Pharyngula

Posted by: gussnarp | November 9, 2010 1:01 PM

Hmm. That opening statement sounds like it should come from the other side to me. There may be a place for genetically modified organisms in agriculture, but I don't buy calling selective breeding the same thing as GMO. And if biotechnology means genetically engineering corn so that the seeds cannot be saved from year to year to increase profits and so that massive amounts of wide spectrum herbicides can be sprayed over them to run off into our watersheds, or suing farmers when your corn pollen lands on their field and some of their corn ends up with your corn's DNA signature, then I'm against it. And I'll take the precautionary principle on this one. I don't think that modern biotech is the answer to the world's hunger problems. It stopped being a question of ability and rather one of will a long time ago.

Posted by: cervantes | November 9, 2010 1:05 PM

Well, it's a little bit more complicated than that. Selective breeding works with the genes that already exist in a species, and reassorts them. Every once in a while a useful mutation comes along and gets added to the mix. But with genetic engineering techniques, they insert genes from widely unrelated species -- even separate kingdoms. We don't have a lot of experience with this, to say the least, and the potential ecological implications are much greater than with the slow process of selective breeding. For example, bacterial genes that kill insects, inserted into grains, can potentially escape by cross breeding with wild cousins. Then you would have an unprecedented situation. You can think of other scenarios.

So it's sensible to go into this with a great deal of caution. New technologies almost always have unexpected consequences, often quite negative. (Viz. fossil fuels and global climate change.) So while it's not rational to just oppose all use of GMOs on vague ideological grounds, it's certainly rational to demand a whole lot of caution.

And BTW, these are often part of whole economic systems that force farmers to buy seeds and pesticides from a specific company, and eliminates the farmers' opportunity to save, and improve, their own seed. These economic arrangements also should be viewed with caution, and their social impact considered.

Posted by: lhikanliveson | November 9, 2010 1:06 PM

But you can't get rid of the GMs! That would be madness! Players would be giving themselves like 57 bags of holding and vorpal longswords all around, and they'd just declare themselves the victory of EVERY COMBAT ENCOUNTER!

Posted by: F | November 9, 2010 1:09 PM

I'll just ride along on the first two comments by gussnarp. In general, I don't think agribusiness has done a very good job with GM. Vendor lock-in, and increased use of petrochemicals. Where's the improvement?

I'm sure GM could certainly be used to improve things. I just haven't seen much real improvement so far.

Posted by: Riptide | November 9, 2010 1:14 PM

Part of the problem is an ignorance of chemistry and science in general--people, even nonreligious people, are horribly susceptible to pseudoscientific psychobabble which stirs their emotions one way or another. For various reasons people are opposed to human meddling in the genetic presence of foods; some, erroneously, think that we will somehow give ourselves cancer or other illnesses by genetic modification.

I oppose it on more rational grounds; first, there is a (slim) chance that genetically modified seeds could prove so powerful that they dominate ecology, leading to a world blanketed in one or a few plants with no room for anything else.

If you can't see a problem with that scenario, there is another problem (almost the other end) that huge corporations such as Monsanto are currently using seeds which do not themselves produce seed-bearing plants, which forces farmers to keep re-buying seeds year upon year. This has severe economic consequences for places such as Africa and South America, where many farmers depend on their crops for their very survival, and they cannot afford to keep re-financing fresh seeds every year.

Lastly, there is a limit to the amount of resources we can extract from the planet, because the planet is a finite sphere. The main cause of any industry being "unsustainable" is that the human population is unsustainable; instead of devoting our resources to keeping more and more people alive, we should develop technologies which allow people to make their own reproductive choices, provide alternative economic models to the unlimited population growth demanded by the current paradigm, and allow machines to do the menial tasks which currently require the massive overpopulation to get done.

If we can solve our population problem, the question of sustainability reduces to eliminating pollution. We wouldn't need to continually demand richer and larger crops from poorer and poorer soil if the population weren't continually increasing (or even remaining static at its current burgeoning level). This we could accomplish without any concentration camps or death squads. Empowering women to make their own reproductive choices and encouraging no-child or one-child households would take longer than simply sterilizing everyone, but education is more powerful than dictatorship over time.

Posted by: Dude... Real Men Watch Ponies! | November 9, 2010 1:21 PM

Arguably it depends.
It's like the advent of a nuclear weapon, biotechnology is a tool for agriculture, but it's an extremely powerful tool (potentially). It can do a lot of good things, at the same time one can screw up in a major way.

Or screw up deliberately...
(old news, btw)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/1999/oct/06/gm.food2

I support genetic modification, but I believe that at this point in time, it needs to be regulated.

Posted by: Deluded Creodont | November 9, 2010 1:24 PM

@te24hours

There's a great deal of Luddite mindset behind much of it. I've talked to a few people who were demonstrating at a local farmers market over the summer, and a large portion of their arguments were lifted straight from a couple of B-movies.

Posted by: Sajanas | November 9, 2010 1:28 PM

I certainly think we have yet to reach anywhere close to the full potential of the technology, and I think the people who oppose it are doing so for science fiction based reasons. GMOs are not world dominating organisms, they just have a few different traits to augment nutrition or pesticide tolerance. It would be interesting, on a more long term setting, to go about altering an organism and removing some of the ridiculous genetic leftovers (like that nerve that is 10 meters long in a giraffe) which cannot be removed through natural selection because the intermediates would not be as viable.

I do think that Monsanto and the other current developers of GMOs aren't really working well to increase human health as much as they are trying to make a good pesticide-crop package to sell people, and they are also taking very hard lines against the farmers. Crop breeding used to be done by government scientists, and it might be a good idea to keep that going to make the crops that are better for humanity as a whole, but less easily profitable.

Posted by: cervantes | November 9, 2010 1:30 PM

GMO systems create tighter vendor lock in. Sure, you have to buy hybrid seeds, but you can always buy different ones next year, from a different company.

But if you buy the Roundup ready seeds, you also have to buy the Roundup, and you have to adopt the appropriate techniques to go along with it. This could be good or bad, but it's hard to get away from once you start doing it.

Posted by: kieran | November 9, 2010 1:32 PM

GMO's can be great but half the time we can get as good or better results from a little bit of applied research.
I got asked which would I support in my thesis defence, it was asked purely out of mischief by a particular lecturer to piss off either my supervisior or another lecturer. I argued both and still do. Traditional methods of plant breeding with an understanding of climatic variabilty tied with biotechnology when it's needed.

Posted by: Sajanas | November 9, 2010 1:35 PM

Also, roaming cattle (and other types of organic food) aren't necessarily good for the environment, since they involve a huge land use commitment, and not every area is right for it. It is more ecologically friendly to raise sheep in New Zealand (where they eat the dense local clover) and ship them all the way to America than it is to grow them through grain feeding, and that is more ecologically friendly than clearing the kind of land it would take to raise that many sheeps in the USA. "Organic" and "Sustainable" foods aren't necessarily better just because they don't require as much pesticide or petrochemicals... the less land used means more land can be native plants and animals. And the clearing of industrial scale crops means that there can be a big savings in efficiency (especially if they apply some of the principals of sustainability). In short, good, objective scientific crop work is what is required, and that won't mean all of one, and none of the other.

Posted by: Ambrose Thompson | November 9, 2010 1:37 PM

I think this is a case of the moving line. Anything behind our current line is consider less scary because we have incorporated it into our daily thinking, but if you move the line a bit people freak out over what they cannot understand. It isn't that GMO are hard to understand but that certain people have not incorporated their daily minds around it.

Posted by: te24hours | November 9, 2010 1:48 PM

@13,

Thanks. Why on earth would anyone demonstrate at a farmer's market? Isn't that where to go to find local, sustainable agricultural products?!

I guess my major question is: how do we know that GM crops are as safe as crops which are engineered over thousands of years of unnatural selection? And I'm not begging the question. I am not attempting to suggest that GM crops are not as safe. I'm asking: how is one to know? Do we know? Do we not know? How is the research being done? Is the research being done?

Hell, I personally am not knowledgeable enough to even demand that research is needed. Maybe it's like the RCT of parachute use: no evidence necessary. I just don't know. But this strikes me as an area where Pharyngula commentators (or authors!) might have categorical and comprehensive answers.

Posted by: Who Cares | November 9, 2010 1:56 PM

@Riptide(#9):
Are you perhaps one of those anti-GM regardless of the facts? Since you put up 3 blatant propaganda pieces that anyone outside a 'we are right'-echo chamber would take with at least a grain of salt or drop altogether (since it's a lie).

Please leave the scare stories about super plants out of this debate.
To put it bluntly it is more likely that Supes drops down in his pod from Krypton tomorrow then such a scenario happens.
To be able to achieve this you'd need to modify everything from: protection against predators on both the micro and macroscopic scale, environmental resistances, growth efficiency (and half a dozen others parameters). At the moment we still have trouble making a rice that can handle less water or more salt in said water, let alone try to combine those two traits.

Monsanto never used the terminator seed strategy. What it does have is a license that stops farmers from using patented items in a way that Monsanto doesn't want.

The food cycle doesn't permanently extract resources. Where I live there is a fairly good chance that the steak I ate yesterday will end up as fertilizer on a farm in the next year, where it is used to grow the maize for the cow that I'll eat part of in the year after.
Aside from that the current level of food production in the world is enough to keep everyone alive. The problem is not an unsustainable human population but an incorrect distribution of resources.

Posted by: chassoto | November 9, 2010 2:08 PM

I've always argued that GMOs are destined for failure, or at least towards "unexpected results." I'm not talking about attacking killer tomatoes. But, while it's possible to add foreign genes to an organism. Selecting for desired attributes is also pretty easy, especially when they're targeted at tolerating a particular petrochemical toxin, as agribusiness has seen fit to focus on. It's just that the development of maize went through an awful lot of "in situ experimentation" in order to make movie popcorn and masa I so love. A couple of market quarters isn't really enough time in the wild to understand the ultimate effect of the modifications. Never mind the killer tomato possibilities (or a more subtle example as many others have already pointed out).

Posted by: gussnarp | November 9, 2010 2:11 PM

There's also this.

Posted by: Who Cares | November 9, 2010 2:13 PM

About Roundup.
It is only a temporary solution to the problem as it is used now (single herbicide, repeat applications over growth seasons, same crop to protect).
There is already a noticeable increase in broad leafed weeds that can resist Roundup as expected from this forced evolutionary pressure.

@Sajanas(#21): You need to also take into account human irrationality. There was a bright idea where I life to build pork high-rise. This to make more efficient use of land the ability to cluster support industries, etc., etc.. Even most animal welfare organizations were not directly opposed (taking a wait and see attitude) but the ones that were made so much noise about it that the idea is currently shelved as publicly not palatable.

Posted by: sangomasmith | November 9, 2010 2:17 PM

Finally, something I can contribute to!

As someone who works in crop biotech, I deal with the whole 'oh god GMOs will kill us all' thing a lot.
The truth is that GM crops are some of the most tightly regulated products in existence right now, with development times comparable to those of new drugs. Except new drugs don't need a decade of field testing prior to approval.

