. Sorry, fail.

I'm worried, quite a bit, about Monsanto crushing farmers. I'm not worried at all about the technology per se.

Posted by: bckcntry | October 26, 2009 4:27 PM

ERV: There's a dwarfing apple root-stock that owes it's dwarfiness(?) to a virus too. I think it's called M9.

Posted by: eddie | October 26, 2009 4:32 PM

It's as if pharyngula has suddenly turned into a creationist propaganda site, "answers in GM?". All the old canards about GM being just like plant breeding, and the strawman bullshit of what anti-GM luddites really believe where you have to distort and misrepresent what such as knockgoats have actually fucking said.
And this to me is the worst;

Posted by: Ewan R | October 26, 2009 #44 -

it is possible to get herbicide resistance through traditional breeding (or by accident...)

Who the fuck decided that poison-resistant food crops was a desirable goal? "Hey, let's make our plants more poison-tolerant so we can pass more up the foodchain, hyuck!"
And what's your plan for breeding pesticide tolerant consumers? Seems as always to be "Fuck them. They deserve the abuse."

Posted by: eddie | October 26, 2009 4:34 PM

It's as if pharyngula has suddenly turned into a creationist propaganda site, "answers in GM?". All the old canards about GM being just like plant breeding, and the strawman bullshit of what anti-GM luddites really believe where you have to distort and misrepresent what such as knockgoats have actually fucking said.
And this to me is the worst;

Posted by: Ewan R | October 26, 2009 #44 -

it is possible to get herbicide resistance through traditional breeding (or by accident...)

Who the fuck decided that poison-resistant food crops was a desirable goal? "Hey, let's make our plants more poison-tolerant so we can pass more up the foodchain, hyuck!"
And what's your plan for breeding pesticide tolerant consumers? Seems as always to be "Fuck them. They deserve the abuse."

Posted by: Evan | October 26, 2009 4:39 PM

@t3knomanser, etc

I'm a bit flummoxed by the misinformation coming from the pro-GMO side.

The problem with GMOs is that people are inserting genes into plants without a clear sense of what they might do. Genes that could not be bred into these crops through selective breeding. Antibiotics. Pesticides. These genes then spread into wild populations, or to non-GMO domesticated strains. It is all but impossible to grow non-GMO Canola in Canada due to cross-pollination. To compare genetic engineering to the slow and diffuse process of domestication is laughable. Just because rust formation and bomb explosions are related chemical processes doesn't mean they're equivalent.

We're playing russian roulette with our food systems. The driving force behind this work is the potential for profit. World starvation is a political problem, not a scientific one - we grow plenty of food but don't distribute it. People in developing nations need support so they can grow food locally; they don't need massive shipments of Bt Corn. They need political stability, but also simple things like rainwater harvesting systems.

But the most baffling thing to me is the association of anti-GMO groups with "industry". GMOs are pushed by ADM, Monsanto, Cargill - the global food industry giants. Are some of the anti-GMO folks a little overly dramatic? sure. Do you dismiss the entire liberal political agenda because of the actions of, say, the G20 protesters? Probably not.

I'm happy to say that there are things to discuss, pros and cons, but to suggest that being concerned about genetic engineering makes you a conspiracy theorist, "anti-progress", is ignorant at best, and disingenuous if you know enough to be qualified to comment. The non-GMO Project is proposing a voluntary labeling system so consumers can choose what they'd like to purchase. How on earth can you oppose that, and how of earth does a group supporting consumer labeling end up in the crosshairs of this blog?

Posted by: Anastasia | October 26, 2009 4:42 PM

Any given technology isn't good or bad but it can be used for good or bad things. In the case of genetic engineering, the technology can be used to create traits that may not contribute to the greater good, depending on your POV, such as herbicide resistance. It can also be used to create traits that seem much more beneficial. To be completely anti-GMO or pro-GMO is pretty meaningless. It's the individual traits and circumstances that matter.

Posted by: Steve LaBonne | October 26, 2009 4:44 PM

To be completely anti-GMO or pro-GMO is pretty meaningless. It's the individual traits and circumstances that matter.

Exactly- not the technology that happens to be used to get there. Thank you.

Posted by: Jacquie | October 26, 2009 4:48 PM

Since GMO kill off organic crops there is a need to be one or the other. Talk to me about it after all the bees are dead from the GMO's and you are starving to death.

Posted by: Knockgoats | October 26, 2009 4:50 PM

Knockgoats, you might want to learn a little about horizontal gene transfer. Even a glance at the Wiki page might help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer. Regardless of how natural or not natural something is, the important thing to consider is risk. We must ask whether or not risk from genetic engineering is greater, same, or less than risk from other methods. - Anastasia

*sigh* I know about horizontal gene transfer. Increasing human ability to manipulate organisms always has the potential for both increased benefit and increased risk. What mainly concerns me is that this very powerful and novel technology is being deployed almost entirely to increase corporate power and profit.

The lesson of ERV's story, which you're too dim to absorb, is that YOU DON"T KNOW that the outcome of a plant breeding program came as the result of mutations rather than horizontal transfer. - Steve LaBonne

*sigh* I got that point. You PhD does not change the fact that you are just bullshitting here. Biotechnology makes it possible to do things that could not be done before - like, for instance, insert genes for pharmaceutical products currently made only by bacteria, animals or fungi into food crops, as has been seriously suggested. How, exactly, would you have gone about breeding for those capabilities?

Posted by: Anastasia | October 26, 2009 4:52 PM

Evan @66, the Non-GMO Project isn't in the crosshairs of this blog. Instead, PZ was graciously supporting some fellow science bloggers (check out Biofortified, if you haven't yet).

