UCS

UCS response to my piece in SciAm

kbonham — Sat, 01 Jun 2013 11:14:03 +0000

UCS response to my piece in SciAm

On Thursday, I had a post published on Scientific American's guest Blog about claims that genetically modified food crops could contain allergens. In it, I am critical of the Union of Concerned Scientists (a science advocacy and policy organization), for what I read as misplaced opposition to genetic engineering:

The UCS’s concern about the dire state of our food system is well-founded, and I applaud their efforts to get out in front of the policy debate. There’s just one problem: they oppose using all of our technology to help combat this problem. Specifically, I’m talking about genetic engineering (GE) and genetically modified organisms (GMO)

Via e-mail and on twitter, some folks from UCS made it clear that they believe I've mischaracterized their position. They haven't given me permission to publish the e-mails, so I won't, but I'll try to paraphrase. I was told that UCS does not oppose all uses of GMOs, but they believe that current policy does not do enough to regulate new GE varieties, that GMO companies have too much power to push past the regulation that does exist, and that there are alternatives to GE that should be pursued more aggressively. You should check out their website to read their position for yourself.

I largely agree with their position on agricultural issues - there isn't adequate regulation of new crops, large industrial farms have too much influence, and we're too reliant on monoculture (growing a single variety of a single crop year after year). However, none of these problems are unique to genetically engineered crops, and I think the fact that UCS has singled out GE as a problem confuses these issues. If GE crops were banned tomorrow, all of these same problems would remain.

I should be clear that I support UCS generally, and their work on agriculture specifically. Their roadmap for healthy farm policy is a wonderful and succinct explanation for what's wrong with the way we currently grow food, and policy proposals to make it better. But GE is a technology (among others) that can help us make it better. Yes, they should be regulated, but so should new varieties produced by techniques like mutation breeding. Yes, we need to move away from monoculture and industrial farming practices, but that's true of GE and organic farming alike.

Genetic engineering, like any other technology can be used for good and for ill. It can be helpful and it can be dangerous. New regulations and policies should be technology-neutral, and focus on outcomes.

This post was also published at my new blogging venture, Red Wine and Lariam

kbonham Sat, 06/01/2013 - 07:14

Tags

Allergies/autoimmunity

Science Process

agriculture

crops

genetic engineering

GMO

UCS

I am totally in favor of GMOs if they produce useful things like drought tolerant crops, or crops which are resistant to disease. But, genetically altering a crop to be resistant to RoundUp, or other weed killers, so millions of acres of farmland can be drenched in herbicide is not my idea of sustainable, because it destroys the fertility of the soil. In regards to USC saying GMOs may cause allergies or toxins, I believe it is as the author says, “in principle possible”. So, I do not understand his problem with USC saying “GMOs MAY cause allergies or toxins”. They said MAY cause….not DOES cause.

No doubt - companies are using the technology in ways that don't further sustainable agriculture. But companies are using a lot of technologies that don't further sustainable agriculture - singling out this single technology as objectionable promotes the narrative of GMO opponents, namely that GMO = unsustainable, unhealthy and bad, while organic = healthy, environmentally friendly and good. Non-GMO farmers use herbicides and pesticides too, organic farmers use monoculture and industrial farming techniques.

So, I do not understand his problem with USC saying “GMOs MAY cause allergies or toxins”. They said MAY cause….not DOES cause.

Cell phones MAY be used to detonate bombs. A power drill MAY be used to rob a safe. Satellites MAY fall out of space and land on a person.

Does this clarify my objection at all?

this is a non-sequitur: "No doubt – companies are using the technology in ways that don’t further sustainable agriculture. But companies are using a lot of technologies that don’t further sustainable agriculture – singling out this single technology as objectionable promotes the narrative of GMO opponents, namely that GMO = unsustainable, unhealthy and bad, while organic = healthy" ...

as well as beside the point.---

as for, "But companies are using a lot of technologies that don’t further sustainable agriculture"...

So what? These, too, are just as objectionable. If the other objectionable uses aren't sufficiently insisted on, it does nothing to undermine the main point.

You'd apparently like to refocus attention "elsewhere"--but the "elsewhere" is a "difference without a distinction." To "argue" that "But companies are using a lot of technologies that don’t further sustainable agriculture" is to indulge in a distraction which happens to grant the point you prefer not to grant directly.

if it is objected--as it is-- that, in sum, " companies are using the technology in ways that don’t further sustainable agriculture" and you grant that, as you do, then the rest of your "But...." is so much palaver that does nothing pertinent to demonstrate that the point in question is rebutted.

Your argument is seen everywhere from young children who protest, "Yeah, but they did it, too!" to dictators who say, "Maybe I'm a tyrant but there are others, and some of them are even worse!"

From a scientist, that is not a respectable argument--though, from scientists, it's hardly less commonly appealed to than is the case from non-scientists. That is a shame.

So what? These, too, are just as objectionable. If the other objectionable uses aren’t sufficiently insisted on, it does nothing to undermine the main point.

It does undermine the main point, if your whole reason for objecting to GE technology is because of its use in unsustainable agriculture. It's as if I was lobbying against tractor technology because tractors are used in industrial farming. Or lobbying against cell phones because they can be used to detonate bombs. It makes no sense to lobby against cell phones, policy should be implemented to curtail bombs.