The hypocritical bit comes in when you know that non-GM crop lines don't require any testing at all, for pretty much the same reason that GMOs do: its a political issue, not a scientific one. Normal hybrid crops can do almost all the same tricks as GMOs right now(although insect resistance requires different strategies), its just slower. And stupider, like trying to tune a car by hitting it with a hammer.

It would be fun, actually, to be able to do some of the horrible things GMOs are accused of. It would be a sign that our technology was finally good for more than inserting single genes or simple pathways. It would also widen my career options, get me some of that mad defence contracting money I hear so much about.

Instead, crop scientists are stuck a ridiculously small and limited tool-set, while people outside of the profession (and occasionally, the bounds of common sense) sit around arguing about whether we can even use the tools we have.
It's hard enough trying to live up to Norman Borlaug already. Please don't make it harder.

Posted by: RationalMind | November 9, 2010 2:21 PM

Opposition to GM is not based of some feeling or spiritual notion, or misunderstanding or ignorance. There are many of us who are concerned about the technology based on a solid rational understanding of the science. There is most definitely a reasoned and reasonable argument against the technology.

I would appeal to PZ to forget for a moment about genetics and the appeal of the new technology and think instead of ecology. There is a reasoned and rational argument here. We are overconsuming. Climate change is only the first of the problems that becomes apparent as a result. It is important to remember the effect that overconsumption is having on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services - the variety of living organisms and the fundamental life-support services provided by natural ecosystems, without which human civilization would cease to thrive.

One of the problems is that humans are converting natural habitats to other uses, often just because of greed and not need. Biotech means that areas which were unusable previously are now not left but can be used. This rationally means that if we are to live sustainably we must be sceptical of the uses to which biotech is being put.

This is much more of a political issue than I think PZ realises and it is being driven by the same rapacious rethuglicanism that he usually condemns.
There is, as has been said,no shortage of food in the world. It is simply that the will to solve the problems does not exist.

Take the huge areas of GM soy being planted by US
ReTHUGlican type companies in South America (love that word) where habitats such as tropical forest are being destroyed for soy. This is not used for feeding people but for feeding cattle. Poor peasant farmers are being thrown off their land and companies like the anti-environmental Monsanto, which is notorious for spreading climate change denialism are at the heart of it.

There are good reasons why environmentalists have problems with GM. Most of the good environmentalists I know are rational and not spiritual. They are usually atheists too.
It is the rational understanding of the facilitation of greed and destruction that they bring that causes the opposition.

Posted by: sangomasmith | November 9, 2010 2:26 PM

Additionally, if you want to screw up an environment then GMOs are weak sauce. Just introduce a bunch of foreign organisms and, poof, instant Australia.

I'm always amazed when environmentalists fail to lobby hard and long against international shipping (the number one way to spread living things to places they shouldn't be), but then I guess you have to pick your fights...

Posted by: Xenithrys | November 9, 2010 2:35 PM

I don't buy the super-weed objection. Yes, weeds and crops hybridize; after all, most crops have been artificially selected from common weedy relatives. But if glyphosate resistance spreads to the weed population, that doesn't make a super-weed; it makes a glyphosate-resistant weed, which will flourish under selection from glyphosate use, but will have no advantage, and likely a disadvantage, when glyphosate use stops. So these weeds are likely to be an eventual problem for GM farmers (and a problem that's only as bad as their pre-GM weed problems), but not for anyone else. And herbicide resistant weeds commonly evolve naturally, without GM, and may be a source of resistance genes for GM use.
We did underestimate the extent of crop-weed hybridization until the GM debate encouraged the research, precisely because it's largely undetectable: it seems successful crop attributes (e.g., delayed flowering) are selected against in the weed's natural environment.

Posted by: Pamela Ronald | November 9, 2010 2:38 PM

Thanks for the post PZ

Hey everyone, read the science-based arguments presented in the magazine BEFORE you vote

Atb
Pam

Posted by: Who Cares | November 9, 2010 2:44 PM

@RationalMind(#37):
You are not arguing from a position of honesty. You start with claiming there is a rational position against direct genetic modification (dGM) then begin with an emotional argument and an argument that has nothing to do with the problem in question: Is GM good/bad.

The over-consumption you talk about will happen regardless of the stuff being consumed being GM or 'natural'.
Those soy farms will be created regardless of the type of soy being planted.

Could you please show me that rational argument against GM? Because I couldn't find it.

Posted by: SC OM | November 9, 2010 2:50 PM

Gah. I only (well, not even that, really) have time for one comment.

I'll provide the link I often do when this comes up (OK, and this one, too).

There are a number of things to be considered in deciding on agricultural/food-system approaches: long-term productivity and sustainability, long-term risks, water usage, pesticide usage, fuel usage and AGW, local food needs, food and seed sovereignty and dependency, cost and options available to farmers and local people, corporate control of the food supply, corporate control of land, farmers' independence and indebtedness, the rights of agricultural workers, inequality (including gender), biodiversity, nutrition, encouragement of innovation that responds to developing local needs and the communication/sharing of information, resilience of crops to rapidly changing conditions,... And democracy. We need to decide what our priorities are for the food system, and people and not corporations should do this. GE crops are one possible tool, but just one among many, and at present one controlled by large profit-seeking (and enormously profitable) corporations with all that entails. It's crazy to act as though this technology exists in a vacuum, accept the corporate line, and dismiss these necessary considerations, or to ignore the movements here and abroad (like Via Campesina) who are fighting to regain control of the land and food system. Food policy should aim at enhancing the ability of people to have sovereignty - to choose and be supported in their local strategies based on their priorities/values and the full consideration of all of these factors.

Posted by: Cannabinaceae | November 9, 2010 2:51 PM

I would like to use genetic engineering to create crop plants that are even better at using shit and piss* as fertilizers than existing plants. In general, to create crop plants that respond better than existing strains to all the various topsoil-conserving practices and so forth that are so "spiritually" appealing to "organic" agriculture folks. But the very folks that I view myself as in alliance with in that very perspective, more than half assume** that means I want to trick well meaning, right thinking, sustainability enhancing folks into being Shills for Monsanto or something.

Fuck. Why does 2+2=4 mean that I'm an asshole***

I mean, dude, we've got to get higher yield per acre without burning oil, right? Is there a clue shortage or something?

Scare quotes there to mean that I have issues with the terms, not the folks.

*-n-stuff.
**I'm guessing on that number, there.
***Irrespective of the fact that, for all intents and purposes, I'm already an asshole. I guess I mean: even more of an asshole.

Posted by: Demonax | November 9, 2010 2:59 PM

Many in Europe are not against technology about this, but against the way Monsanto is perceived to be rigging the game with the result of "enslaving" to their seeds whole countries.
It's the lack of any belief that this can be stopped that brings out in this group the "stop the lot "response.
Find a way of opening up the work and a lot of protest will fade -imho.

Posted by: SC OM | November 9, 2010 3:07 PM

Oh, and one more thing before I go: rejecting the adoption of (specific) corporate GE crops (or government promotion thereof) does not mean rejecting all agricultural technology (it may in some cases, but it doesn't necessarily follow by any means). We've barely scratched the surface of the possibilities of high-tech horticulture/agriculture, including in urban areas, and local capacity for technological innovation that responds to changing conditions and needs should be fostered and supported.

(No time for Ewan today.)

Posted by: Cannabinaceae | November 9, 2010 3:09 PM

Note: when I say "Shills for Monsanto" I am adopting a term that I think other people think of as pejorative. This weasel sentence directed specifically to Ewan.

Hell, I even think that Philip Morris would be happy as a clam to get out of the cigarette business, provided they could leverage their tobacco knowledge into biofuels or vaccines or something. Their board of directors has a legal obligation to Increase Value to Shareholders and all that.

Posted by: Ewan R | November 9, 2010 3:13 PM

bullfrogger please google 'Monsanto v. Schmeiser'. Farmers could not know going in that their crops would get contaminated and then they would be sued for patent infringement.

keeping in mind the Schmeisser purposefully selected for the RR gene by spraying his crop with glyphosate and then took the seed from the resulting survivors, saving it independantly of his main crop, and then planting it on ~1000 acres he can hardly be said to have not known going in that there was contamination or that he could be sued for patent infringement.

Posted by: Will Von Wizzlepig | November 9, 2010 3:24 PM

I have to say, this is one of the occasions where I disagree with PZ.

If people with the good of the world in heart and mind were the ones running the show, sure. I would be slightly more comforted at the concept of GM in that case. But that's not the only source of GM products.

Large corporations have shown they are not trustworthy: in hiding the truth about products they have spent too much time and money developing- products they cannot simply abandon. If they pull that with GM, well, that's no good.

I am wary of the concept at all, as, taking a pharmaceutical to self-modify your own body's behavior is a personal choice: it may correct your headache- and any side effects you may encounter, well, that's all on you for not reading the label.

Releasing a living version of a pharmaceutical, a plant or organism modified directly at the genetic level, and so-called 'safe' because some corporation says so... well, the side effects could possibly be... who knows what? Can anyone say they truly know what possible side effects might be on the world... without testing them on the world?

I think we're already mucking the place up just fine without GM.

Posted by: Don | November 9, 2010 3:31 PM

I write software, so I understand that technology can get too complex for even its makers to understand. I would have a healthy dose of skepticism for, e.g., a car that would drive itself down a busy highway under software control. It's not that the problem can't be solved, just that the problem is complex, and the consequences of failure (fatal car wrecks) are big. No one would say I was a knee-jerk anti-technology Luddite; we all have experienced software failure.

I'd be much, much more reluctant to support releasing an automated vehicle that could reproduce itself onto public highways. It's bad enough to make a technological mistake (which is common), but a self-replicating mistake? That's much less forgiveable.

We have long experience with the introduction of non-native species into ecosystems where they have unintended consequences. It's a mistake, not because of some vague hippie notion that it's "unnatural," but because the non-native species hasn't been subjected to natural selection in the new environment. The consequences might be that the non-native species thrives, at the expense of several native ones. I don't need to list the obvious examples to a roomful of evolution nerds.

Releasing GE organisms into the wild is like deliberately introducing an invasive species, but it's even worse, because the new organism has never been vetted through evolution, nor have other species in the community competed with it. GE crops could create problems that can't be cleaned up, ever. I have a problem with that.

Posted by: Ewan R | November 9, 2010 3:37 PM

I'm honestly curious, the initial crop of RR canola had to get into Schmeiser's fields somehow.

As far as I've read the accidental presence was along the edges of fields - presumed to have fallen off a truck or somesuch.

Schmeisser didn't buy RR seed, and so hadn't signed an agreement - however you don't have to have signed an agreement to break patent law.

The facts of the case do appear to be that the initial presence of the trangene in Schmeisser's fields was accidental - and at this point he was completely legally free and clear - when he discovered this (the court documents, if I recall correctly, say this was due to spraying roundup along the edges of his fields to control weeds) he was still completely legally free and clear (and could have at this point bitched to Monsanto and had them come and remove the offending plants - which, again if memory serves, some of Schmeissers neighbors did with no legal issues at all) but rather than do this (or ignore the problem, which again would have left him completely free and clear legally) he decided to spray ~3 acres with glyphosate, saved these seeds, and planted them on ~1000 acres - at which point he is infringing the patent.