I personally think the voluntary labeling that Non-GMO Project is offering is great. It provides options to customers, creates jobs, etc. I'm not so happy about the fact that they are tapping into irrational fears promoted by other organizations and individuals about a technology that hasn't been shown to warrant such fear.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself OM | October 26, 2009 5:07 PM

Jacquie #71

Appeals to emotion don't do well at this blog.

Posted by: ERV | October 26, 2009 5:19 PM

ERV examples are always about one thing: the lulz.

My story was about a virus having some lulz at our expense, thats it.

CMV, swine flu, HIV-1-- they dont care a rats ass about your political or personal agendas.

HOWEVER, I think this thread highlights, quite nicely, how uneducated but passionate people are about GMOS, thus you should be getting your info about GMOs from SCIENTISTS, like the ones at Biofortified, thus they should get your vote.

Posted by: Evan | October 26, 2009 5:31 PM

Steve - You're real good at cussin'; not so much at putting together coherent arguments. If you're going to accuse me of "parroting bullshit" perhaps you should point out, SPECIFICALLY, where I went wrong. Also, as a scientist, I frequently have scientists shaking their heads at me. Doesn't bother me, it's what we do. Sometimes they're right, sometimes not. But I'm afraid I'm a little out of reach of your appeal to authority.

Anastasia - I understand that PZ is, in fact, trying to help out some fellow bloggers. However he says in the original post that the non-GMO Project is an "anti-genetic engineering, industry sponsored site". This implies that being anti-GMO (or more to the point, concerned about GMOs) is somehow suspect. While obviously some here would agree with that implication, I don't think it represents a consensus view. As for the "industry-sponsored" part, I can find no evidence that this is true - what industry would that be? Big CSA? Presenting this, apparently without evidence (though I'm open to seeing it), strikes me as "in the crosshairs."

PZ - The grant is not for blogging. It's hardly fair to criticize them for failing to meet the standards of a contest they didn't enter. I'm sure that biofortified is an excellent site, and I plan to check it out. But the fact that you don't like the non-GMO Project's web design doesn't mean in any way that they are not doing good work. It doesn't mean they're industry sponsored. If anything it probably means they have a limited budget for web design and bought a cheap template. Until anyone can point at what they're doing and give a substantive criticism, I think it's rather unfair to single them out.

To be clear - I would have no complaints at all had the original post simply said "hey these folks are great and they're in a contest." That's fair game. But impugning the competition without evidence is unfair and beneath the dignity of this blog and this community.

Posted by: Steve LaBonne | October 26, 2009 5:36 PM

What people are selecting are phenotypic outcomes that are advantageous no matter whether the genotypic input is natural or otherwise.

Which is exactly my point, so you seem to have a short circuit between your ears.

Posted by: Knockgoats | October 26, 2009 5:44 PM

Steve LaBonne,

I'm still waiting for an explanation of just how conventional selective plant breeding would have, for example, got proteins from the cholera bacillus into bananas, as proposed by scientists at the Boyce Thompson Institute. Or alternatively, you could admit you were just bullshitting when you said biotechnology is only quantitatively and not qualitatively different from conventional selective breeding.

Posted by: eddie | October 26, 2009 6:03 PM

If that was your point, it wasn't what you said. And again with the strawmen. Your "focus on the products, not on the technolgy used to produce them" is disingenuous. We're focusing not on products or technologies, but on the corporations that weild them. I have apologised above for the double posts but those 'what the fuck's and 'who the fuck's were NOT rhetorical. You put up or shut up.

Posted by: Marc Abian | October 26, 2009 6:28 PM

Steve, knowing that bacterial genes have different promoters, ribosome binding sites etc from plant genes, I was sure to ask "with what frequency (if any) do bacterial genes get transferred to plant genomes? How often are they functional and retained in the genome?"

I remain unconvinced that the genes from an artic fish could get into a crop naturally.

Posted by: Marc Abian | October 26, 2009 6:47 PM

I know that. I also know that viruses are very specific for their hosts in many cases, so I don't see how they could facilitate gene transfer across domains (for example).

Really, the only difference between GMO and traditional selective breeding is the degree of sophistication.

Unless anyone explains how traditional selective breeding or natural processes could put a gene from an artic fish into a plant, we have to admit that GM has radically expanded the scope of genetic manipulation.

Posted by: Steve LaBonne | October 26, 2009 7:00 PM

We're focusing not on products or technologies, but on the corporations that weild them.

No, I have been doing that, while you and your cohorts have been raving ignorantly about genetic modification. Really, you are a twit, and I owe you nothing but the disdain you're earned. To give a specific example of your ignorance, you show no sign of knowing that corporations have been using hybrids to control farmers economically long before recombinant DNA was invented. The problem does NOT depend on a particular technology. And the aggressive ignorance of the "anti-GMO" crowd only serves to alienate potential allies.

Posted by: Knockgoats | October 26, 2009 7:05 PM

The problem does NOT depend on a particular technology. - Steve LaBonne

Indeed, but a particular technology can exacerbate it.

And the aggressive ignorance of the "anti-GMO" crowd only serves to alienate potential allies. - Steve LaBonne

The aggressive dishonesty of claiming recombinant DNA technology is not qualitatively different from selective breeding can do that as well. BTW Steve, how would you have bred bananas containing cholera bacillus proteins?

Posted by: Treppenwitz | October 26, 2009 8:19 PM

The aggressive dishonesty of claiming recombinant DNA technology is not qualitatively different from selective breeding can do that as well. BTW Steve, how would you have bred bananas containing cholera bacillus proteins?