My point here is that policies should be implemented to curtail unsustainable farming practices regardless of the technology used. The fact that many other technologies are used in unsustainable farming is relevant, because people are not objecting to things like tractors and irrigation, despite the fact that those technologies are also used in unsustainable farming.

To your analogy about tyrants, this situation is more analogous to people objecting to the idea of fences, because fences are being used to imprison political dissidents. The problem is not the fence, it's the way the fence is used. I'm not saying, "look at those other tyrants that are worse," I'm saying, "The tyrant uses cell phones and loudspeakers and cars to suppress people's rights, too. The problem is not the fences, it's the Tyrant!"

RE:
..." if your whole reason for objecting to GE technology is because of its use in unsustainable agriculture"...

Excuse me, but I never argued that sustainability exhausts my objections to GE. It's one, and an important one, of the reasons I object to GE, but it isn't nor need it be the only one. Thus, you have a presupposition: namely that, apparently, the valid arguments boil down to a matter of "sustainable-or-not" and, since there are many other non-sustainable techniques in use, those who object to GE on that ground are bereft of a good argument.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Your view assumes GE as a precondition; it implies, 'There's is GE and there is going to continue to be GE" but in a dispute which opposes the a priori need for and use of GE in the first place, with, as one of several arguments, that it is also unsustainable, you're not entitled to the luxury of the flat assertion that GE is simply a "given" --this is what is formally called a petitio principii fallacy and it is mind-numbingly common.

Suppose, for example, that for some weird reason, it happened that GE techniques were "sustainable"? Would they, on that account, be any more likely to be safe, healthy, and desirable? It seems to me the answer is and ought to be, "clearly, no."

GE technixques, I argue, pose unnecessary dangers--unnecessary because we can do better by far without these measures--in addition to being, as you agree, unsustainable.

Excuse me, but I never argued that sustainability exhausts my objections to GE

You didn't, but this is a facet of many people's objections, and as you say it does not exhaust your objections, it seems to be a facet of yours. But as I've said before, the fact that a technology may be used for some awful purpose is almost a tautology. Any technology can be used for any number of nefarious purposes. We should object to the nefarious purpose, not the technology.

Thus, you have a presupposition: namely that, apparently, the valid arguments boil down to a matter of “sustainable-or-not” and, since there are many other non-sustainable techniques in use, those who object to GE on that ground are bereft of a good argument

Sorry, this is not my presupposition. The arguments around GMO are manifold, and I find it useful to unpack one at a time. My piece in SciAm was meant to address the concern about allergens. The comment I replied to here (and part of my response to UCS in particular) is around the idea of sustainable agriculture. That does not mean that I assume it is the only objection or that other objections are meaningless or inconsequential. One thing at a time.

Your view assumes GE as a precondition; it implies, ‘There’s is GE and there is going to continue to be GE” but in a dispute which opposes the a priori need for and use of GE in the first place

Is your position in the dispute that we should not use E. coli to produce human insulin? That we should not pursue gene therapy to treat human disease? That essentially all biomedical research done in labs around the country should be halted? All of these things use and depend on genetic engineering.

Even if you want to restrict the discussion exclusively to the use of GE in agriculture, the fact that the majority of corn, soy and cotton grown in this country already uses GE, and the fact that many farmers want GE products puts me on pretty solid ground with my assumption. I suppose we can have a philosophical discussion about whether we should have ever used the technology in the first place, but it seems to me that historically those opposing the advance of technology are tilting at so many windmills. I think a much more productive discussion is how can we shape the use of technology such that it tends towards beneficial rather than harmful applications.

The conclusion of that discussion may be that the benefits of GE in agriculture may not outweigh the risks, but the technology exists and is being used, I don't need to presume that much.

Suppose, for example, that for some weird reason, it happened that GE techniques were “sustainable”?

Again, you're missing the point here. Some products of GE may help with sustainability, and some products may not. The technology itself, the ability to precisely manipulate the genes of an organism, is neutral on this subject.

Would they, on that account, be any more likely to be safe, healthy, and desirable? It seems to me the answer is and ought to be, “clearly, no.”

I agree, clearly not. But again, I don't think any of those labels (safe, healthy, desirable) can be applied with a broad brush to anything produced with GE technology. I think that E. coli producing insulin is clearly all three things. I think that rice that produces beta-carotene to help make up for a nutritional deficit and prevent blindness is healthy and desirable, and most likely safe. If I manufactured tomatoes that expressed anthrax toxin, that would clearly be unsafe, unhealthy and not desirable (unless it was produced to make an anthrax vaccine, in which case it might be desirable).

I personally think that several of the GE products currently on the market are safe, health neutral and desirable. However, even if I granted that roundup ready corn is unequivocally bad, that would not be an argument against GE.

GE technixques, I argue, pose unnecessary dangers–unnecessary because we can do better by far without these measures–in addition to being, as you agree, unsustainable.

I actually don't agree. To restate (I know I've said this a bunch of times, but I want to be clear), GE technology itself may be used in unsustainable ways, but again, that's not any more informative than saying that tractors can be used in unsustainable ways.

As to questions of dangers, necessary or not, it's clear that I disagree with your conclusions, but that's beyond the scope of this post. As I said, one thing at a time.