Now obviously if you disagree with patenting of GM traits none of this will matter one jot, but I think the story is better served with all the details rather than half baked - it at least then becomes an arguement against patentability of GM traits (if that's the route you want to go) rather than attempting to highlight that the accidental presence per-se of a GM trait is enough to have you dragged into court and made internationally famous amongst eco-activists sans any intervention on your own behalf.

Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy | November 9, 2010 3:42 PM

"Read, assess the arguments, and vote yourself."

I hear and obey.

Posted by: Dude... Real Men Watch Ponies! | November 9, 2010 3:49 PM

GE crops could create problems that can't be cleaned up, ever. I have a problem with that.

Posted by: sangomasmith | November 9, 2010 3:54 PM

I'm noticing a lot of corp-hate going on. Which is fine, as these things go. It just doesn't do your argument any good when you treat GM tech as equivalent to having a 'made by Monsanto' sticker on it. Megacorp isn't the only player here. Even were it so, we would still be wise to remember the importance of regulation.

As far as the idea of GM producing unstoppable killer weeds goes, you have to ask how it would work. Plants are just a factory for converting sunlight to biomass & energy, after all.
And every alteration would have a cost in the form of using some of those resources. By the time you've produced something really nasty you're probably eating fairly significantly into your crop yields.

Even the most evil company would find it a hard sell to convince farmers that they need a plant which produces less than the competition and becomes a weed when they want to rotate crops to boot.

Posted by: Dianne | November 9, 2010 3:58 PM

I would have a healthy dose of skepticism for, e.g., a car that would drive itself down a busy highway under software control.

I have grave reservations about a car driving down a busy highway under the control of the all natural buggy software known as the human brain. Anyone doubting that that is a problem should check traffic statistics. While I agree that any car controlling software devised should be tested as thoroughly as possible before use and that overrides would be a good idea particularly in the early versions, I see no inherent reason why special purpose, intelligently designed software for car use shouldn't work as well as humans controlling the cars eventually.

Posted by: bananacat | November 9, 2010 4:01 PM

I think a lot of anti-GM people just don't understand basic chemistry and biology. These are often the same people who think HFCS is some kind of magical poison but that cane sugar is a health food. If it has a scary name, then they don't want any part of it. It's really just the appeal to nature fallacy, where "natural" is defined by some arbitrarily long timepoint that includes most crops but excludes GMO.

Posted by: sangomasmith | November 9, 2010 4:03 PM

I would totally be up for triffids. So would environmentalists:

'A complete food source high in omega 3&6, plants itself, needs no human intervention and then delivers itself to the market when ready. Brilliant!'
'Yeah, but it also kills people who get too close.'
'Solves our pressing population issues, you say? Even better!'

Posted by: Don | November 9, 2010 4:11 PM

Ewan R #72,

You use quotes around "the wild" as if corn were not part of it. You do realize corn is wind-pollinated, right? That means the engineered gene(s) are not, in any sense that matters, confined to the field where they're planted.

Even if GE corn doesn't naturalize well, as you hope, there are lots of kudzu-choked areas in the southeast U.S. that suggest mistakes are easier than success.

Posted by: Who Cares | November 9, 2010 4:13 PM

@UberFubarius(#74):
That is why you have an immune system. To hunt out the stuff that wants to replicate but is not part of the body the immune system belongs to. Oh and if it is to fast for the immune system to take out (think Ebola) then the pool of possible targets in which to replicate dies out so fast that your suggested Warhol virus dies with them. The only reason that Ebola and such keep coming back is that there is a reservoir out in nature that doesn't die when infected and can (if getting into contact with humans) transmit the virus.

Posted by: gussnarp | November 9, 2010 4:14 PM

As far as the idea of GM producing unstoppable killer weeds goes, you have to ask how it would work. Plants are just a factory for converting sunlight to biomass & energy, after all. And every alteration would have a cost in the form of using some of those resources. By the time you've produced something really nasty you're probably eating fairly significantly into your crop yields.

Posted by: sangomasmith | November 9, 2010 4:18 PM

@Marc Abian:

Argument by human stupidity wins, I guess. I'll pack my bags and find a new day job.

Speaking of which, have I mentioned that I'm the nephew of a wealthy Nigerian banker? I just need a small deposit to allow me to transfer the money I inherited when he sadly/tragically passed away. If you could spot me I'm sure we could split the proceeds amicably...

Posted by: gillt | November 9, 2010 4:19 PM

Haha, Big Cig doesn't have to convince customers of anything. It's the physically addictive substance in their product that does the convincing.

Posted by: bananacat | November 9, 2010 4:22 PM

The problem is one of relative rates of change -- what changes in which systems at which rates cause which systematic behaviors.

Are you against all technologies as much as you are against GM and biotech? If so, then it basically comes down to being a Luddite. Things change.

If not, then why is this one type of change so different than all others?

Posted by: Dianne | November 9, 2010 4:28 PM

The problem is one of relative rates of change -- what changes in which systems at which rates cause which systematic behaviors.

I don't know. We seem to have adapted to computers, the internet, cell phones, etc at a pretty rapid rate. I can't see Gm crops moving much faster than, say, the iPhone and that seems to have been accepted without too much difficulty.

Posted by: Don | November 9, 2010 4:30 PM

bananacat #87,

why is this one type of change so different than all others?

Thought that was already answered: because GMOs can reproduce. No other technology compares.

The "Luddite" namecalling does not make you more persuasive, btw.

Posted by: sangomasmith | November 9, 2010 4:31 PM

@gussnarp:

I think you may have forgotten that weeds have this habit of doing that by themselves anyway. Glyphosate resistance is pretty much the coming thing.

Anyway, here's the long version:

Genes are just little programs, excecuted by proteins (With DNA & RNA as storage and transfer media, respectively) to produce more proteins. A lot of active trait-altering genes means more energy used to produce the proteins they encode. So if kudzu gets glyphosate resistance it actually loses out whenever there isn't glyphosate around to be resistant to (its wasting energy)

Add a lot of genes together to produce something tough and go-anywhere and you just end up with the plant equivalent of one of those super-all-terrain 4*4s: great in the desert, pointless on the road.
We have something like that out where I live, called the resurrection bush. It can live in the desert on salt and spit & has remarkable properties of regeneration. It is also not in danger of suddenly invading the moist parts of the world because all that toughness comes at a cost.
Photosynthesis is, in short, a closed system energy-wise.

Posted by: geneticmaize | November 9, 2010 4:32 PM

I am surprised and saddened by the regurgitation of goofy claims about genetic engineering that appear in the comments here. Ewan already did all the responses to that (thank you Ewan!) so I won't go over them again. Instead, I'll take another route to explain my response to the question of whether "biotechnology and sustainable agriculture are complementary, not contradictory." For full disclosure, I'm a grad student in genetics at Iowa State, working in a USDA lab. You can find my whole CV online, I write about biotech without pay at http://Biofortified.org, I have no financial interests in genetic engineering, blada blah. Ok, here we go.

Genetic engineering is a tool.

To take it to a really simple analogy - screwdrivers are a tool. I can use screwdrivers to make water purification systems for people without access to clean water in an impoverished country out of the good of my heart or I can use screwdrivers to make self replicating evil robots that will steal everyone's stuff and bring it to my house for my personal benefit*. Should we ban screwdrivers? Is the potential for screwdrivers to be used for nefarious purposes and/or profit** more weighty than the potential to use screwdrivers to do good things? Or the potential to use screwdrivers to do mediocre things?

Truly, screwdrivers have been and continue to be used to do horrible things. From making bombs to stabbing people in the eye. Screwdrivers have also been used to do harmless things and beneficial things.

Same with genetic engineering, only a lot more complicated.

There are surely incidences of genetic engineering causing harm*** or at least being involved peripherally in harm. For example, we know that farmers in India lack access to decent low interest credit and higher cost of genetically engineered seed (as well as other modern tools of farming such as fertilizer and pesticides) then when bad weather or whatever hits and they don't recoup their investment some have chosen to commit suicide (although it's actually way more complicated than that). There are also surely some individual examples of farmers being sued wrongfully for violating the patent of a protected trait (if you know of an actual case where this happened please let me know), although there are at least as many examples of farmers being in the wrong.

There's also examples of genetic engineering doing good things. For example, use of the Bt trait results in less insecticide use which results in higher insect biodiversity. Bt corn has decreased fungal infection during storage due to fewer insect bitten kernels which means fewer fungal toxins in food. Use of the Roundup Ready trait has reduced use of herbicides that are more harmful than Roundup. Should we be using herbicides at all? That's another subject.

While Bt and Roundup Ready are the genetically engineered traits most in use, they aren't the only ones in use, and they aren't the only ones being developed. There's a lot of potential traits or traits in progress that could have a big positive impact on sustainability, including disease resistance, drought tolerance, enhanced nitrogen utilization. Even if you hate any corporation ever and everything they ever made, that doesn't mean that you have to be against genetic engineering. Many traits have been or are being developed with government or NGO funding.

*Ok, I can't really do either. But wouldn't it be cool? Just kidding. I wouldn't steal your stuff.

**Why are people ok with companies making money except when it comes to seeds? Seriously, the options are either more tax dollars for development of improved seed or have a some sort of plant variety protection, patents, etc to allow companies to recoup some of the costs of investment. I'm all for more taxes for research but if it wasn't happening with a democratically controlled house and senate it sure isn't going to happen now.

***Except when it comes to health, where there is no evidence of harm. The few studies that have shown harm have issues from lacking statistical significance to bad controls to never being replicated. If you have found any studies that show otherwise, please post them in the Biofortified forum and we'll find a variety of non-biased experts to review the study.

Posted by: Dianne | November 9, 2010 4:39 PM

I don't know if this has come up already or not, but people do realize that one of the "traditional" ways of breeding new crops or improved crops is to expose seeds or animals to radiation or other mutagens and see what happens.

Posted by: Ewan R | November 9, 2010 4:43 PM

Will breeding a single-use seed line that produces sterile offspring cause a problem?

Huh? Who is producing single use seed lines that produce sterile offspring? Inquiring minds want to know.

those genes migrate to other plants?

Sure, sexually compatible plants - along with 50% of the genome of the GM parent, which isnt overly likely to produce anything useful/succesful

Can it mutate into something else that is perhaps disastrous to the food chain?

In terms of the currently commercialized (or any commercializable trait I can think of) I don't see how this would happen - you're as likely to have a native gene do the same thing.

Posted by: Dude... Real Men Watch Ponies! | November 9, 2010 4:44 PM

#93 sangomasmith
True, but depending on how the plant's inherent ability is.
For example of kudzu, the issue for them is that it takes a lot of effort to actually kill them, and they spread really fast.
And even if getting an advantage against a herbicide is an issue, if kudzu's competitors also have to evolve that ability to cope, the net competitive pressure didn't change (kudzu and its competing plants all have to "pay" the same cost).