It seems to me that it is a quantitative difference. More specifically, the difference is in how long it would take for the trait of interest to wind up via horizontal transfer in the organisms you're breeding. I suppose you could say that "occurs in a time span useful to humans" constitutes a qualitative difference, but it seems like a stretch to me.

Posted by: Karl Haro von Mogel | October 26, 2009 8:43 PM

"Shame on you! GM Foods are EVIL."
Uh oh, GM Watch finally found Pharyngula. Took them half a day! (J/K)
How can this face be evil?
http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/0a4bb6d2f2b1f133a45f73dcfd3f1cd5?s=96&d=identicon&r=G

The gyst that I am getting from this discussion is really encouraging. It seems that more people here are agreeing that its not the how - it's the what. This rational approach is what we try to promote on our group blog.

I'm very happy with the response so far, both vote counts are slowing down their increases. It's not over yet, but it has certainly been exciting so far!

Posted by: Evan | October 26, 2009 10:07 PM

A.Noid (#87)

Wow, there's more strawmen there than in a scarecrow factory.

Seems you have no real problem with misinformation if it makes GMO look bad. Witness:

The problem with GMOs is that people are inserting genes into plants without a clear sense of what they might do.

What do you suppose they do, load up a Random Gene Gun, go blasting away at a Wall o' All-Natural Organisms and then check to see if anything profitable happened?

Let's see, do I think that genetic engineers sometimes do things without fully realizing the consequences of their actions? Yes, yes I do. Do I think that the history of technological progress is filled with examples where there have been massive unintended consequences? Yes, yes I do. Do I think that the people who developed the automobile foresaw global warming? No, but I do know that they pushed hard to make sure that the automobile because the dominant technology, to the exclusion of other options, because it was progress. And I think we're paying the price for that. Do I think that the people who pushed for agricultural expansion of the western US predicted the environmental costs? No, but they pushed to do it FAST and NOW because it was SO IMPORTANT AND BESIDES WE'RE SCIENTISTS TRUST US. The consequences are well known.

to suggest that being concerned about genetic engineering makes you a conspiracy theorist, "anti-progress", is ignorant at best, and disingenuous if you know enough to be qualified to comment.

To suggest that people inserting genes have no idea what they're doing is ignorant at best, and disingenuous if you know enough to be qualified to comment. And anyways, the people who run Biofortified have said they are concerned about genetic engineering, too. They are also highly informed about it and want people to understand GMO and make rational, informed decisions without the idiotic fearmongering and oversimplifying of the problems. How on earth can you oppose that?

I have suggested no such thing, as you full well know. Please refrain from insulting me and the other readers here by suggesting that scientists are incapable of making mistakes, sometimes with tragic consequences. And if you read what I wrote I have no problem whatsoever with biofortified. I have a problem with making disparaging statements about their competition, which have not been shown to be true. I'm all for rational and informed decisions, and I don't doubt that the good folks at Biofortified have a valuable role to play in that discussion. I'm not sure you do.

But I do enjoy how you mock me for having concerns about genetic modification, but then use the fact that the writers at Biofortified have concerns about genetic modification as evidence that they're legit.

We're playing russian roulette with our food systems. The driving force behind this work is the potential for profit.

Gosh, why would anyone mistake you for an anti-progress conspiracy nutter? Do you demonize pharmaceuticals because they're developed for profit as well?

Well, I do think that (a) the VAST majority of the gains in life expectancy over the past century were the result of public health and sanitation advances, not inproved medicine, and (b) the for profit nature of the pharmaceutical industry has cost a great many lives, that medicines have been kept on the market when the industry knows that they're causing deaths. So yes, I think the pharmaceutical industry has some serious conflicts of interest. However, I think the FDA approval process is as conservative as it can reasonably be, and so provides some reasonable measure of protection against outright fraud in the industry (as opposed to herbal "medicines", say).

So, yeah, if anyone who preaches care when undertaking global technology roll-outs is anti-progress, and anyone who thinks consumers should be able to choose whether or not to purchase genetically modified foods is a conspiracy nutter, than sign me up. But maybe, just maybe, there's cause to take care.

My ACTUAL stance on GMO is this:

1) There are reasonable reasons to be concerned about unintended consequences of the global rollout of GMOs.

2) The proposed benefits of GMOs can be efficiently and safely achieved through other means.

Your argument seems to be:

1) Nuh-huh!
2) Nuh-huh!

You'll have to do better than that.

Also please read back and see that I have not once spoken ill of Biofortified, nor suggested that people shouldn't vote for them. I don't doubt that they're fantastic people who would be well deserving of the prize if they win. I do think, however, that if some wildly popular blog asked people to vote against them because they were "industry-backed" that they would feel unfairly attacked.

Posted by: Kagehi | October 27, 2009 12:34 AM

The aggressive dishonesty of claiming recombinant DNA technology is not qualitatively different from selective breeding can do that as well. BTW Steve, how would you have bred bananas containing cholera bacillus proteins?

How about aggressive stupidity. Here is one damn good example of why you don't have a clue here. Tomatoes are a subspecies of the same plant that produces Deadly Nightshade. Perhaps you can enlighten us on a) how much of the genetics needed to "produce" those toxins are still in tomatoes, b) how many mutations would be needed to produce one that has them, and c) how likely it is to *accidentally* re-awaken those genes, if, say, you also found a plant that has a bit of some flavor trait in it, and decided to selectively breed it to enhance that trait, while *failing* to check if it turned poisonous. The assumption of "all" tomato growers seems to be, "It can't make the poison any more", not, "We are doing it right, and there is no chance the trait will reappear."