I want to credit your attitude to the disussion here, however we disagree on the facts and the principles. Your readiness to read and consider and argue puts you light-years ahead of the tone and attitudes of other bloggers at other blogs in this site when discussing the same issues

Likewise :-). Even if we end up agreeing to disagree, it's nice to have a discussion where you don't accuse me of being a monsanto shill, and I don't accuse you of being an ignorant pseudo-science wacko. These are incredibly complicated issues, but I think they're important, which is why I'm taking so much time away from my experiments (using genetically modified mouse cells btw!) to discuss this.

P.S.

I want to credit your attitude to the disussion here, however we disagree on the facts and the principles. Your readiness to read and consider and argue puts you light-years ahead of the tone and attitudes of other bloggers at other blogs in this site when discussing the same issues.

I appreciate what you show so far in that respect.

"we need to move away from monoculture and industrial farming practices, but that’s true of GE and organic farming alike".

I don't believe organic farming is done either in monoculture or industrially, but when it comes to GE, isn't
science being used here, to enable these forms of production?. Indeed, GE tech would almost seem tailor made, if one was actually planning to continue, if not enhance, these very same destructive, business/farming practices.

There is certainly industrial-scale organic farming, and much of it is indeed monoculture. Organic farmers tend to be more environmentally conscious, and so are more likely than conventional farmers to move away from monoculture, which is great. But there's a lot of money in organic farming, and there's plenty of corporate and industrial organic farming.

And no, I don't think GE tech is tailor made to continue those destructive farming practices. In fact, I think there are a lot of ways that GE technology could help ameliorate those practices. For instance, GE varieties that are drought resistant and can grow with less water so we're not draining aquifers. I think Bt crops are great in that they reduce the need for chemical pesticides that inevitably get into runoff and groundwater. Unfortunately, the main players in GMO production are major corporations that care more about profit than the environment, so current varieties have often been put to use in destructive ways. It needn't always be thus.

Kevin, you said in your other post, "but this would have to be by malicious intent of the scientists, not some accident."

I don't think you have to mark this up to malicious intent by scientists. You just have to believe that a corporation may decide to maximize profits in a way that doesn't take into account unintended consequences for vulnerable sub-populations, or public health, or what-have-you. Unfortunately, this happens all the time -- drug companies, tobacco companies, chemical companies, oil companies. It's not some made-up fairy-tale. And I say this not to demonize corporations, but just to recognize that they are hard-wired to maximize profits.

The tough questions here are not about science per se, but about regulatory philosophy, precaution, risk, etc. Do we trust corporations enough to let them self-police? Or should we attempt to apply science-based and public health-based criteria in writing regulations? How should that process look?

"New regulations and policies should be technology-neutral, and focus on outcomes."

That is a lot easier said than done. The truth is that any regulatory regime probably won't be technology-neutral. No one is going to write one reg to "end unsustainability." What we have is a patchwork of laws, which impact GMOs in a variety of ways. And yeah, that's not optimal, but it is the political reality.

I'm curious what you think about policy specifics. On their website, UCS has a list of 5 policy goals for GMOs, and I'm curious if you actually disagree with any of them? They are pretty clearly NOT calling for a blanket ban on GMOs. I think that if you got into the regulatory weeds here you would find that your position is very close to UCSs.

I don’t think you have to mark this up to malicious intent by scientists. You just have to believe that a corporation may decide to maximize profits in a way that doesn’t take into account unintended consequences for vulnerable sub-populations, or public health, or what-have-you.

Fair point. I don't think this changes the conclusions though - that you need policy to address the damaging action or product, not the technology itself.

The tough questions here are not about science per se, but about regulatory philosophy, precaution, risk, etc. Do we trust corporations enough to let them self-police? Or should we attempt to apply science-based and public health-based criteria in writing regulations? How should that process look?

I couldn't agree more - and those are the conversations I WANT to have. Unfortunately, it's incredibly difficult to have those conversations amidst cries of "FRANKENFOOD!" and "BAN GMO!"

That is a lot easier said than done. The truth is that any regulatory regime probably won’t be technology-neutral. No one is going to write one reg to “end unsustainability.” What we have is a patchwork of laws, which impact GMOs in a variety of ways. And yeah, that’s not optimal, but it is the political reality.

I’m curious what you think about policy specifics. On their website, UCS has a list of 5 policy goals for GMOs, and I’m curious if you actually disagree with any of them? They are pretty clearly NOT calling for a blanket ban on GMOs. I think that if you got into the regulatory weeds here you would find that your position is very close to UCSs.

I think you're right here too. As I mentioned in both this post and the one at SciAm, I support UCS and a lot of their positions with respect to farming and agriculture. I think they lay out the problems with our current agriculture system quite clearly and I think most of their policy goals are quite sensible. I'm a huge fan of their healthy farms initiative (though that doesn't mention GMO at all). As to their specific policy goals around GMO, I'm fine with all of them except labeling (I'm on the fence on that one) - I don't necessarily agree that all of those things are needed, but I wouldn't object. Still, I think you can support those goals without the need to mislead people about the benefits and dangers of GMOs.

I should add that I do agree with your basic point. Policy should address the specific cases and harms, not the broad technology itself. It's just as silly to say "Ban all GMO" as it is to say that every possible genetic modification is "the same as" regular plant breeding and so should get an automatic free pass (as was the industry position for years).