Posted by: Dude... Real Men Watch Ponies! | November 9, 2010 4:49 PM

Huh? Who is producing single use seed lines that produce sterile offspring? Inquiring minds want to know.

Monsanto tried in the past to include a "terminator" gene into plants, such that after the inital seed is planted they can no longer reproduce (or at least the seed they create will be sterile).
And it looks like they're still trying it.

Posted by: ecpaulsen | November 9, 2010 4:54 PM

What brings all this to mind is the recent controversy over Monsanto Co.'s development of infertile seeds--seeds that yield crops that don't reproduce so that farmers have to buy new seeds each year. From the farmer's point of view, the opportunity to buy infertile seeds can be a great boon. Instead of paying $100 for seed that should last 10 years, you pay $10 for new seed each year, which insures you against the possibility of a disastrous and expensive crop loss.

(Are you worried that Monsanto would charge just as much for the infertile seeds as the fertile ones? Don't be. Surely farmers are willing to pay much more for fertile seeds than for infertile, and you can be sure that Monsanto fully exploits that willingness.)

Many high-yield hybrid seeds are infertile, though not by design. Like mules, they're naturally infertile. Taking its lead from the software industry, Monsanto had planned to convert this bug into a feature. But in the face of considerable public pressure, Monsanto has agreed to stop developing infertile seeds.

Much of the opposition had nothing to do with planned obsolescence and everything to do with concern that the Monsanto's infertility gene might "leap" from its seeds to fertile seeds in adjoining farms and eventually render those fertile strains infertile. Such hypothesized contamination is a legitimate concern and quite plausibly a sufficient reason to applaud Monsanto's decision. But an unfortunate side effect is the lost opportunity to provide some socially desirable planned obsolescence.

--

http://www.slate.com/id/36534/

Posted by: abb3w | November 9, 2010 5:00 PM

The one worry I've heard is that transgenic GM food may increase chances of setting off a (fatal) allergy. EG: putting peanut genes into tomatoes may make tomatoes hazardous to those with peanut allergies.

Separately, GM crops seem to subjectively likely to increase the pre-existing tendency to genetic monoculture, which strikes me as ecologically risky.

Posted by: Don | November 9, 2010 5:04 PM

sangomasmith #102,

Breeding is just genetic modification without any of the benefits.

No, it isn't. Genetic modification introduces genes to the environment in a context in which they never been exposed to natural selection. Sometimes GE crops contain genes from other species altogether. That isn't something that happens with traditional breeding.

The "Luddite" accusation is getting old. If you read my posts you won't find fear of change, nor opposition to new technology. I know a bit about technology, because I work with it, and I've seen some of its limitations. That doesn't mean I'm risk-averse, rather, it has taught me to measure risks and to pay attention when the risk is ill-defined.

If I deploy a homebrew DVR technology and it screws up, I miss my favorite program on HBO, and the wife gets mad at me. That's a pretty small risk (except for the wife being mad at me).

If you deploy a GE organism into the wild and it screws up, the problem could be larger, and self-replicating. Rational people don't just wave that away.

Posted by: sangomasmith | November 9, 2010 5:08 PM

@geneticmaize:
Good to have you on the team.

@UberFubarius:
Once again, weeds getting herbicide resistance happens in nature too, no GM needed. Part of the problem is that for a weedy plant like that (something that grows very well and puts out a lot of seeds into the soil) spraying is not a good idea anyway. Much better is the concept of biocontrol, which uses a selective pest to control the weed. But that's another topic.
The point is that all you really have to do is stop spraying (or start spraying with something else) to remove the selective advantage of the gene. Once that's done, the cost will drive it back to low levels in the population over time.

A weed is a weed, in short, because it already has characteristics that favour weediness. Left to its own devices, it will eventually come up with others that favour it in specific environments (such as herbicide-covered ones), but these are not necassarily good outside of them.
Crop plants, on the other hand, have been carefully selected to show traits we like rather than anything useful. Remember that it isn't single genes going over during hybridization, its half of them. So even if a weed/crop hybrid gets some hypothetical superweed gene it would also get a whole bunch of lame low-fitness crop genes. This would tend to make it less competitive than its normal cousins. Kudzu, in short, wants nothing from GM-tomatoes or whatever, even assuming the two can successfully breed.

I strongly urge people to check out biofortified, by the way. It is really very good.

Posted by: sangomasmith | November 9, 2010 5:29 PM

@Don:

Your faith in the ability of natural selection to weed out nasty traits is touching. Unfortunately, nature never got the memo and ended up producing malaria.

That a gene comes from a fish or a mutation of an existing gene makes no difference if the genes are functionally equivalent. More to the point, at least an inserted gene has been through the wringer to see if it works. A mutation could do anything for all we know. So argument from ignorance works both ways.

The reason you have no problems messing with your appliances is because you are familiar with them. The fact is that making the damn things causes all sorts of problems far worse than escaped crop genes(acid mine drainage and the like), but they're known issues so you don't worry.
The luddites had no problems with their existing techs either, they just feared the possible effects of mechanisation on farming (farm workers all put out of jobs, humanity reduced to soulless automatons, servants of the machine etc.)

Anyway, I'm going to call it a night before I get (more) cranky and maladjusted. Good speaking to you, hope the others carry on the chat...

Posted by: Don | November 9, 2010 5:42 PM

@sangomasmith #113 (yes I realize you've gone to bed),

The reason you have no problems messing with your appliances is because you are familiar with them.

No, the reason I'm relatively unafraid to mess with my appliances is that the worst case scenario is small. Even if it catches fire and burns down my house with me inside, it's not going to hurt my nearest neighbor. I'm not being socially irresponsible on a grand scale by taking such a risk.

The same cannot be said for something that's both novel AND biological.

Posted by: Joffan | November 9, 2010 5:53 PM

ecpaulsen @105

... But in the face of considerable public pressure, Monsanto has agreed to stop developing infertile seeds.

Much of the opposition had nothing to do with planned obsolescence and everything to do with concern that the Monsanto's infertility gene might "leap" from its seeds to fertile seeds in adjoining farms and eventually render those fertile strains infertile. Such hypothesized contamination is a legitimate concern and quite plausibly a sufficient reason to applaud Monsanto's decision. ...

Hmm. I don't get this argument against infertile seeds. How would an infertility gene spread through another population, exactly? Shouldn't this actually assuage fears of people who think GE traits might cross into wild populations? After all a trait that is accompanied by infertility needs rather more than average good fortune to escape from its original plant and propagate.

Posted by: arakrys | November 9, 2010 6:30 PM

PZ I remember well an earlier blog by you, titled 'Like plums? Do something Right away".
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/04/like_plums_do_something_right.php

In that topic you used the same emotional reasoning. I think I gave a valid reply, I invite you to look that up and consider it before you repeat your arguments again without responding to valid counterarguments.
That is in my eyes, if not fallacious, pretty knee-jerk behaviour.

GM is simply not traditional breeding, and you might study the real arguments.

Posted by: ecpaulsen | November 9, 2010 7:01 PM

Joffan - #117

I have no idea how the gene could spread, if I hadn't already mentioned it I am NO scientist. But here is an example of something I do know - coding...

Let's say that I, a novice coder, decide to write a program that I would sell to the public allowing them to "secure all of their most private and sensitive data, engage in global commerce, and monitor and route flight paths within the US. Let's call it MS WTF 1.0 for now. After reading articles on the internet, referring to some of my favorite books on C++, and posting questions in online forums I have the program running. I test it and to ME it looks like it is running fine - of course I don't understand EVERYTHING I put into the application but I feel like I understand it well enough. And I need some money now because I have been working on this project for six months now. Would you feel comfortable inputting all of your banking data, your social security number, all of your personal most private data into it? Sure, I can address any problems LATER with patches, but what about now? What if I left a security hole in there that allowed North Korea to ground all of our commercial air traffic for a month? What if a Nigerian prince got a hold of your identity due to my poor credit card verification subroutines? You could try to sue me but how does that change what has already occurred?

Anybody else get saddled with MS Windows ME? Those were 'professionals' who released an abortive OS to fulfill their need for profit, and WE suffered for it. They never fixed it they just moved on because people are inherently lazy and irresponsible. See the nations Superfund sites, see Massey mining Co., see Wright county Egg farms...

I have NO problem with the science as I have said before, science is a tool, but the people who USE science MUST be suspect in their motives. Commerce is a very bad motivation to risk unleashing designer lifeforms into an environment that everyone depends on for survival. With programming languages you CAN know exactly how bits of code will behave, it is absolute - but life evolves. Who here is going to tell me they can with certainty predict the evolutionary changes of GM plants growing in various environments exposed to variable conditions?

All I am saying is I DON"T KNOW and I urge more caution than we have seen thus far.

Posted by: Corbie, Wicked Auntie of Death | November 9, 2010 7:09 PM

My own, personal problem with GMO crops is that I'm allergic to a lot of foods already (corn and soy being the two most difficult to avoid). GMO food doesn't just improve a crop by selecting traits from within a plant's own genome; it takes genes from unrelated species of plants/animals and inserts them in places where they'd never wind up on their own. Suppose they insert a protein from a food I'm allergic (corn) to into a food I'm not allergic to (rice)? Monsanto doesn't want GMO foods to be noted on food packaging. I should have the right to know this information, so that I can take care of my own health. This could be, after all, a life-or-death matter for me.

I don't think I'm against GMO crops altogether. I think there is a valid argument that they can reduce the use of harmful chemicals. I'm just against the way it's being done right now, using rapacious business practices and keeping the consumer in the dark. I don't know what they're doing to my food and therefore I don't trust them. Transparency, please!

I also have concerns about unintended environmental consequences (already cited re kudzu and carp). I don't think we should stop trying to solve problems, but I think more caution is required.

Posted by: Peter Magellan | November 9, 2010 7:23 PM

PZ, like you (and Prof. Dawkins, and others) I'm in favour of genetic modification in principle. In current practice, however, it's another story.

There are two major problems with the current practice of GM:

1) It short-circuits evolution with barely-predictable effects. We can make genetic modifications that would not occur naturally - when, for instance, would a natural mutation make cancer cells glow under UV light? When would a crop become resistant to Roundup when all the other species around it would not? We can't accurately predict the results of these modifications, and until we can, we have no business releasing their products into the wild. Which brings me to:

2) If GM were an activity carried out exclusively by rational, altruistic scientists like your good self, all the necessary testing and controls would be applied to ensure that the resulting GMOs would not escape into the wild before they were proved to be ecologically innocuous and useful to humanity rather than their "inventors".