This is the qualitative difference between GM and GE. GM, as in breeding, gets you a result, but, like with all cases of cross breeding, there is no way to be 100% sure as to what of thousands of genes might be tweaked, to get closer to your result. With GE, if inserting a gene "did" reactivate the nightshade trait, you could bloody identify that it was poisonous, **before** some idiot tasted it and went, "Good, but my nibps ae geddin num." - thud!

Could it still happen? Maybe, but no traditional tomato breed has, uses, or even considered, such a things are being a risk. Yet, logically, we know the trait "was" there, at one time, so... it would be safer to know what a gene "does" do, and be able to trace what it does to the plant, than ***guess***, which is what breeders do all the time. I would think that would be a huge, "Duh!"

Posted by: Kagehi | October 27, 2009 3:35 AM

Ah.. So the **new** multi-billion dollar industry wants, once more, to save us from the *old* multi-billion dollar industry. Well, that changes everything... Next up, "Tarot Card readers seek to give the public a choice between centuries old methods of giving advice (making shit up) and those untrustworthy forms, like consulting experts."

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | October 27, 2009 9:44 AM

But again, you have no interest in the truth. All you have done is lie about others positions, attack those dishonest misrepresentations and ignored the real issues raised in the face of your lies.

And you are paranoid of large corporations. Since not everyone here shares your paranoia, you have trouble getting us to listen. Rational people don't enjoy sharing paranoia.

Posted by: Kagehi | October 27, 2009 10:17 AM

Actually. As my sarcastic comment is meant to imply, the problem isn't that he is paranoid about large corporations, its that he is paranoid of *old* large corporations. **New** large corporations, which show up out of no where, and contain people that, quite often, include Organic people, who lie about a lot of things they claim makes organic food *better*, the whole "natural product" people, who also lie and distort facts, etc., but all claim they are "here to help", those corporations, whose motives are often good, but methods are unsound, and information is often distorted, made up, or just plain wrong, those corporations he has no damn problem with.

Please, tell me again how much *testing* is required for 90% of the crap sold as "supplements", "natural products", or which shows a provable difference in quality for "organics"... The answer is usually - a) almost none, even to the extent that the label contents are correct, never mind that it does things claimed on the bottle, b) almost none, since the same thing that causes (a) bypasses most testing that is done on other products, and c) a few badly done studies, and a lot of made up BS, but, oddly, all of the real, not faked, studies say, "not a damn thing is different between them, and, if anything, organic methods can produce contamination from the "organic" fertilizers, which include anything from, "things the animal producing the organic fertilizer accidentally ate", to ecoli and botulism, as well as other problems.

The old, supposedly evil, companies are required to follow standards. The new, "working to save the world from the old evil ones", companies are often not just little better than homeopaths, some of them *are* homeopaths.

And that is the bloody problem Eddie, we consider there to be real risks from "any" corporation, not just the ones you imagine are the problem, and more to the point, all evidence suggests that the ones being dishonest, making things up, not doing the testing they **claim** to be, etc., all... organic and natural food companies, not the ones doing GM and GE foods, who are **required** to do those sorts of tests. All you get from the O/N people are lies about how their tomatoes have % more in them than them there non-organics. A statement for which there is not just *no* evidence, but negative evidence, and happily side steps the added risks, both to the land, and the consumer, from how they fertilize them.

Some place I read a statistic.. Given the rate of soil replenishment, and other issues, if we used 100% organic farming, we would need double the growing land we use now, and even then, we could feed less than 90% of the people already on the planet with it. If true... oops! Oh, and.. some of the morons who support it are also vegetarians/vegans. I say morons, because the organic farmers use animal fertilizers, and I am real bloody unclear where the hell you get thousands of tons of animal fertilizer, to grow your plants, if you don't raise, or even radically reduce how many, and of which type of animals you raise for food any more.

Like most conspiracy theorists, the O/N people are scared to death of "big brother", but their grasp of their own ideas, what is actually going on, or the logistics actually involved in their "solutions", resemble more a description of Santa's Workshop, or how the Easter Bunny deleivers candy, than anything involving real world facts or methods. Their opinions and certainties about how everyone else does things isn't any better.

Posted by: Kagehi | October 27, 2009 10:28 AM

Some times I hate that html is supported in here. That should have been:

how their tomatoes have < insert made up number >% more < insert vitamin of the week > in them than them there non-organics.

PS... What kind of idiot post system replaces the html you are trying to bloody replace with the original, in the post window, when you are previewing. You know... given the fact that you used the damn replacement because the "normal" one doesn't work in the first place? Gah!!! Some forum bugs like this are so damn common that it seems like they keep re-using the same base code from the moron that got it wrong the first time.

Posted by: Carlie | October 27, 2009 10:39 AM

Complaining about GMOs in a broad swath of pro and anti is as stupid as making an argument like "Syringes - good or bad?" Well, good when supplying insulin, bad when supplying contaminated heroin, good when regulated properly, bad when allowed to end up in trash on the beach that kids can step on, etc. GMO technology is a freakin' method. It can be used and controlled in good and bad ways. It's getting so it's impossible to say I have concerns about some ways GMO technology is being used and implemented for fear of being lumped in with the ignorant zealots, the same way decent vegetarians cringe at PETA, and I'm tired of that.