In fact, I suspect that this problem will just get worse as the technology gets more sophisticated. Is it possible to write a law that will encompass the breadth of GMO technologies as they will stand 10 or 20 years from now? Probably not. We may need a taxonomy of different types of genetic modifications that are being brought to market, each with a different policy response. Some potential future products may require more scrutiny than others. Unfortunately, Congress doesn't always do "flexible" very well.

RE: "The comment I replied to here (and part of my response to UCS in particular) is around the idea of sustainable agriculture. That does not mean that I assume it is the only objection or that other objections are meaningless or inconsequential. One thing at a time."

Well, as this is your blog, all I can do is say, that's your choice, of course, but it seems to me a needlessly strained approach--but the epitome the way modern techno-science approaches almost everything, i.e. in isolation, though there are signs that this is beginning to change slightly.

One (too) brief answer RE medical research and GE:

I distinguish between GMO & GE research and development in médicine from that done in and by scientists and engineers in commercial agriculture and chemicals. Maybe I shouldn't make that distinction but I'm still prepared to grant enough good-will to the bullk of medical researchers' efforts in GE. Still, I'd argue that their efforts should ultimately be no less subject to a real, i.e. effective publicly-founded review and consent, without which latter, it should be prohibited.

I can easily accept that there may be instances where a very good case can be made for the use of GE (in your example, Escherichia coli in the manufacture of insulin) in medical care and in pharmacology. In such instances, the case should have to me made to the public, even if it's difficult and time-consuming and carries the "risk" that the public, in its ignorance, won't decide wisely in each case.

When it comes to public safety, the general public, being freer of the corrupting influences which abound as soon as one enters the realm of R&D, esp. as done today via centralized political and Financial interests, are much more likely to weigh in on the side of warranted caution, and the expert technocracy much more (& much too) likely to be corrupted by those just-mentioned influences--since the technocracy has selfish gain as a powerful motivator. Something has to be instituted against that and there is only one candidate: a public whose informed consent is requried for pursuit of what technocrats call "progress".

When you arrive at the point where you discuss "Who decides what is or isn't safe enough, and how do they decide, I'll be very interested in the issues surrounding those questions.

BTW, you may know--, as your comment may have been have allusion to them-- there are blogs and bloggers at this site who are indeed, little more than shills for Monsanto Co. It heartens me that you aren't among them.

"Bring the public along, or don't go there (unless and until you can)."

I suspect that pest protection GM will be transient, because pests will be selected to deal with the GM pest protection. Any reports yet of roundup resistant weeds? If not, just be patient.

Yeah, there are roundup resistant strains popping up all over the place. Google will sho you plenty of articles.

Union of Concerned Scientists Failing on Farming

kbonham — Tue, 14 May 2013 11:37:13 +0000

Union of Concerned Scientists Failing on Farming

Ok, this is a little different, but it's annoying, so I'm going to talk about it.

Let me begin by saying I love the Union of Concerned Scientists. They've been wonderful advocates on climate change for decades; they are media savvy, they train scientists to be media savvy, and they push the media and policy makers alike to understand the scientific consensus. When it comes to climate change, I trust them over just about any other source.

Which is why it's so disappointing that they are so wrong on genetically modified organisms.

Several years ago, UCS decided to branch out into the science of how we grow our food. This should be a wonderful thing - our agriculture system is badly broken, and there are scientific and technological solutions to help feed a growing human population while minimizing environmental impact.

There's a better way to grow our food. Working with nature instead of against it, sustainable agriculture uses 21st-century techniques and technologies to implement time-tested ideas such as crop rotation, integrated plant/animal systems, and organic soil amendments.

Sustainable agriculture is less damaging to the environment than industrial agriculture, and produces a richer, more diverse mix of foods. It's productive enough to feed the world, and efficient enough to succeed in the marketplace—but current U.S. agricultural policy stacks the deck in favor of industrial food production.

We need evidence-based advocates pressing this message, and UCS recently put out a big press release on a path to environmentally sustainable farming. They've got great information and resources, and I'd love to recommend them as a one-stop-shop for scientific information about the way we grow our food. But I can't, and it's because of this:

While the risks of genetic engineering have sometimes been exaggerated or misrepresented, GE crops do have the potential to cause a variety of health problems and environmental impacts. For instance, they may produce new allergens and toxins, spread harmful traits to weeds and non-GE crops, or harm animals that consume them.

There's so much here to address, but I'll just point you to others that make the points that genetically engineered crops are or can be more environmentally friendly, and there's never been a credible report of any pathology linked to GMOs. There was recently an entire issue of the journal Nature (one of the most well-respected science journals in the world), in which even the most critical article basically exonerated GMO of any health impacts.

Yes, there are problems like herbicide resistant "superweeds," but this is not a problem unique to GMO - any strategy to stop pests, be they insects or weeds in agriculture, or infectious microbes in humans will lead to resistance. The mechanism is different but the end result is the same. It's also clear that there are bad uses of genetic engineering technology. And there are problems with monoculture and unsustainable farming and overuse of pesticides etc etc, but once again, these are not products of GMO technology, they are a products of industrial farming - practices used by farmers of organic and GE crops alike. UCS is right to advocate for reform of these practices, but genetic engineering is a technology that could help us escape from these practices, not a barrier to reform.