Sadly, GMOs are the products of commercial companies whose first consideration is the generation of profit and the elimination of competition. This means that the focus of genetic engineering is not feeding the world, or allowing poor people to be self-sufficient; it is to maximise profitability of the products. So GM crop seeds are sterile. The buyer cannot obtain more seed by putting a proportion of his/her crop aside to seed next year's. They have to buy next year's seed from the biotech company that supplied last year's, and are thus at the mercy of that company's pricing structures. Once the market is saturated with the biotech companies' products, producers become hostages to a particular company. If they don't pay whatever the company demands (particularly in the third world, where the number of available foodstuffs is restricted), they simply don't eat. Lockin is irritating when practiced by companies whose product is inessential, like computer software. Whe it's applied to basic foodstuffs in the third world, it's potentially genocidal.

Until we declare all GM products open source and public domain, and hand over all GM research to non-profit organisations, GM has no place in a civilised society.

Posted by: F | November 9, 2010 7:30 PM

bullfrogger

Then you are very myopic or willfully ignorant, much like anti-vaxers or AGW denialists.

You can pretty much fuck off with your attitude.

If GM were a public effort, the results would be better. Yeah, "seed crops" have existed for a long time, but the current trend will only make things worse. Certainly, some things have actually improved, but mostly for the patent holders.

I didn't say I was against GM, either. But I am certainly against monolithic agribusiness. The whole shebang has been pretty much fucked since WWII, at least in the States.

Posted by: Big Blue | November 9, 2010 7:47 PM

sangomasmith:

Except new drugs don't need a decade of field testing prior to approval.

Yeah, they need at least 12 years, plus several years of follow-up Phase IV patient tracking--all in all, more like two decades. One of mine, currently in the clinic, has been stuck in Phase II alone for seven years straight due to patient mortality as the primary endpoint. It'll be at least another five in Phase III, plus another decade in Phase IV before it gets a real wide release. Originally tested preclinically... sheesh, I think my predecessor in the job did the initial tox screens and PK characterizations when Clinton was in office.

That said, I used to work for a company that did various government contracts, and the absolute nastiest regulations I ever dealt with were DoE. They're a bit touchy about that whole nukyular reactor melty-thingy.

I am actually a bit surprised that Monsanto hasn't given up on the biotech thing from a business standpoint. The research investment, especially in the field testing aspect you mention, is so much more onerous and spendy than the old-fashioned method, that it's hard to see 1) how one could possibly extract enough $$ out of the contract farmers for ADM et al. to make commodity crop seeds pay off and 2) how they justify it to investors--shareholders/investors really don't have a whole lot of patience for long-term risks these days. I mean, we're sitting here at MegaPharma curing cancer, and our finance guys don't think we are doing the world any favors with our work, so how does the CFO at Monsanto keep the scientists in St. Louis employed?

Posted by: ecpaulsen | November 9, 2010 8:03 PM

I am afraid John that you are either not reading my post or not comprehending them. See, anybody can skim a block of text and cherry pick a quote:

Good going.

Why thanks John! I am encouraged that you are beginning to see my overall point is one of personal and corporate behavior and NOT one of the science underpinning GM! Glad you are finally on the same page! See how that is disingenuous?

Do you want me to say that you are the arbiter of truth when it comes to all things GM? Okay, YOU are the man, the go to guy, congratulations! You win the discussion thread because you managed to point out what I said from the very beginning (I am no scientist - I don't understand genetic engineering) and turned it into me being an ignorant fearful Luddite. Give me your address and I will send you a certificate for a free bowl of victory soup.

Posted by: John Morales | November 9, 2010 8:18 PM

ecpaulsen:

Why thanks John! I am encouraged that you are beginning to see my overall point is one of personal and corporate behavior and NOT one of the science underpinning GM! Glad you are finally on the same page! See how that is disingenuous?

Why, yes. Because, all you were saying, earlier, was this:

Who here is going to tell me they can with certainty predict the evolutionary changes of GM plants growing in various environments exposed to variable conditions?

All I am saying is I DON"T KNOW and I urge more caution than we have seen thus far.

Posted by: jeffmyers777 | November 9, 2010 8:49 PM

I would just like to point out that I am SO very glad that we have people like Republican Congressmen John Shimkus to run for Chairman of the House Energy Committee. Seriously, if that video doesn't chill your blood nothing will.

Posted by: elzoog | November 9, 2010 8:55 PM

Being against GM crops becomes so not very funny when it causes third world countries to reject such food instead of feeding their starving people with it.

http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/afrec/vol16no4/164food2.htm

Posted by: SC OM | November 9, 2010 9:18 PM

glyphosate (Roundup)

*sigh*

Posted by: Travis | November 9, 2010 9:29 PM

@138, SC, why the sigh at that? I am confused.

Posted by: Ewan R | November 9, 2010 10:01 PM

Ubarfubious @ 103

Monsanto tried in the past to include a "terminator" gene into plants, such that after the inital seed is planted they can no longer reproduce (or at least the seed they create will be sterile).
And it looks like they're still trying it.

Reading comprehension fail. Monsanto acquired the "terminator" patent with their acquistion of Delta & Pine in 2007, Delta & Pine were going ahead with the technology according to their CEO in 2000 - which is the only suggestion that anyone is going ahead with commercialization - 7 years before the patent was owned by Monsanto and 1 year after Monsanto said they weren't going to persue it

What brings all this to mind is the recent controversy over Monsanto Co.'s development of infertile seeds--seeds that yield crops that don't reproduce so that farmers have to buy new seeds each year. From the farmer's point of view, the opportunity to buy infertile seeds can be a great boon. Instead of paying $100 for seed that should last 10 years, you pay $10 for new seed each year, which insures you against the possibility of a disastrous and expensive crop loss.

(Are you worried that Monsanto would charge just as much for the infertile seeds as the fertile ones? Don't be. Surely farmers are willing to pay much more for fertile seeds than for infertile, and you can be sure that Monsanto fully exploits that willingness.)

So much wrong here. First, people need to get clear that Monsanto don't use, and aren't developing sterile seeds - the terminator tech was developed by a company that Monsanto purchased (they purchased D&P to strengthen their position in cotton seed genetics, utterly unrelated to the terminator tech) so the whole "monsanto is developing or did develop" is totally inaccurate - they own the patent on one method of producing terminator seeds through the acquistion of D&P.
Second your whole $10 for a year or $100 for 10 years arguement doesn't work - the seeds we're discussing are hybrids, you buy them year in and out regardless - not because they're infertile, but because you don't get hybrid performance out of subsequent generations (I believe I'm on record on various blogs inaccurately stating that the yield should be at or above that of the inbreds - I learned to my chagrin that this is far from the truth after seeing what a field of corn looks like when hybrid seed is saved - 3ft plants next to 12ft plants and variants thereof inbetween - you'd be lucky to get 25% of hybrid yield out of a field like that) - buying new seed doesn't insure at all against crop loss - the cost of losign crop isn't that you have no seed for next year, its that you have no grain to sell this year - in short you're discussing a situation which is wholly improbable and doesnt remotely reflect how Monsanto does business.

Many high-yield hybrid seeds are infertile, though not by design. Like mules, they're naturally infertile.

Not in corn as far as I'm aware (and I don't believe in any of the other core crops Monsanto sells)

Much of the opposition had nothing to do with planned obsolescence and everything to do with concern that the Monsanto's infertility gene might "leap" from its seeds to fertile seeds in adjoining farms and eventually render those fertile strains infertile. Such hypothesized contamination is a legitimate concern and quite plausibly a sufficient reason to applaud Monsanto's decision.

It's not a legitimate concern at all, if the gene hops then the seed it produces is sterile, however every other seed produced on the same plant would be fertile (it is next to impossible to think that a field on an adjoining farm would be completely pollinated by a field elsewhere - particularly as cross pollination drops to near zero at separations of ~400ft)

The one worry I've heard is that transgenic GM food may increase chances of setting off a (fatal) allergy. EG: putting peanut genes into tomatoes may make tomatoes hazardous to those with peanut allergies.

People with peanut allergies aren't allergic to all peanut proteins - you'd have to be dangerously homicidal to knowingly put allergens into another species - regulatory bodies the world across require a comprehensive allergenicity test to allow for commercialization which leads corporate research to screen for potential allergenicity issues before a gene is even transformed into corn (which leads to some weird things like corn genes being rejected /grumble) - no shareholder is going to thank you for discovering a gene which boosts yields by 10% but fails regulatory due to allergenicity and therefore costs $50-$100M to get nowhere.

My kudzu example was intended to state that we may design an organism that accidentally behave like an uncontrollable weed that is capable of out-competing native species. The few thing I learn about evolution is that evolution is sub-optimal, it mostly result in a "just-good-enough" design. A potential danger with GE/GM is that we may design an organism that is far more optimal then evolution, and out-compete all natural organism.

Suppose they insert a protein from a food I'm allergic (corn) to into a food I'm not allergic to (rice)? Monsanto doesn't want GMO foods to be noted on food packaging. I should have the right to know this information, so that I can take care of my own health. This could be, after all, a life-or-death matter for me.

So GM crop seeds are sterile.

They have to buy next year's seed from the biotech company that supplied last year's, and are thus at the mercy of that company's pricing structures.

I am actually a bit surprised that Monsanto hasn't given up on the biotech thing from a business standpoint. The research investment, especially in the field testing aspect you mention, is so much more onerous and spendy than the old-fashioned method, that it's hard to see 1) how one could possibly extract enough $$ out of the contract farmers for ADM et al. to make commodity crop seeds pay off and 2) how they justify it to investors--shareholders/investors really don't have a whole lot of patience for long-term risks these days. I mean, we're sitting here at MegaPharma curing cancer, and our finance guys don't think we are doing the world any favors with our work, so how does the CFO at Monsanto keep the scientists in St. Louis employed?

glyphosate (Roundup)

*sigh*

138, SC, why the sigh at that? I am confused.

Posted by: Tmax01 | November 9, 2010 10:28 PM

John Morales;
I got as far as the "poisoning the well" bit, well, a bit farther, but gave up very quickly paying any attention whatsoever to your response. Your pedantry must be legendary, but you didn't respond to anything I said, you just wished to declare it all invalid for not passing your droll sophist parameter check. Buh-bye.

Posted by: operkins | November 9, 2010 11:07 PM

I'm going to make my first comment here and disagree with PZ. I think the topic can reasonably be interpreted to include abuses of the technique, and it is unreasonable to limit the scope of the topic to only the potential to improve sustainability.

Reasonable minds may differ, but this is the topic: "This house believes that biotechnology and sustainable agriculture are complementary, not contradictory."

In my humble opinion the topic is not as narrow as PZ states.

Posted by: ecpaulsen | November 9, 2010 11:32 PM

Ewan R - #142

Thank you for the information. I will look into it but you certainly make a compelling argument.

Posted by: Misfire | November 9, 2010 11:53 PM

I'd love to get some better food--say a tomato engineered so that it could be still be picked and shipped green yet ripen to have the taste and nutrition of a natural ripe tomato.

Or forget frankenfoods--how about prankfoods: grapes that taste like hamburger, carrots that taste like cheese; it'd confuse the crap outta people.

Posted by: MadScientist | November 10, 2010 12:34 AM

The winner (and presumably truth) is being decided by poll! Hah! Take *that* GMO!