Posted by: Steve LaBonne | October 27, 2009 10:55 AM

Well, Knockgoats, here's a little quiz to see if you have any idea what you're talking about. It has just one question: how did virulent strains Vibrio cholerae acquire the cholera toxin gene?

Posted by: Knockgoats | October 27, 2009 1:35 PM

how did virulent strains Vibrio cholerae acquire the cholera toxin gene? - Steve LaBonne

By horizontal gene transfer: they carry a lysogenic bacteriophage (one that integrates its genetic material into the bacterial genome). Now, here's a little quiz to discover whether you are a liar. It has just one question: how would you propose getting the relevant genetic sequence into a banana by selective breeding?

Posted by: Evan | October 27, 2009 1:42 PM

SciencePundit (#105) - I will also assume you're sincere, and please note that "someone on the internet thinks you're talking out your ass" ranks very, very low on the list of criticisms that I take seriously, especially when those people show the level of discourse most of my critics have shown here.

1) State the "proposed benefits of GMO's". Please note that if your list doesn't closely resemble the list that, say, one of the Biofortified bloggers would come up with, most of the commenters here will accuse you of making a strawman argument.

a) GMO proponents claim genetic modification will lead to increased yields, thus alleviating world hunger. Unfortunately, this appears not to be true - a study released by the Union of Concerned Scientists showed that "despite 20 years of research and 13 years of commercialization, genetic engineering has failed to significantly increase U.S. crop yields."

b) GMO proponents suggest that provide better returns for farmers. However, according to a 1998 study by Mike Duffy at Iowa State, "Based on a cross-sectional examination of Iowa cropping practices in 1998, genetically-modified crops provided farmers with no significant difference in returns." Many farmers are also concerned that GMOs will lead to increased corporate control.

c) GMO proponents suggest that foods modified for higher nutritional content can help with world hunger problems. However there remain significant concerns within the scientific community about the health and safety of GMOs, see for instance Dona A, Arvanitoyannis I. Health Risks of Genetically Modified Foods. Critical Reviews in Food Science & Nutrition (2009, Feb); 49(2): 164-175. "Animal toxicity studies with certain GM foods have shown that they may toxically affect several organs and systems... The results of most studies with GM foods indicate that they may cause some common toxic effects such as hepatic, pancreatic, renal, or reproductive effects and may alter the hematological, biochemical, and immunologic parameters. However, many years of research with animals and clinical trials are required for this assessment." Feel free to check my ellipses. Also see Finamore A, Roselli M, Britti S, et al. Intestinal and peripheral immune response to MON 810 maize ingestion in weaning and old mice. J Agric. Food Chem. (2008); 56(23):11533-11539.

d) Proponents of GMOs claim that they can reduce dependence on pesticides; this is marginally true in theory, but one goal of genetic modification is increasing crop resistance to pesticides, allowing a growth in pesticide use. Additionally, even in crops for which one would expect to see a reduction in pesticide use, such as Bt corn, pesticide uses in the field are often as high or higher (Duffy 1999).

2) Explain the alternative means for efficiently and safely achieving each of these goals. Be advised that if you fail to do this, many commenters here will conclude that you're talking out of your ass. Based on the tone of some of the previous comments, I'm guessing that some here already think that. However, I do think that you're sincere, and while I'm highly skeptical of your claim, I would like to hear your proposed alternatives.

Thanks for your advice. You may have noted that I also think the previous commenters are talking out of their asses, and they have yet to provide ANY evidence other than a lot of ad hominem attacks, swear words, and strawmen. But your skepticism is welcomed, as what I'm saying does go against the grain of the standard assumptions of American food systems.

First of all I'll point to Will Allen, and the work he's doing at Growing Power in Milwaukee, WI. Allen is able to produce a wide variety of foods at extraordinarily high densities by being creative about how he grows. He is able to feed people on local food, grown with minimal inputs of fossil fuels, and at the same time provides a great many jobs in his communities. I don't point to Allen as a global solution (and neither would he), but as an example of how we can rethink agriculture without necessarily pushing for agro-industrial scale production. Creative, local solutions that use local knowledge will allow people control over their own food supplies while decreasing dependence on global-scale food distribution systems.

Secondly I'll point to the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development, initiated by the FAO and the World Bank, and endorsed by the Global Environment Facility (GEF), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP), United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the
World Bank and World Health Organization (WHO). To quote:

modern biological, chemical and mechanical technologies, in particular, are designed for farms and farming systems which have attendant entitlements and conditions that enable the production of tradable and vertically integrated commodities in value chains. Where the government and some private and civil society organizations have enabled appropriate scale effects as well as technical and financial support, small-scale farmers also have intensified their production systems and benefited from increasing market integration. Though the productivity per unit of land and per unit of energy use is much higher in these small and diversified farms than the large intensive farming systems in irrigated areas, they continue to be neglected by formal AKST [Agricultural Knowledge Science and Technology].

The IAASTD argues for diversified small scale production, intensified and diverse urban farming (i.e. Growing Power), strengthing and encouraging local agricultural markets. On the subject of the ability for Sustainable Agricultual practices to address hunger problems, the IAASTD says:

Agroecosystems of even the poorest societies have the potential through ecological agriculture and IPM [Integrated Pest Management] to meet or significantly exceed yields produced by conventional methods, reduce the demand for land conversion for agriculture, restore ecosystem services (particularly water), reduce the use of and need for synthetic fertilizers derived from fossil fuels, and the use of harsh insecticides and herbicides.