The scientific consensus on GMO may not be quite as clear as on climate change, but it's close, and it's upsetting that the UCS is joining in with the anti-science crowd on the potential risks.

kbonham Tue, 05/14/2013 - 07:37

Tags

Got some bad news for you, they aren't accurate about climate change either.

If they're wrong, so are the vast majority of scientists that study the climate.

Their record on nuclear power is also pretty troubling.

"any strategy to stop pests, be they insects or weeds in agriculture, or infectious microbes in humans will lead to resistance."

And when that strategy is in the hands of an industry who's need for profit outweighs any long-term considerations like soil conservation, various resistances in target and non-target organisms, and secondary human health effects, we can expect exactly those results. I don't think GM crops are inherently harmful either, but based on past evidence, handing the responsibility for careful management of our agricultural future over to GM crop patent holders seems insane.

handing the responsibility for careful management of our agricultural future over to GM crop patent holders [any corporate interest] seems insane

I agree whole-heartedly. We should all be appalled at industrial farming techniques that are unsustainable, energy intensive, and detrimental to the environment. Of course, organic producers use many of the same techniques (monoculture, energy-intensive harvesting, heavy pesticide and fertilizer use etc), it's not unique to GMOs.

Farmers, and agriculture suppliers like Monsanto want to maximize profits, there's no surprise there. It's our terrible agriculture policy that allows them to do so without regard to environmental impact (in some cases we incentivize that bad behavior). But again, these criticisms are true with or without GMO's being in the mix.

There may not have been any studies showing environmental or health problems, but I'm pretty cynical on the issue. Every study I've seen or seen used as a reference has had some tie to a large agri-business concern. It's been shown over and over that the source of the money for studies tends to have an effect on the studies. Till we get some independent research, I'm waiting to see the results of the big test we're doing with the US population and environment as the guinea pig. It'll be hard to differentiate the outcomes from the multitude of other untested processes and chemicals we feed the nation, but maybe someone will be able to make a statistical study out of the sheer numbers.

Yeah. It's unfortunate that they let their ideology trump their facts on this topic. It undermines their other work. They really ought to get a handle on that.

For some reason, Consumers Union has decided to get into this game as well. They started out just being advocates for GMO labeling (presumably because they think there should be some consumer right to transparency on this). But now they've gone over to actually claiming they're unsafe. They just ran an ad in the LA Times on an unrelated agricultural issue, but taking a swipe at GMOs along the way: "Trader Joe’s has demonstrated its commitment to its customers’ health by saying no to GMOs..." Science? Who needs it?

That's annoying. And I love Trader Joe's... sucks that they're buying into the hysteria.

Though to be fair, it's hard to blame them - GMO's have such a terrible reputation, it's good PR to do it (I believe Whole Foods did the same thing a while back).

Sorry, but although I think UCS got this particular point wrong (that is, there doesn't seem to be any good evidence that eating GM crops is harmful to the consumer), there are plenty of other arguments against the use of GMO crops that are far more legitimate, and which you and many others continually gloss over.

At least you do acknowledge that industrial farm practices are terrible in general for the environment. I completely agree that handing over control of the food supply to ANY corporate interest is a terrible idea both for food security and the environment - not to mention the long term effects on our health.

But you don't seem to realize some of the problems that are inherent specifically and uniquely to GMOs, or at the very least are exponentially compounded by GMOs. The biggest issue is that unlike conventional plant breeding, GMOs cost millions to develop, and therefore the stakes are high. A company that develops a GMO must gain a huge market share in order to turn a profit. This inherently leads to an exponential decrease in biodiversity, and because GM crops can still interbreed with other locally developed crops, given how aggressive these companies are in enforcing their patents, it becomes near impossible for any farmer who's still attempting to grow traditional crops to co-exist with GM farmers.

And while it's true that resistance (in the form of "superweeds" and "superbugs") is a problem with any pest management strategy, again GM crops exacerbate the problem by a huge factor, because they have become so widespread in such a short time (which, again, they have to in order to turn a profit) that resistance is likely to (and already has in some cases) affect huge numbers of farmers at the same time (and all the hopefully obvious danger to the food supply and the environment that that entails), including those farmers who choose not to grow GM crops but have to live in proximity to those who do.

What we need to ensure environmental sustainability and food security is more people engaged in breeding and producing food crops, not less. We need thousands of micro-labs and millions of micro-farmers, not six seed companies dominating 90% of market share (as is the case now in the US and many other countries) - a figure for which GM is largely responsible.

In other words the Mansholt Plan has really not worked out so well, and GM is just the "logical" (extreme) endpoint of it.

Also roundly ignored is the fact that GM crops do not actually do what they promised to do. They do not actually increase yields long term, and they are not actually necessary to feed the world - other methods (that are more knowledge intensive and less "product" intensive) have been proven by several long term studies to be more effective and in fact completely necessary to feeding the world and sustaining the environment than any strategy that includes any widespread use of GM crops. While these studies acknowledge that GM crops potentially could be incorporated into sustainable agricultural plans, the role the would play would be rather small - too small to satisfy their makers' cost-benefit ratios. Therefore as a practical matter, it's unlikely that GM crops (at least as we know them today) can play any role at all in a sustainable, secure and high-yield agricultural system, and furthermore they are not necessary, as there are plenty of conventional breeding techniques that can be practiced far more broadly at universities, agricultural extensions, nonprofits and independent breeder-farmers which will produce much more diverse and localized genetic traits, at far less R&D cost, and of course far less expense to the seed buyer.