The word "biotechnology" is nothing more than rebranding and regrouping of various activities from the past as well as emerging chemical and biological techniques. According to the all-knowing Internet, the word was invented back in 1919 (but I only heard of it a few decades ago). There's a site sponsored by Merk with some words about 'biotechnology':

http://www.biotechinstitute.org/what_is/timeline.html

So those filthy anti-science self-proclaimed "organic" farmers are also engaging in 'biotechnology'.

Posted by: MadScientist | November 10, 2010 1:05 AM

@gussnarp: I haven't had an interest in grain farming for over 30 years now, but back then we had a lot of varieties of rice produced by old techniques which produced hybrids with various improved characteristics. Many of those hybrids were sterile; you could plant their seeds but nothing would grow. The GMO crops are often sterile for the same reasons, not because evil Monsanto wants everyone to buy seeds from them every year. Going back to the old-time hybrids, even if you did save seed stock to plant the next year, you'd have a strange mix of crops rather than the hybrid dominating. It's a long known problem with gene expression and hybridization. It is also one of the big reasons behind the extensive use of grafting in orchards - if you plant seeds there's no guarantee that the fruit will have the characteristics you want, even if the parent plant had the most awesome fruit you've ever had - not even if you made sure the fruit was produced by cross-pollinating two plants with great fruits.

Posted by: F | November 10, 2010 1:49 AM

#145 bullfrogger

There are plenty of public GM efforts, but the idiotic, irrational roadblocks put up by Luddites and the regulators they control, have prevented nearly all of them from coming to fruition.

No kidding.

It is totally irrational to think that rice with increased levels of vitamin A (however that arose) would pose any problem anywhere, except to those priviliged pricks who have a vested interest in keeping the rate of blindness in children high. Yet, kneejerk reactionaries and the lackies they control at the regulatory agencies have kept this crop off the market for a decade now.

Again, no kidding.

Anything else?

Posted by: danielm | November 10, 2010 3:54 AM

The things that worry me about GM food isn't that it's genetically modified, it's that companies like Monsanto use their massive lobbying power to create rules that go global to protect their interests forever.

They patent genes which are uncontrollable in where they end up (so they exert control over crops that somebody else grows using somebody else's money), they make it illegal to collect seeds and actually grow them, they charge premiums, squash competition and frankly are setting themselves up to be the gatekeepers to the world's food supply.

I don't know about you, but I don't think giving a self-interested thug the keys to your own home and asking him to be nice to you as a bouncer is a good deal for anyone but the thug.

Posted by: sangomasmith | November 10, 2010 4:25 AM

@Big Blue:

That's me learned, I guess. On a similar note, I've always felt sorry for the biocontrol folks, who really have nothing but good intentions but still sit waiting forever in field trials.
I knew of a group dealing with a weedy plant who sat for 10-odd years in testing, only to have the new minister of environmental affairs decide she didn't trust her predecessor and order a new round...

Posted by: bemurray2008 | November 10, 2010 4:52 AM

On the Economist's site, lots of comments and guest speakers wanted to *define* sustainable agriculture first and then include or exclude biotechnology (or some parts of biotech) within the parameters of sustainable agriculture.

Is soil necessary to grow food?
http://www.verticalfarm.com/

Is a sustainable agriculture "small diversified family farms" out in the hinterlands or can we have urban farming using reclaimed water and a closed system say in Dubai or San Francisco?

Posted by: SC OM | November 10, 2010 5:39 AM

I would like to point out to SC here that I didn’t do it!

Didn't correct it, either.

History of the phrase – Roundup isn’t just glyphosate, the additives in various formulations of roundup are worth evaluating in and of themselves (and in combination I guess) when looking at safety – equating the two can be erroneous as you might then forget about the frogs amphibian species / aquatic organisms / ecosystems.

Fixed. (And what should be and has been tested are the products themselves, not components in isolation.)

Of course, Ewan "Mr. Information" R claimed just several months ago to have been unaware of POEA or Rick Relyea's work, depite spending a good deal of his time posting online about the company's products. I guess that's understandable, given the obscurity of the information.

Posted by: Big Blue | November 10, 2010 5:47 AM

Ewan:

Because a successful trait sold at say $5 an acre on 500 million acres makes a metric butt ton of money I would guess, estimates I’ve seen put a 10% yield increase trait in the region of a $1Bn product – well worth investing $100M in over 10 years.

Monsanto has been buying up quite a lot of competitors and smaller businesses in the past couple decades, but then again all the MegaPharmas seem to have Merger Fever as well. I'm just saying, either they are less greedy than MegaPharma or they are fudging their numbers or hell, possibly doing something more nefarious. I didn't used to think companies did much that couldn't be ascribed to pure stupidity, and then I saw what the Marketing department was capable of.

Posted by: arakrys | November 10, 2010 8:31 AM

Can somebody explain why some people here (bullfrog, Who Cares, PZ Myers) find it necessary to use ad hominems?
To call the opponents 'Luddites' and such and demanding evidence while themselves making false claims directly from the PR pit (world hunger, less pesticides).

I would like to see PZ Myers do a proper debate on, say, Richard's forum, defending that GM is "the very subtle fine-tuning of specific genes with modern molecular techniques".

It ain't, be real.

Posted by: bananacat | November 10, 2010 8:32 AM

The "Luddite" namecalling does not make you more persuasive, btw.

Aww, I'm sorry if I hurt your little feewings. I didn't realize that being impolite made my arguments any less valid.

We need a name to address this common problem. The "you're mean so you're wrong" trend is getting a bit annoying.

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | November 10, 2010 9:09 AM

Ewan: Thanks for the explanation. Small bone:

Genetic engineering is decades (if not centuries – if ever) away from being able to redesign crops such that they are drastically different in the way you describe, single genes or stacks of genes have no such potential in the near future.

The potential for transgenes to escape crop populations into natural congeners is real and has been the topic of research for years...two examples that spring to mind are the weed beets in Europe and sunflowers in the Americas.

Posted by: Who Cares | November 10, 2010 9:37 AM

@Bananacat(#170):
It is a problem of tone. They can't counter the arguments so they start crying about the tone of a post.

@arakrys(#168):
Me doing an ad hominem? Remove the mirror please before you talk about/to others (oh and that is also not an ad hominem since you attacked me as person twice in the short bit you wrote). First it is not an ad hominem if it is true. Second the derogatory term is backed up by reasoning why I think the term applies, seeing that I attack the faulty reasoning of the person and not the person it is not an ad hominem.

Also I see a nice pot-kettle-black moment.
You spit out an accusation without bringing proof. Show me where I made those claims, show me where I am blindly following PR. You can't do either since I didn't do either.

Now in case I'd go for ad hominems I make it clear. I'd do something like the following; You are a apogenous, bovaristic, coprolalial, dasypygal, excerebrose, facinorous, gnathonic, hircine, ithyphallic, jumentous, kyphotic, labrose, mephitic, napiform, oligophrenial, papuliferous, quisquilian, rebarbative, saponaceous, thersitical, unguinous, ventripotent, wlatsome, xylocephalous, yirning zoophyte.
But since I'm a nice person I won't be doing that.

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | November 10, 2010 9:42 AM

Now in case I'd go for ad hominems I make it clear. I'd do something like the following; You are a apogenous, bovaristic, coprolalial, dasypygal, excerebrose, facinorous, gnathonic, hircine, ithyphallic, jumentous, kyphotic, labrose, mephitic, napiform, oligophrenial, papuliferous, quisquilian, rebarbative, saponaceous, thersitical, unguinous, ventripotent, wlatsome, xylocephalous, yirning zoophyte.

That's not an ad hominem. That's just a very long, physiologically-improbable insult.

It would only be an ad hominem if you appended, "…and so your arguments are not worthy of response."

Posted by: SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu | November 10, 2010 10:00 AM

Its like everyone woke up and suddenly discovered that, oh shit, the large businesses that we've trusted to run large segments of our lives for the past few decades can actually do bad things! Except, instead of proposing something intelligent (like, say, refunding agricultural research by governmental institutions) they just want to shut the thing down at the level of technology.

Even if we decide that megacorp is unambiguously evil, it still doesn't make sense to give up on genetic engineering. The two issues are pretty much entirely seperate, because its not like Monsanto et al have a lock on crop engineering.
So using your fear of the big bad company to justify banning a technology that they happen to use is, well, stupid.

Whoa, hey, where did all this come from?

1. The discovery that megacorp is evil is hardly new. Check out any of the threads around here. Any time economics or politics come up, evil megacorp comes up too, because, well, evil megacorp is a major actor in our political and economic systems.

2. You don't know that structural reform of our agriculture system isn't on the table (it definitely is!).

3. Exactly who has proposed banning or shutting down GMO technology? The question seems to be, full speed ahead vs. slow down, investigate, get more transparency, get better regulation.

4. The question is, is GMO compatible with sustainable agriculture, and so the question of who is in charge of GMO tech and how they are managing its potential problems really isn't separate from the merits of the technology itself.

I have to say, after this, I'm feeling a little more dubious about Sangomasmith's other contributions, which I previously found informative and thought-provoking. Suddenly I'm forced to wonder if s/he is really arguing in good faith.

Is a sustainable agriculture "small diversified family farms" out in the hinterlands or can we have urban farming using reclaimed water and a closed system say in Dubai or San Francisco?

Sustainable agriculture MUST be both, and I am pretty certain it will incorporate genetically modified crops as well. The premise that GMO is a tool, to be used for good or ill, just like any other tool, is sound. But that does not the fact that thus far, GMO tech and products have definitely not been used in a way that's compatible with sustainable agriculture. And the way the system is set up, it seems like using the technology in a way that will further the goals of sustainability is something that is mostly on the back burner.

Posted by: Don | November 10, 2010 10:22 AM

SallyStrange #178,

4. The question is, is GMO compatible with sustainable agriculture, and so the question of who is in charge of GMO tech and how they are managing its potential problems really isn't separate from the merits of the technology itself.

Posted by: Ewan R | November 10, 2010 10:52 AM

And I'm arguing that there is a real possibility that you are wrong about that. For example, A Bt gene that crosses into wild populations confers resistance to natural predators that keep wild populations in equilibrium. Why couldn't one of these become a harmfully invasive weed?

Well first you'd have to assume that whatever is keeping the wild population in check is insect pressure and not something else - I'm not sold on this being the case, I'm also not sold on the idea that a transgene can cross over to a wild species particularly well anyway as it doesnt go over by itself but with 50% baggage from the wild crop - this in itself would be a huge evolutionary disadvantage that is unlikely to be overcome by resistance to some insect pressure.

I guess however the potential is there - which is what environmental impact studies are for - I would assume that for species which can cross easily to wild populations there'd be either tighter controls or outright rejection of the application (afaik corn, soy and canola don't really have that much of a potential to cross with wild species - and for beets the problem goes away somewhat as you harvest before flowering circumventing the whole reproductive wossname)

Resistance to a handful of insect species, while useful in an agronomic setting where it's a handful of species that impact your yield significantly, would not, imo, equate to "design an organism that is far more optimal then evolution, and out-compete all natural organism." which was the point I was countering.