Louise O. Fresco, Assistant Director-General
Agriculture Department Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2001:

Genetic modification has increased production in some crops. But the evidence we have suggests that the technology has so far addressed too few challenges, in few crops of relevance to production systems in many developing countries. Even in developed countries, a lack of perceived benefits for consumers, and uncertainty about their safety, have limited their adoption. The scale of investment involved, and the attraction of advanced science, may distort research priorities and investment. Genetic modification is not a good in itself, but a tool integrated into a wider research agenda, where public and private science can balance each other. Most of the short term successes may be derived from marker assisted breeding and diagnostics rather than from transgenic crops per se.

(emphasis added)

Kofi Annan, speaking as chairman of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA): "We in the alliance will not incorporate GMO's in our programmes. We shall work with farmers using traditional seeds."

Hans Herren, of the Millennium Institute: "Yes, Africa can achieve food security without GMOs and it will probably do even better without the promise of a quick fix as many envisage with the use of GMOs."

The major barriers to food security are not productivity problems. In the UN Chronicle, Per Pinstrup-Andersen writes:

Global food supplies are sufficient to meet the calorie requirements of all people if food were distributed according to needs. Per capita food supplies are projected to increase further over the next twenty years.1 Thus, the world food problem now and in the foreseeable future is not one of global shortage. Instead, the world is faced with three main food-related challenges: widespread hunger and malnutrition, mismanagement of natural resources in food production, and obesity.

According to the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD):

Smallholder farms are often very efficient in terms of production per hectare, and they have tremendous potential for growth. Experience shows that helping smallholder farmers can contribute to a country’s economic growth and food security. For example, Viet Nam has gone from being a food-deficit country to a major food exporter, and it is now the second largest rice exporter in the world. It achieved this largely through development of its smallholder farming sector. In 2007 the poverty rate fell below 15 per cent, compared with 58 per cent in 1979. Seventy-three per cent of Viet Nam’s population live in rural areas, and agriculture is their main source of income.

Stocking, M. A. Tropical Soils and Food Security: The Next 50 Years. Science 21 November 2003:Vol. 302. no. 5649, pp. 1356 - 1359

Interventions that use community-based approaches that empower farmers to manage their own situation therefore hold the greatest promise for maintaining soil quality and ensuring food security.

Backeberg, G.R. (2009). Improving rural livelihoods with rainwater harvesting and conservation on communal croplands in South Africa: opportunities and obstacles. 13 p. Paper presented at: 2nd International Seminar on Land Resources and Land Use Options, 14-16 July 2009, Goettingen, Germany.

The results of both sets of tests showed that the water harvesting and basin tillage (WHB) part of the hypothesis cannot be rejected. Indications are that in the long-term, average yield increases compared to conventional total soil tillage (TST), of around 50% can be expected from maize and sunflower using the technique on the ecotopes tested...

people have few alternatives to escape from the poverty trap, are highly vulnerable and the technology of IRWH&C (Infield Rainwater Harvesting and conservation) can potentially do much to mitigate this vulnerability of households to food insecurity.

It is clear that the solutions to global food security problems will come not from high-tech intervention, but from the creative application of location-specific sustainable farming technologies. Crop rotation, intensive grazing, rainwater harvesting and conservation, and crop preservation are all techniques that can improve local soils, empower smallholder farmers, increase yields, and decrease environmental impacts.

3) Provide empirical evidence that these alternatives actually can do what you say they can. If you fail to provide this, then your claim is nothing more than a conjecture and should probably have been better stated as "I believe that the proposed benefits of GMOs can be efficiently and safely achieved through other means."

Thanks for the cute little lecture on how academia works.

Thank you and I await your response.

I hope you enjoyed it. In short, my theses are these:

1) there are risks to GMOs that are not fully understood
2) GMOs have not yet demonstrated their promised yield increases or pesticide reductions
3) There have been a variety of successful programs increasing yields from smallholder farmers in developing countries by attending to soil and water improvements. If you care to dig into the literature, there's also a great deal of work on market development, empowering women (who remain the primary producers on most farms), regional agricultural integration, and so forth. But I'm going to go do my actual work now, rather than spending several more hours trying to prove to strangers on the internet that I'm not talking out of my ass.

Posted by: Evan | October 27, 2009 1:54 PM

@A.Noid (#119)

Your name-calling is exemplary. Way to go. Just so you know, it's not generally considered good academic practice to "translate" what people say, especially when you do it clumsily to support your own position.

Let's be clear. I have not once said the sky was falling. I have said that there are risks to GMOs, and it is a reasonable position to be concerned about them. That characterizing a group as untrustworthy simply because they are anti-GMO is not a reasonable position.

freaking out to the point where you lose all sense of perspective is stupid.

Example please?

I'm pointing out, Chicken Little, that talking about the sky falling is a good way to get lumped in with the nuts.

Example please?

Whatever. To quote the estimable Barney Frank, "Trying to have a conversation with you would be like trying to argue with a dining room table. I have no interest in doing it."