I could go on. But seriously, I am all for continuing genetic *research* but to say that the opposition to GM crops is "hysteria," that anyone who opposes them is "anti-science," that "organic production has the same problems" (it *can*, but it generally doesn't), or the intimation that there's nothing all that different about GM crops vs. traditional plant breeding... this is all very unscientific, short-sighted and plain wrong.

I will also add that while the jury is still out on the effects of GM crops on the health of their consumers (and there's a single answer to that question anyway - impact on health completely depends on the individual GE trait, so one GM crop may be harmful while another isn't), the evidence is growing that they do have a negative effect on wildlife. To some extent this is because the GE traits in the existing commercial GM crops were engineered specifically to resist ever larger quantities of herbicides and pesticides, resulting in unprecedented amounts of these herbicides and pesticides being dumped onto fields. To suggest that these wouldn't have any health effects on farm worker or surrounding wildlife, and possibly consumers as well, would be pretty foolish, even if we don't have enough long term studies yet to make any specific claims. Remember, GM crops have achieved a huge market penetration in a very short time. Taking the attitude that "absence of evidence = evidence of absence" is completely insane when you're mucking around with the entire world's food supply and the entire ecosystem of arable land. At the very least, we should be regulating the proliferation of these crops until their impact can be better understood through long term studies - but this will not do for the biotech companies' profit margins, so we don't.

Bt crops are another matter entirely, because they have a natural "pesticide' engineered right into the plant. Bt is a bacterium that kills the larvae of many pest insects, and is often used by organic gardeners and small farmers as part of an integrated pest management system.

The insanity of actually breeding this pesticide into a plant and then planting it on a widespread basis ought to be self-evident, but apparently it isn't. So let's elaborate: all the biotech industry has done is render a useful part of an integrated strategy completely useless within a few years. It's tantamount to breeding a particular strain of antibiotic into every baby, instead of giving them an antibiotic in a small localized dosage, and only if they actually need it. This approach is not only ineffective in a very short time, but dangerous, since it ensures the rapid and widespread development of resistance, long before new strains can be developed to combat the new "superbugs." And yet, millions were spent to develop this trait that anyone can see will only be effective for a few years, so total and rapid market penetration is essential to the company's survival.

I guess if there's any "good" news here it's that it may not even be profitable to the biotech companies at all for very much longer. Sad that this must be the driving factor behind any return to sanity, but it's probably the case.

Lee! The "jury is still out on the effects of GM crops" is like the jury is still out on O.J. Simpson! The Nature article and the absolute scientific consensus is that there is absolutely zero evidence of harm over 20 years of evaluation and 10 years in widespread deployment.

Sure, there are challenges and they will be met. "Superweeds" are not so super. Resistant to one herbicide. New technologies will cut glyphosate use and improve efficacy.

For Lee Flier: You wrote: "This inherently leads to an exponential decrease in biodiversity, ..."

I am always intrigued by this claim, which I hear from anti-GMO people all the time. To me it sounds almost like an oxymoron. I would expect, and we actually observe, the exact opposite.

First, when any new gene is added to a species' gene pool, that would have to be considered an INCREASE in biodiversity. To argue that any new genetic trait decreases biodiversity, you have to say that it is so advantageous to the plant (or to the farmer) that it crowds out some other traits. But what happens in reality is that the new gene coexists with other traits instead of replacing them. An insect resistance gene doesn't displace genes for chlorophyll, or genes for water storage, etc. The other wrong idea is that all the farmers buy the GMO seed and stop buying non-GMO seed so that older varieties disappear until there's only one variety left. That's also based on the fallacy that the GMO varieties are all the same. But when a GMO plant is first created, the breeders cross it into many other varieties of the crop, so that the farmer can select whatever other traits he needs. If you go to any on-line seed catalog and pretend to be a farmer wanting to buy seed, you will find dozens of choices for the GMO seed, optimized for various locations, climate, planting time, etc. In fact, since the first GMO varieties were introduced, in the mid-nineties, the actual number of varieties offered for sale to farmers has approximately doubled, not decreased.

For the Bt types of GMO, there's an additional layer of unreality to the biodiversity argument. By law, when you plant a Bt crop, you must also plant along side it a non-Bt crop. The two kinds of seeds are mixed together in the same bag of seeds. That's a very strong protection of biodiversity - if the non-GMO variety was not available the seed company could not sell you GMO seed at all.

Regarding GMO (GE) food crops: A prudent scientist would prefer to err on the side of caution when the food supply is involved. I can make arguments pro GMO foods but it's just that argument. There is no data to support the notion that there is no harm. We all thought DDT was a good thing once upon a time. I seems odd that drugs which very few people will actually use require rigorous testing but food which every one uses requires none. Will we wait as long on the verdict on GE food as we waited on climate change? That is, until it's too late.

Sorry for the delay in approving your comment.

A prudent scientist would prefer to err on the side of caution when the food supply is involved... There is no data to support the notion that there is no harm.