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | November 10, 2010 11:34 AM

Well first you'd have to assume that whatever is keeping the wild population in check is insect pressure and not something else

I'm also not sold on the idea that a transgene can cross over to a wild species particularly well anyway as it doesnt go over by itself but with 50% baggage from the wild crop

I guess however the potential is there - which is what environmental impact studies are for - I would assume that for species which can cross easily to wild populations there'd be either tighter controls or outright rejection of the application (afaik corn, soy and canola don't really have that much of a potential to cross with wild species - and for beets the problem goes away somewhat as you harvest before flowering circumventing the whole reproductive wossname)

Only one study has evaluated the fitness effects of a transgene in a wild genetic background in an ecologically relevant environment. In field-planted BC1 and BC3 Helianthus annuus with a Bt transgene, lepidopteran damage was reduced to near zero, and seed production was increased 15-55% (relative to plants without the transgene), depending on the year and field site (Snow et al. 2003, Pilson et al. 2004). Because lepidopteran damage is known to reduce fitness in wild Helianthus annuus populations (Pilson 2000, Pilson & Decker 2002), this result is not surprising. Moreover, when BC1 plants were grown in the greenhouse (in the absence of herbivores), there was neither a benefit nor a cost of the transgene (Snow et al. 2003). These results suggest that, if a Bt gene were to escape into wild sunflower populations, it would increase in frequency by natural selection, and the rate of increase would vary in space and time as a function of the abundance of lepidopteran herbivores.

I don't find that this eventuality is considered at all in regulating GMOs. But you might know something that I don't.

*Pilson, D and H.R. Prendeville. 2004. Ecological effects of transgenic crops and the escape of transgenes into wild populations. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 35:149-174.
**Ignoring that crop plants can go feral without the assistance of wild-populations.

Posted by: SC OM | November 10, 2010 12:20 PM

On my way out.

Sven @ 171 - yes in areas where soybeans grow (and frogs probably don't occur in vast numbers, and are likely highly shielded from the effects of the herbicide as it isn't sprayed on them(as in Relyea's studies), but on the plants)

Anyone who wants to know how fundamentally dishonest and/or willfully ignorant Ewan is should read the studies in question - most are available at the link I gave above @ #164.

Posted by: Ewan R | November 10, 2010 12:33 PM

Anyone who wants to know how fundamentally dishonest and/or willfully ignorant SC is should read the studies in question - most are available at the link I gave above @ #179

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 10, 2010 1:34 PM

yeah, maybe
*eyeroll*

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | November 10, 2010 2:07 PM

Ewan: Ridiculously enough, my university doesn't have an electronic subscription to Nature Reviews. Imma havhe to get my ass over to the library if I wanted to read that. It is not happening today, I'm afraid.

Posted by: Who Cares | November 10, 2010 3:54 PM

bernarda(#189):
You argument is is bad and is bad therefor we shouldn't use .

The argument you made in (#165) has as much validity as the following:
There was a major air crash incident on Tenerife airport in 1977 and in 1986 Tjernobyl blew it's top (literally) therefor you should be against the use of the world wide web since the technology has only been around for about 20 years.

Posted by: SC OM | November 10, 2010 4:42 PM

From 2006 and including a paragraph on Relyea that I missed

although subsequently I read stuff in the following vein from the university of florida which again puts Relyea's work somewhat into perspective, particularly when considering agricultural useage

So I link to a list of probably more than a dozen studies published through this year which spell out Relyea's methods and respond to other articles (and to Monsanto's disingenuous attack on some of his work), and you offer a single article from four years ago (which I think you have mentioned in the past) with a paragraph mentioning Relyea? And one other piece that doesn't even appear to be from a peer-reviewed journal (and which refers to two studies - it's unclear exactly which assertions those are supposed to support - published prior to Relyea's 2005 work? Sad doesn't even begin to decribe it.

from 2000 which predates Relyea's work

Right. Because, as everyone knows, when it comes to science the older the article the better.

Oh, wait! That's not true at all!

Anyway, that's such a sorry POS (about humans)that it's smacked down on the Wikipedia page. (The discussion page is fairly amusing, too. People have tried to have "Monsanto uses that 2000 review study as the main source to support Roundup safety for humans" removed, but have been unsuccessful since they do in fact, as Ewan demonstrates once again!)

Posted by: Ewan R | November 10, 2010 5:44 PM

SC @ 196

So I link to a list of probably more than a dozen studies published through this year which spell out Relyea's methods and respond to other articles (and to Monsanto's disingenuous attack on some of his work), and you offer a single article from four years ago (which I think you have mentioned in the past) with a paragraph mentioning Relyea?

Given that this response was an explanation as to why I was previously unaware of Relyea's work I'm missing your point here somewhat.

Also this "single article" is a Review of the scientific literature, rather than a single article, as such it (in my mind at least) carries a lot more weight than a single article (sadly the references aren't numbered, but with ~7 pages of references it's pretty comprehensive) - its conclusions around Relyea's data stand despite more of Relyea's data coming later as Relyea's papers all state essentially the same thing - Roundup formulations with POEA are moderately toxic to some tadpoles (and mildly toxic to young salamanders) - this is part of the story but not all of it, it's exactly why roundup formulations with POEA shouldn't be registered for use in aquatic environments and is exactly why the fuggin instructions on bottles of roundup tell users not to use them in/near an aquatic setting.

Right. Because, as everyone knows, when it comes to science the older the article the better.

Again, I was stating that the source of my information around roundup safety was Relyea light and therefore my ignorance of his work, rather than being some evil ploy to hoodwink anyone I was discussing was because I was pretty unaware of his work.

Anyway, that's such a sorry POS (about humans)that it's smacked down on the Wikipedia page.

Oddly the 2006 paper isn't mentioned on the wiki article which is a shame as it comes to the same safety conclusions and includes POEA data - I actually prefer it as it's a) more recent and b) more comprehensive, including as it does POEA data which if I recall correctly is lacking in the 2000 paper. I also wouldnt agree that Monsanto uses the 2000 paper as its main support for the safety of roundup, it's just a useful catch all reference which links to the multitude of papers which provide evidence for safety - reviews are great that way, although they do appear in hindsight to be open to abuse by people who refuse to understand science (or insist on misrepresenting it to support their political stance) to decide that by quoting them you only have a single source of evidence rather than as a synthesis of multiple sources of evidence.

Posted by: SC OM | November 10, 2010 7:16 PM

Given that this response was an explanation as to why I was previously unaware of Relyea's work I'm missing your point here somewhat.

The claim I was responding to was about real-world concentrations. Relyea states and defends his methods, repeatedly.

Also this "single article" is a Review of the scientific literature,

Yeah, so was your 2000 joke. But capitalizing it makes it ever so impressive.

rather than a single article,

No, still a single article. Nice try, though.

as such it (in my mind at least) carries a lot more weight than a single article (sadly the references aren't numbered, but with ~7 pages of references it's pretty comprehensive)

Because number of references is a sure sign of value.

- its conclusions around Relyea's data stand

No, they don't. And does it have any conclusions about what Relyea has published in the past four years?

despite more of Relyea's data coming later as Relyea's papers all state essentially the same thing - Roundup formulations with POEA are moderately toxic to some tadpoles (and mildly toxic to young salamanders) - this is part of the story but not all of it,

Again, I encourage people to read the articles by Relyea as well as anything Ewan wants to throw up and to judge for yourselves. Just don't be fooled by his veneer of science.

it's exactly why roundup formulations with POEA shouldn't be registered for use in aquatic environments and is exactly why the fuggin instructions on bottles of roundup tell users not to use them in/near an aquatic setting.

Disingenuousness in action, once again. Read the studies.

Again, I was stating that the source of my information around roundup safety was Relyea light

You mean prior to hearing of him and of POEA from me? Quite the expert you are.

and therefore my ignorance of his work, rather than being some evil ploy to hoodwink anyone I was discussing was because I was pretty [! - interesting] unaware of his work.

You're such an asshole, Ewan. You spent months online in the past few years - well after Relyea's studies - posting about your company's products, but were [pretty!] unaware of either their contents or studies regarding their effects on ecosystems? There's no way for you to come out of this looking good: you're either ridiculously ignorant or a conscious liar.

But the point was that you were decribing Relyea's work as using methods that didn't correspond to real conditions, when this is bullshit.

Oddly the 2006 paper isn't mentioned on the wiki article which is a shame as it comes to the same safety conclusions and includes POEA data - I actually prefer it as it's a) more recent and b) more comprehensive, including as it does POEA data which if I recall correctly is lacking in the 2000 paper.

It's more recent than the 2000 POS, that's for sure. So that article's it for Ewan. Again, I encourage people to read the articles by Relyea and others.

I also wouldnt agree that Monsanto uses the 2000 paper as its main support for the safety of roundup, it's just a useful catch all reference which links to the multitude of papers which provide evidence for safety - reviews are great that way,

That would be more convincing had you not just attempted to do it (again) yourself! The huge problems with the 2000 "review" - aside from the fact that it was a decade ago and well before work like Relyea's had been done - are even spelled out on Wikipedia. Anyone can read.

although they do appear in hindsight to be open to abuse by people who refuse to understand science (or insist on misrepresenting it to support their political stance)

***!!!IRONY METER!!!*

Again, I encourage people to read the studies in question - all of them - and come to their own conclusions. And by the way, if you think these corporations are dedicated to scientific discovery, you might be interested in this and the information on the context of research under this regime as opposed to prior (which I can't locate at the moment but have somewhere). A situation in which research is dominated by vastly powerful corporations is not one conducive to the factors I set out in my first post on this thread (especially innovation and communication to serve real human needs).

Posted by: SC OM | November 10, 2010 8:31 PM

As we've discussed ad nauseum I wasn't aware of Relyea's work, and I rarely go to wikipedia for scientific information as it is a crap shoot - I was however remiss for not remembering the passage that Relyea's work gets in two reviews I relied on for my information (lazy of me to use the peer reviewed literature rather than wikipedia I know)

From 2006 and including a paragraph on Relyea that I missed

and

from 2000 which predates Relyea's work

O RLY. Where, specifically, is the reference to Relyea's work on Roundup in the 2000 POS? How is such a reference possible if the POS predates his work on the subject?

Posted by: John Morales | November 11, 2010 3:13 AM

Paul Blake:

My personal opinion is that they are just a bunch of Nazi's with suits on instead of uniforms.

Really.

You think they think they're a master race and aim for racial purity and a thousand-year Reich?

[1] One effect of Monsanto’s Agent Orange is the estimated 50,000 deformed children born to Vietnamese parents who were directly sprayed or were exposed through food and water since the end of that war. Do you want this company to have a free hand at developing GMO’s without a lot of control?

1. You should blame the military, not Monsanto, for the overuse of a known toxic chemical in Vietnam.

2. No less so than any other company that does such work.

Posted by: SC OM | November 11, 2010 4:31 AM

...1994 USDA, as Administrator of Food Safety & Inspection Service...