Posted by: eddie | October 27, 2009 2:31 PM

Steve LaBonne, liar said;

And the amazing thing is that he keeps repeating the very points I have made

No. You have three times now been corrected for a blatant distortion and have come back with "that's what I meant". In @68 he said "The problem with conventional plant breeding is that people are potentially BOTH inducing mutations AND selecting for insertion of "foreign" genes..." and was corrected with "What people are selecting are phenotypic outcomes", so he claimed "Which is exactly my point, so you seem to have a short circuit between your ears." Maybe this is too subtle for him but claiming his opponent is doing something they're not and then attacking them for it is what's called a strawman.
Then he said "focus on the products and how they're used, not the technology used to create them" and was again corrected with "We're focusing not on products or technologies, but on the corporations that weild them". And the liar has the gall to again claim that was what he meant all along AND to accuse me of preferring the 'organic industry' to 'gmo industry'. At least when Nerd accused me of paranoia, he at least showed that he'd read what I'd written.
Nerd. You can say it's paranoia if you like. Perhaps you've never heard of Bhopal, killer honey bees, ford's famous exploding gas tanks, amoco cadiz, many hundreds more.... Having a distrust of those that are not trustworthy, based on empirical evidence of their behaviour isn't paranoia to me. Still, I bow to your psychiatric expertise.
So, now that you see how to use quotes, you can point to where I have said organic is better industry than other industry. What I have said is that I have concern for farmers and consumers. Farmers are getting the shit end of the stick as much as consumers and are being forced to suck up to 'industry' or their living is taken from them. and some seem to be trained pavlov style to stand up for their masters. If I'm to have my turn at amateur psychiatry, I'd say it looks like Stockholm syndrome.
And Steve LaBonne @118, must we put it as "a little quiz" to get you to answer a fucking question?

Posted by: Knockgoats | October 27, 2009 2:51 PM

Nobody is saying that it's a practical way for humans to go about it - Steve LaBonne

Right: there is no way you could ever rationally set out to selectively breed bananas expressing cholera bacillus proteins. Which means of course that the difference is qualitative: you can produce changes to organisms with recombinant DNA technology which you cannot produce with selective breeding. Which means that you, and everyone who repeats the absurd claim that there is no qualitative difference, is a liar.

Posted by: Steve LaBonne | October 27, 2009 3:09 PM

Again, this is a stupid bait and switch argument. The relevant comparison in the cholera-vaccine-from-rice instance- which I presume is what you're referring to- is to other ways of making a vaccine, not to the use of plant breeding. And there again, there is no fundamental difference in principle between making a vaccine from engineered rice rather than from bacteria in a fermenter.

For agricultural as opposed to medical uses, genetic modification aims at producing desired phenotypes- not the acquisition of some arbitrarily chosen protein. Just like conventional plant breeding.

No matter how many times you repeat what you imagine is a knockdown argument, it's still silly and symptomatic of a lack of real understanding.

Posted by: eddie | October 27, 2009 3:30 PM

We can all read the original comments.

Posted by: Steve LaBonne | October 27, 2009 4:12 PM

Transfer of genes from a fish to a plant is not something that happens naturally all the time. I know that such an event would be very rare. You're being disingenuous if you argue otherwise.

And you're being plain dense if you still can't get it through your head that "very rare on a human timescale" != "very rare on a geological timescale". Talk to some molecular phylogeneticists- they always have to be alert to the possibility that due to horizontal transfer a particular gene phylogeny may be very misleading with respect to the bulk of the organism's genome.

Yes, of course biotechnology has opened up new possibilities- otherwise nobody would be excited about it one way or the other. It remains true that the products can only rationally be judged and regulated by their actual properties and uses, not by the methodology by which they were produced, thus as a number of people have observed in the course of this discussion it makes no sense to adopt a blanket position of being either "pro" or "anti". People who obfuscate that point fall into two classes- those who are being deliberately disingenuous, and their poorly informed dupes.

Posted by: A. Noyd | October 27, 2009 6:31 PM

Evan (#124)

Just so you know, it's not generally considered good academic practice to "translate" what people say, especially when you do it clumsily to support your own position.

When you say things like "The problem with GMOs is that people are inserting genes into plants without a clear sense of what they might do" it is reasonable, if not expected, that people will understand you as saying "scientists really don't know what they're doing with GM technology." You did not qualify your original statement with "sometimes," and the broad wording isn't restricted to a reasonable level of unforeseen consequences. Moreover, everyone "translates" what others write, if only in their heads. It would be impossible to read if we didn't parse things for meaning, so don't blame me for your inability to express yourself clearly.

Let's be clear. I have not once said the sky was falling.

Only implied it with hyperbole such as "people are inserting genes into plants without a clear sense of what they might do" or "We're playing russian roulette with our food systems." And then there's your paranoia-like selective hindsight and constant equivocation of caution towards new technology and caution towards particular applications of that technology.

I have said that there are risks to GMOs, and it is a reasonable position to be concerned about them. That characterizing a group as untrustworthy simply because they are anti-GMO is not a reasonable position. [emphasis added]

Hm, and here I thought you were upset that PZ pointed out the Non-GMO Project is industry sponsored, making their motives suspect. But I guess you can't object to that now that Nes owned you in comment 107. Oops! So now you're changing the complaint to us demonizing anti-GMO groups for simply daring to disagree with us? I gotta say: Example please!

freaking out to the point where you lose all sense of perspective is stupid.

Example please?

I refer you back to the examples of your hyperbole and equivocation. Then there's your little tirade about the consequences of trusting scientists in #104. And when you build strawmen (saying I mock you for having concerns about GM and that we consider anti-GMO groups untrustworthy for disagreeing with us) while crying there are "more strawmen...than in a scarecrow factory" in my posts, it illustrates how utterly lacking you are in the self-awareness department.

Whatever. To quote the estimable Barney Frank, "Trying to have a conversation with you would be like trying to argue with a dining room table. I have no interest in doing it."

You're apparently the sort of guy who walks into a table and then blames the table for injuring him. Next time you want to come off as Mr. Rational Guy Who Is Reasonably Cautious About the Application of Certain Technology instead of Chicken Little, try being more careful about how you express yourself.