That's just it, there are plenty of studies that show that GMO's are not harmful. Also, there's no reason a priori to think that they would be harmful. Also, there are no credible studies suggesting that they are harmful.

I seems odd that drugs which very few people will actually use require rigorous testing but food which every one uses requires none.

That would be odd, if it were true. I will point you to a recent article in Grist, hardly a bastion of corporatism: http://grist.org/food/the-gm-safety-dance-whats-rule-and-whats-real/

Will we wait as long on the verdict on GE food as we waited on climate change?

This is probably the greatest irony of the GMO debate. The same people that believe the science on climate change and decry the anti-science people on the other side, are completely anti science when it comes to GMOs. And GMO technology is one of the things that could help mitigate the effects of climate change.

The arguments that Global warming deniers make about people that believe the science: it's a conspiracy cooked up by liberals to increase the size of government, are basically the same as the arguments of anti-GMO folks, only it's a conspiracy cooked up by businesses to increase profit. Global warming deniers also think that it's scientifically controversial (it isn't), and they think that in the absence of strong evidence, we should be cautious and not disrupt markets by trying to deal with climate change. This is the essentially the same argument you're making with respect to GMOs.

I wanted to reply to the gentleman or woman who noted he'd not seen studies showing GMO's adverse impacts, but was concerned that was only because Monsanto impedes genuine research .

In fact, while Monsanto does seek to stop independent scientists from researching their GMOs, there has been quite a bit of research nonetheless evidencing GMO dangers.

You can find it at these sites:

http://gmoevidence.com/location/lab-evidence/

http://www.gmfreecymru.org/pivotal.htm

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GE-agriculture.php

http://sustainablepulse.com/

http://www.gmwatch.org/

http://earthopensource.org/

Hope this helps.

I note my comment is awaiting moderation. I have screen saved this page with my stalled comment, and will make it known that science blogs censors if it is not approved. I hope it is soon proved my suspicions were mislaid.

thanks

Not censored, but I haven't written anything in a while, and most of the comments I receive during lull times are spam, so I only check every couple of days.

Edit: Wow, and your comment was held for like 4 minutes before you cry censorship? All first time commenters on this blog are held in moderation until I approve them - it's a spam fighting measure.

Charles M Rader wrote:

"I am always intrigued by this claim, which I hear from anti-GMO people all the time. To me it sounds almost like an oxymoron. I would expect, and we actually observe, the exact opposite.

First, when any new gene is added to a species’ gene pool, that would have to be considered an INCREASE in biodiversity. To argue that any new genetic trait decreases biodiversity, you have to say that it is so advantageous to the plant (or to the farmer) that it crowds out some other traits."

This is true as applied to plants in the wild. It doesn't apply to domesticated crops, which generally can't survive anyway without human intervention. Biodiversity in the food supply doesn't happen naturally by genetic advantage; it happens because people (farmers and breeders) choose which crops to plant and cultivate. Therefore, the world's food supply depends not on natural selection but on created ecosystems, and in many cases the genetic traits that are given the "advantage" by farmers are not traits that would otherwise be an advantage (i.e. natural defenses against plant disease, drought, etc).

When farmers breed their own plants, and/or new breeds are developed at public universities and other research centers, they breed for a range of traits and thus we have many thousands of varieties of crop plants that have been adapted to a wide variety of climates, soil microbes and a host of other factors. That's what biodiversity looks like.

GMOs, on the other hand, tend to be focused on a single trait or perhaps a few traits, and they are only bred by a handful of companies. Independent farmers and researchers are not allowed to save their seeds and adapt them to any other local conditions, and since so many farmers are now planting the purchased GMO seed (which, again, is one of a very limited number of varieties) in the same fields where they used to grow their traditional varieties, biodiversity is greatly reduced. Saved seed for most annual crops doesn't remain viable for more than a few years, so unless localized crops continue to be cultivated, and the seed saved, the traditional strains will die out. This is not good for biodiversity.

When someone says "when any new gene is added to a species’ gene pool, that would have to be considered an INCREASE in biodiversity," it's obvious they are greatly underestimating the number of plant varieties that actually exist vs. the paucity of GMO varieties (and that can never change as long as GMOs are patented and expensive to develop). The addition of one new gene to the gene pool is a drop in the bucket compared with the number of genetic traits it is replacing in cultivated environments. This spells eventual disaster to the food supply, if the trend continues as it has and there are no longer enough viable seeds from diverse sources to rejuvenate the gene pool quickly enough to recover from a massive crop failure.

Independent farmers and researchers are not allowed to save their seeds and adapt them to any other local conditions,

This is true, but most industrial farms were not saving seeds anyway. Seed companies - even those not using GMO - create hybrid crops that have all the desired traits, but don't breed true. So in order to have the desired crop, farmers had to buy seeds yearly anyway (see here).

This spells eventual disaster to the food supply, if the trend continues as it has and there are no longer enough viable seeds from diverse sources to rejuvenate the gene pool quickly enough to recover from a massive crop failure.

This is a problem of monoculture, not GMO. Take a look at the recent story about oranges in the NYT. Oranges and other citrus crops all around the world are suffering from a common disease, and there aren't any resistant varieties being cultivated. Oranges have never been genetically modified, but monoculture and lack of diversity is still a problem. Same goes for bananas, papaya (see: GMO papaya that saved them from fungal infection) etc.