Oh, by the way, SO Duke is part of a USDA research unit. All very cozy.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 11, 2010 4:51 AM

They can both be blamed.

Once your korporation is committed to manufacturing scorched-earth defoliants, you'd be silly not to sell it to the only willing buyers for such stuff.
I'm sure all the proper warning labels were affixed.

Posted by: Ichthyic | November 11, 2010 5:06 AM

...I wonder if Ewan is actually a case example of astroturfing?

Posted by: Ichthyic | November 11, 2010 5:12 AM

Hurrah for peer reviewed $cience.

ah no, if Ewan doesn't have access, it's quite unlikely he's astroturfing, so no fun there.

still, he should apply for PR funding from whoever owns the roundup patent these days.

guys gotta make a living.

Posted by: SC OM | November 11, 2010 5:50 AM

ah no, if Ewan doesn't have access, it's quite unlikely he's astroturfing, so no fun there.

I think it's AE who doesn't have access. Ewan does through his, ahem, employer.

Sometimes, when my anger subsides, I think that Ewan is in a way a casualty of the corporate-controlled system. He has an abiding affection for and commitment to a technology. In circumstances in which technologies were chosen and developed on the basis of human needs and values, this wouldn't be a problem. But because of the existing system, he has to (well, doesn't have to, but feels compelled to) defend not only the individual technologies but all aspects of their corporate application, and to turn a blind eye to contrary evidence. I don't think he's a bad or dishonest person, and this makes me sad.

Posted by: AJS | November 11, 2010 11:07 AM

Every farmed crop is genetically modified, if you think about it. And I personally don't see the difference between the traditional method of genetic modification (by waiting for a random mutation to occur and then breeding from it) and the modern method. Whether or not a particular gene sequence is viable is determined by pre-existing laws of nature.

My only concern with GM being done industrially, is that it could be misused -- for example, to produce pesticide-resistant crops in order to sell more pesticides rather than producing pest-resistant crops; or to force farmers to purchase seeds from a single source. But these things can be dealt with by passing and enforcing laws.

Or they could, if we had a government who cared more about ordinary citizens than about big corporations.

Posted by: SC OM | November 11, 2010 4:06 PM

I’m not entirely sold on science by Wikipedia so I’m unwilling to write off the 2000 review (small r this time, thanks for the editorial input!) unless there are methodology issues in the underlying studies(which is why you’d reject, for instance, Seralini’s contributions) [?], or the inferences are utterly wrong rather than simply a dislike of the guy who wrote the review

So which of the criticisms of the "review," its (or the works') lack of comprehensiveness, do you contest specifically? (IIRC, Relyea specifically addresses some of the problems with earlier work in some detail). Do you believe the fact that scientists have ties to industry should not be considered in evaluating the possible biases in their work? If so, you're in disagreement with pretty much the entire scientific (and non-braindead) community.

(which is why the UCS report on yield is questionable)

Please.

(I’m thinking that discounting peer-reviewed science on the basis of who wrote it, rather than what was written, is borderline ad-hom (I recall Orac writing something similar once, although that was about dismissal of shills such as myself so may or may not mean a damn thing in relation to the scientific literature – I’m sure you’re utterly unpersuaded either way for all it matters))

(Notes again that specific criticisms have been made.) First, in a context of extensive corporate manipulation of research - both buying it and suppressing it - corporate influence should always be suspected as possible, especially when clear signs of bias appear. I have no doubt Orac would say the same about medical research, and in fact he's written about the issue. To suggest this with regard to Duke is completely ludicrous. I did my little investigating after reading what appeared some suspicious parts of his article. In addition to what I've quoted, they cite only one of at least three articles by Relyea on the subject from 2005, mischaracterize his work, and attempt to confuse the issue. This led me to be dubious, and sure enough, Duke is cozy with industry. At the very least, this should lead people to read his work on the subject with a very critical eye (there should probably be better oversight of conflict disclosures in general).

(This also relates to the general question here. If a technology is largely controlled by poweful corporations that can influence the research agenda, including on its dangers, that should be a factor in considering the adoption of that technology in the first place.)

Is this an attempt to turn my response into a Gish gallop of sorts?

What Ichthyic said.

The review

Which you again neglect to note is not a review of the literature on the toxicity of Roundup. In fact, that's only a short - bad, biased - section, containing only a single citation of Relyea.

pulls together a vast amount of literature which could in turn be cited –

If it's relevant, then you would have to discuss it. Because a selected list in a review like that is not a response to specific research.

it just seems rather silly to do so as the citations are… in the review. By the same argument you have only submitted a single web page, sure it has links to Relyea’s 10+ (and that’s only going to 2008, I get bored easily and ran out of fingers to count with) pesticide related articles and his other work (which ate my morning) but no, just a web page, nice try, though. (right?)

Wrong. I'm suggesting that people read the actual studies linked there, which I've discussed specifically in the past but don't have time to summarize now (which of course isn't preferable to people reading them anyway).

Well I wouldn’t put much stock in a review of eco-toxicological data that cited only a handful of articles, in terms of a regular scientific article number of references clearly isn’t a sign of value – but in a review it is at least partly indicative of the amount of literature which went in to the review itself (although as Ichythic rightly points out this isn’t the whole picture, if the references ain’t worth a damn then the conclusions drawn from them aren’t either - I'm of the opinion that they're worthwhile, obviously)

But Ichthyic is right, and that's not the only issue. This also revolves around the selection of articles and how accurately they're presented. (Not to mention what the review is a review of in the first place.) With regard to the environmental toxicity of Roundup, that article is a joke.

I was unclear here, probably because I was rushed , obviously the direct conclusions about not looking at specific ingredients don’t hold (they did for the 1st paper, but subsequent papers they clearly either don't or the distinction really isn't important G by itself does pretty much nothing, G+POEA pwns young tadpoles (although I am intruiged by the 2010 paper in which 2 week old tadpoles have far higher LD50 values - it appears that the window of lethality isn't all that big(albeit only for the species studied))– my assertion is that the conclusions about eco-toxicological impact of roundup in light of the Relyea studies still stands (in fact I’m surprised more wasn’t made of Relyea’s other findings given that for all but tadpole related doodads [!] Roundup was less impactful than the other herbicides tested (which is precisely the point I try to make))

Again, I encourage people to read Relyea's studies for themselves. The article Ewan cites mentions one, from 2005, and you can assess whether they've illuminated or obscured the question. We've had the conversation about these alleged comparisons before (people can read the studies for themselves), and I've always said that no chemical should be used that surpasses toxicity thresholds in normal real-world application (and Roundup is in fact banned in some places with a few use exceptions). This leaves out the fact that other, lower-input, effective methods of pest management (and agricultural approaches generally) exist and can be researched further and built upon.

I’ve read them, repeatedly, I don’t see what is disingenuous about the statement – roundup formulations with POEA aren’t registered for use in aquatic situations, precisely because of the toxicity of surfactants on aquatic organisms.

To others: read Relyea's articles.

Prior to POEA being brought up as such an issue yes (I have a feeling I was peripherally aware of it in discussions with Deborah Rubin over at the monsanto blog, but again it was a peripheral issue rather than central – my interaction with you on Pharyngula on the subject really is the first I’v edone any real deep dive into the subject, for which I’m grateful – I don’t believe I’ve claimed expertise in the area, my current area of specialty is NUE in corn and I wouldn’t even claim expertise in that

One would think that someone who cares enough to spend time online arguing about the products' toxicity would at least have bothered to, y'know, google it. How do you think I found it? That you were unaware of POEA and a large number of relevant studies of the product suggests that you're more concerned with PR than with gathering knowledge.

Well technically they don’t – they correspond to the absolute high end of real conditions as Relyea himself points out (worst case scenario)

And once again, I encourage people to read the actual studies.

(there’s a body of work on environmental impact quotients which I haven’t got into here, although I recall you roundly ignoring in previous debates)

If it's relevant to the specific question and research, and based on a comprehensive analysis of what's been done and not a selective or distorted one, go for it.

Interestingly that changed recently (at least for Monsanto) with This (which frankly should have been the case from the getgo, but that's legal for you)

Oh, I'm sure that portends a massive change in the company's approach to research rather than a forced PR move.

“the passage” in the two reviews – ie a single passage, ie it existed in only one of the two reviews.

"[T]he passage that Relyea's work gets in two reviews" is certainly ambiguous, but it should be telling (even if you didn't know about it before) to anyone with a brain that, in addition to one's being from four years ago and not even really on point (that in addition to other problems), that 2006 "review" mentions POEA a total of zero times.

that I’m a Monsanto employee working entirely outside the field of PR

It's just his hobby.

Ah now come on, I’m not morally human

?

and am either ridiculously ignorant or consciously lying – you’re normally at least consistent on these things, this statement makes me sad.

You misunderstand. First, you could be ridiculously ignorant without being a bad or dishonest person (although of course willful ignorance straddles the line and sometimes crosses it). Second, what I said was that sometimes I think your devotion to a technology in the existing context leads you to act badly and dishonestly, despite not being at root this kind of person.

Anyway, my primary purpose in this particular sub-discussion is to call attention to research on the toxicity or the product(s) and in connection to the duplicity of the corporation. People can read the pieces for themselves. It's one part of the issue, and one that reveals the real aims of the company. The broader argument I raised in my first post - and others, here and IAASTD have as well - is what needs to be addressed.

Posted by: Ichthyic | November 11, 2010 6:11 PM

It's just his hobby.

hey, like I said, he should apply for funding if he isn't getting paid to astroturf.

why do it for free?

His ignorance or willful dishonesty, either way, should be rewarded by his company if it benefits them from a PR standpoint.

It's the American Way(tm)

Posted by: Paul Blake, N.D. | November 13, 2010 3:41 AM

Check the facts Mr. Morales

Monsanto had deliberately hidden from the army the fact that the military version of the weedkiller 2,4,5-T, or Agent Orange, contained a much stronger residual concentration of the dioxin TCDD than the usual agricultural version. A now-released internal document from the firm Dow Chemicals, dated 22 February 1965, discloses a secret meeting of the main suppliers of “Agent Orange”, including Monsanto, held to “discuss toxicological problems caused by the presence of certain highly toxic impurities” in the samples of 2,4,5-T supplied to the army.

Posted by: OrchidGrowinMan | November 13, 2010 10:42 PM

John,

Why does that make hybrid corn dangerous?

SC,

Thiram is an ectoparasiticide. It is used to prevent fungal diseases in seed and crops. It is also used as an animal repellent to protect fruit trees and ornamentals from damage by rabbits, rodents and deer. It is effective against Stem gall of coriander, damping off, smut of millet, neck rot of onion, etc. Thiram has been used in the treatment of human scabies, as a sun screen and as a bactericide applied directly to the skin or incorporated into soap.
Thiram is nearly immobile in clay soils or in soils of high organic matter. It is not expected to contaminate groundwater because of its in-soil half life of 15 days and tendency to stick to soil particles.

Wow, it might be a fraction as persistant as caffeine!

I'm shaking in my boots lest somebody plant thiram-treated seeds in my country!