Posted by: Ivan | October 27, 2009 11:37 PM

Last vote count update, with differences from my last post:

811 (up 29) Biofortified

327 (up 30) Non-GMO Project

184 (up 66) TOWARDS HOUSEHOLD FOOD SECURITY...

72 (up 2) ORGANIC FACTS

The rest of the entries have 39 votes or fewer.

Posted by: Ewan R | October 28, 2009 11:40 AM

In response to #62 - and the decision to make plants tolerant to 'poison'

You make the rather large leap here to assume that something which is toxic to one species is going to be equally toxic to another, or indeed that it is going to bioaccumulate in food chains.

The herbicide in question, roundup, has a specific mode of action which intrinsically screws up an organism's ability to synthesize aromatic amino acids. As the effected enzyme is not present in animals.... the 'poison' ain't one - which is one of the reasons it was decided that it was a 'good idea' (well that and the billions of dollars that could be generated...) - you also act as if crops which dont have herbicide tolerance are somehow compeltely in a vacuum when it comes to herbicide useage - other herbicides are used, herbicides with higher environmental impacts - in the context of modern agriculture herbicide tolerance is categorically a good idea, with the obvious caveat that the herbicides you're resistant to should not be harmful to humans (in an ideal world they'd only harm the weeds and nothing else obviously, but that's a little pie in the sky) - the bulk of the evidence points to roundup use as safe in terms of consumption of treated crops, and also suggests that bioaccumulation of glyphosate is not a huge concern.

In a similar fashion Bt toxin is only a toxin to species with specific receptors in their guts, and guts with a specific pH, to pre-empt any 'who thought it was a good idea to put toxins directly in a plant'

Posted by: A. Noyd | October 28, 2009 4:07 PM

Evan (#137)

The remainder of your post is like trying to read a bowl of Alpha-Bits.

Pathetic. If you're going to dismiss my ownage of you with a single insult, try for something a bit less boring, please. This is the time when you should bring out the hyperbole to add a little zing.

Posted by: Evan | October 28, 2009 5:19 PM

Wow, I was owned? I didn't even notice. Probably because you're so 133t. First time for everything.

Steve, the problem with your "very rare on a human timescale" != "very rare on a geological timescale" is that it's exactly the same argument that climate change deniers use. It's true there, and it's true here, but in both cases is misses the main point.

HGT occurs naturally, but what doesn't happen is the near-instant global dissemination of the altered organisms. Instead, the changes are slow and localized, and other organisms in the ecosystem have an opportunity to adapt to the changes. The overall equilibrium is not drastically effected. The basic resting state of ecosystems is one of dynamic equilibrium; when a significant perturbation occurs there is generally considerable upheaval before a new state of equilibrium is reached. So it makes sense to take a careful look at what we're doing.

So the questions are:

(a) does the creation and dissemination of GMOs theoretically create the possibility of significant ecological upheaval?

(b) is it possible to create a regulatory structure that can provide reasonable estimates of ecological risk?

(c) if we can estimate ecological risk, do the realistic benefits of the technologies outweigh that risk?

(d) are there alternative technologies which can provide the same or substantially equivalent benefits at lower risk?

To return to the climate change analogy, these same questions might be used to evaluate the use of geoengineering as a mitigation strategy. In the case of geoengineering, the answers are (a) yes, (b) maybe, (c) probably, (d) yes, if we hurry. So from there we can see the outline of an action plan - let's implement alternative technologies ASAP in hopes of avoiding riskier options, but let's keep geoengineering on the table just in case (I recognize this is not a non-controversial stance itself).

In the case of GE crops, however, I would answer the questions thusly:

a) yes - there the theoretical possibility of creating and disseminating a crop that could have profound negative ecological impacts.

b) maybe - the current regulatory structure is not terrible, but could certainly be improved. The "substantial equivalence" rule, originally conceived by none other than Dan Quayle, which is certainly the most criticized portion of the regulatory structure, deals with health effects rather than ecological impacts, and while it was probably shortsighted in its conception any potential health impacts that have been cited in animal studies seem quite minor. Introducing new GMOs should require the filing of an Environmental Impact Statement (according to a US Federal Court barely one month ago), which in theory would protect against the grossest issues, but historically the USDA has not required these and anyone with any familiarity of EIS' knows that its efficacy as a regulatory tool is highly dependent on the political climate. No EIS can possibly account for all potential risks, but there is no reason not to expect that a very thorough examination would take place.

c) Hard to answer as the ecological risks have not been well quantified. Reductions in pesticide use are good, though the field performance of GMOs in this regard have been mixed. GMOs have not shown significant yield increases in many cases.

d) And the kicker - yes, there are alternative technologies. Integrated Pest Management, for one, has the potential to greatly reduce pesticide dependence, but as a technology has not been widely disseminated. Water and nutrient management techniques can improve soils and reduce erosion, all while increasing yields and food security (as well as food sovereignty) - particularly in developing countries where GM crops are touted as the solution to food shortages. These techniques work and are "shovel ready".

In the end, I invoke the precautionary principle, and say why take risks that (a) have not been clearly shown to have an upside, and (b) have less-risky alternatives?

Posted by: A. Noyd | October 29, 2009 8:22 PM

Evan (#144)

Wow, I was owned? I didn't even notice. Probably because you're so 133t. First time for everything.

Nes got to you before me in this very thread, and I hardly think that was your first time. Refusing to give an example of someone here demonizing anti-GMO groups for disagreeing with us either means you can't or you won't, and since you're so hot to prove how amazingly right you are about everything else, I'm going with "can't."

Of course, I must say I'm in awe of Ewan R's reply at 145. No doubt that hurt.