Genetic diversity in the food supply is certainly an issue, but let's not pretend it's a problem solely for GMO. In fact, as the orange story makes clear, genetic modification might be a solution to the problems caused by monoculture and lack of genetic diversity.

I have a concern with the new adaptation of GMOs with RNAi. These implementations will kills the bugs that consume the crop by stoping protein production and RNA traslation. This is the same crop that we consume. I worry about how humans would adapt to this modification after years of consumption. It is naive to believe that we are to remain unharmed.

Kevin,

Sorry I forgot to come back to this thread - for some reason the "notify me of followup comments via email" option isn't working for me.

Anyway, of course loss of diversity is a problem "of monoculture, not GMO." And of course hybrids have the same issue in terms of not being able to save seed (although independent breeders can develop their own hybrids, as the cost isn't too great). I said in my very first comment (#10) that industrialized agriculture in general is terrible for the environment and for food security.

But that's just it - GMO inherently exacerbates the problem of monoculture, for the reasons I stated earlier. GMO is pretty much fundamentally incompatible with small scale, locally adaptive breeding. To top it all off, nearly all GMO traits are patented, so a small farmer or breeder, say, in a developing country can't develop their own varieties with GMO traits unless they pay a license fee they can't afford. Therefore it's a "solution" that is locking us further into monoculture when we ought to be adopting techniques that move us further away from it.

Moving away from monoculture will also help stop the spread of diseases like the ones now affecting oranges (and bananas, which are showing signs of similar problems). We need to put breeding technology into the hands of more people, not fewer, and adopt more integrated plant and soil management practices.

Proponents of GMO make statements like "we *need* GMO to feed the world" when, in every case that has come up so far, it's not only unnecessary but supplants practices that are superior. The fact is also that famine usually results not from actual shortages in production but from political causes - people are often displaced from productive land (due to poverty, debt and/or societal unrest) and either lose their farmland or their crops are destroyed or plundered. This isn't something GMO or any farming technology can fix.

You may want to take a look at this report from the U.N. specialist on food. It cites a number of long term studies across a large number of countries, which conclude that agro-ecology is the recommended strategy for "feeding the world" in the face of climate change and expanding population - not industrialized agriculture which includes GMOs. Considerable doubt is expressed whether GMOs can really be integrated into an agro-ecology system as a practical matter, or in fact whether it's even necessary.

http://www.srfood.org/en/report-agroecology-and-the-right-to-food

Vote for your favorite cartoon

illconsidered — Sat, 28 Jul 2012 00:50:16 +0000

Vote for your favorite cartoon

The UCS is having a cartoon contest, go here to vote for your favorite. Please feel free to vote for any of my favorites, below ;-)

(This last one is confirmed by many of the past discussions around here!)

illconsidered Fri, 07/27/2012 - 20:50

Tags

The Center for Science and Democracy

kbonham — Wed, 23 May 2012 14:30:23 +0000

The Center for Science and Democracy

Last week, I had the privilege of attending the launch of a new initiative from the Union of Concerned Scientists - The Center for Science and Democracy. The UCS itself was founded in the late 1960's in response to the Cold War nuclear arms race. Graduate students and faculty at MIT decided that someone needed to advocate for "greater emphasis on applying scientific research to pressing environmental and social problems rather than military programs." That goal seems even more important in today's political climate, though the issue today is not between environment/society vs military, but about whether science will inform our policy at all.

Since its inception, the UCS has been one of the leading science advocacy organizations, especially on the issue of climate change, but this new initiative seems aimed at making the link between science and democracy more explicit. Science has something to say about almost every major policy issue that faces our government, and we need to make sure that evidence-based analysis plays a roll in decision making. In his opening remarks, speaking about John Adams, UCS president Kevin Knoblauch said

Like many of the founders, Adams exemplified a bold American pragmatism that put problem solving above partisanship, and sought to base our government's policies on the best available scientific and technical evidence and the most up to date understanding of the world[...]

John Adams even spoke of the “science of government.” In a debate with Benjamin Franklin in 1776, Adams invoked the principle of mechanical equilibrium to argue on behalf of his conception for our government’s system of checks and balances—designed, at least in part, to ensure policies based on verified, trustworthy evidence.

The new Center for Science and Democracy (CSD) will have a number of different initiatives, the most exciting of which (in my opinion) is a series of public forums and workshops, aimed at bringing together scientists, policy makers and the general public. It's clear that scientists can't just sit back and hand down facts from on high, and expect that this alone will convince people. We need to be evangelists. Here's hoping the CSD can actually make a difference.

The whole event - including a panel discussion moderated by Steve Curwood, host of National Public Radio's Living on Earth, featuring Lawrence S. Bacow, the president emeritus of Tufts University, Jessica T. Mathews, the president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and Harold Varmus, Nobel laureate and director of the National Cancer Institute - is available to view online. It requires Silverlight (if you stream netflix, you already have this - if not, it's easy to download), and the interface is a bit strange. There's a slideshow associated with it, but the slide never changes, so once you're done admiring Ben Franklin, you can press the button to the right that says "swap media elements" and then the one above it that says "full frame" in order to give priority to the speakers.

kbonham Wed, 05/23/2012 - 10:30

Tags