Written by Steve Savage
From what I read on various blogs and comment streams, there is way too much angst out there about GMO crops. Too much angst because every significant panel of scientists that has reviewed this technology has concluded that it is as safe as any other domesticated food crop. Too much angst because the reality is that only a small number of crop species will ever be genetically engineered for commercial use. There are four main reasons why this is the case:
1. Brand protectionism
2. Unfavorable economics
3. Other ways to achieve the same goals, and
4. Anti-GMO activism
1. Brand Protectionism
For most crops, somewhere along the chain of commerce from the farmer to the consumer, there is a step where there is considerable “concentration.” This means that much of the market is in the hands of one or a few players. A classic case is potatoes. In the US, McDonalds corporation is such a dominant buyer of frozen fries, it was able to stop the commercial deployment of biotech potatoes with three phone calls. Unlike standard potatoes, the GMO potatoes in question are not planted into a supply of insecticide sufficient to be picked up by the roots for 60 days because they make their own, super-safe and specific “pesticide” in their leaves (Bt). The GMO potatoes also don’t need to be sprayed for aphids close to harvest because they are resistant to the virus those aphids spread. The potato growers were extremely excited about the technology, but purely for the sake of brand protection, McDonalds was able to deprive the entire industry of this advance. Potatoes are still a perfectly safe food. It could just be easier on the growers.
There are other cases of this sort of brand-protection power. The major frozen food companies and grocery retailers have been able to block most use of “Bt Sweet Corn” which could save farmers 8-10 insecticide sprays/season. Frito-Lay blocked the use of GMO, Bt white corn for corn chips even though that technology greatly reduces the risk of contamination with the mycotoxin, Fumonisin, which has been linked to neural tube defects in humans.
Brands are very valuable things and are protected fiercely. Activists like Greenpeace know this well, and they are able to use the threat of protest to turn that business instinct into decisions that are counter-productive for farmers and consumers alike.
2. Unfavorable Economics
Genetically engineering a crop is not that costly, but doing all the work necessary for the regulators is very expensive. Unless the crop in question is very large, very valuable or both, it will just never “pencil” to make the R&D investment, particularly if there is any marketing risk. I was once on a team that helped a major banana company and a biotech company think-through whether they should spend the money to develop a disease resistant banana. In Central America, it is necessary to spray this crop from the air almost every week to control a disease called Black Sigatoka. Bananas are a large, global crop so I was certain that the “business case” would be attractive. To everyone’s surprise, when we did the math, it came out as a poor investment! The problem is that banana plantations only get re-planted about every 20 years, so even if the new technology was available, only a small area would be planted each year. Saving >50 aerial sprays wasn’t enough to cover registration costs once the time-value-of-money is factored in.
So no minor crop and almost no perennial crop is ever going to become GMO unless the growers band together to make the investment. A coffee expert explained this to the global Specialty Coffee Association last year and suggested that they contemplate what it means that coffee will never be GMO. With the issues of climate change and declining labor availability, that entire industry is at risk.
3. Other Ways to Achieve the Same Goals
There has been a tremendous, public/private, global investment in biotechnology, far beyond that for the few crops that have been modified. That has led to the development of many new methods to alter the genes of plants etc. that don’t involve the introduction of any “foreign DNA.” Most of the crops that fit category 2 above will likely be improved using these alternatives (Marker Assisted Selection, Directed Mutagenesis, Induced Polyploidy…). These improvements will not involve expensive regulatory barriers, and so far, don’t draw the ire of activists. (With the exception of one attack on “Hidden GMO” sunflowers that were generated by mutagenesis.)
4. Anti-GMO Activism
Plant genetic engineering has been the most carefully thought-through new technology introduction in history. I remember attending major scientific conferences on the safety and environmental questions at least 10 years before the first commercial seeds were planted. We talked through everything with ecologists, botanists, sociologists, economists, molecular geneticists, food industry experts. But none of this influences the “environmental” groups who have seized on this issue to raise funds and draw attention. The activist’s task is made easier because molecular genetics is a fast-moving science that few consumers understand. The press has also been unwilling to take the time to understand this to the extent that journalistic standards would require and so many have not helped to counteract the fear-mongering. This is the only way I can explain some activist-driven rejections.
My all-time-most-read blog post was titled, “A Sad Day For Wine. A Sad Day For Science.” There is a virus called Grapevine Fanleaf Virus that is spread by a nematode (Xiphenema index). If the two ever infest a given vineyard site, good quality wine can never be produced there again because the vines will soon decline and die. That means that there are many wonderful vineyards around the world that have the an excellent “terrior” (something the French appreciate so much), but that site can no longer produce good wine. Grapes are grown on “rootstocks” and Cornell University had modified a rootstock to be resistant to the virus. This was an elegant solution to the Grape Fanleaf Virus problem because the top part of the vine is unchanged and only one kind of rootstock has to be developed. Last fall an experimental block of this new technology was ripped out of the ground by activists who believed they were saving the French wine industry from “genetic contamination.” That fear is 100% irrational – it is a rootstock under the ground that never flowers. Besides, grapes are not grown from seeds anyway. Different varieties of wine grapes are planted side-by-side all the time with no ill effects!
Is This Good Or Bad-Consider the Case of Wheat
So for a variety of reasons (some economic, some logical, some irrational, some selfish), very few additional crops will ever be GMO. That is not to say GMO is a small contribution to the food supply. Corn, Soy, Cotton, Canola, Sugarbeets and Alfalfa are GMO and cover hundreds of millions of acres and find their way into many processed foods, meat and milk. Still, I will continue to argue that GMO crops can be beneficial. The world will survive without a bit more excellent wine (very few vineyards in California, Chile, Argentina or Australia are contaminated!), but the other crop where activist-generated-fear has “won” by eliciting Brand Protectionism is – wheat, the second largest food crop on earth. By 2004, Greenpeace was able to generate enough fear in Europe to get major millers and bakers to threaten not to purchase North American wheat if any became GMO. The Canadian Wheat Board blinked, and two, nearly commercial wheat traits, were stopped in their tracks. One kind of GMO wheat would have been easier to farm with no-till methods and easier to keep pure for specialty uses. The other GMO wheat would have reduced disease-related yield losses as well as mycotoxin contamination.
It is far easier to stir up fear than it is to educate the public. There was an excellent article by Justin Gillis in the New York Times on 6/4/11 titled, “A Warming Planet Struggles to Feed Itself.” Much of the article is about how wheat production is failing to increase sufficiently to meet rising global demand. GM technology is not the full answer to this challenge by any means, but the fact that we are not including GM in the wheat improvement toolbox is a clear-cut “bad thing” in my book.
This post originally appeared on Sustainablog on 6/8/11.
You are welcome to comment here or to email me at applied.mythology@gmail.com. My website is Applied Mythology. Image of Edvard Munch’s 1893 painting, ”The Scream” from oddsock. French Fry image by Sun Dazed. Alsatian vineyard image near Colmar, France from Andreea.
Written by Guest Expert
Steve Savage has worked with various aspects of agricultural technology for more than 35 years. He has a PhD in plant pathology and his varied career included Colorado State University, DuPont, and the bio-control start-up, Mycogen. He is an independent consultant working with a wide variety of clients on topics including biological control, biotechnology, crop protection chemicals, and more. Steve writes and speaks on food and agriculture topics (Applied Mythology blog) and does a bi-weekly podcast called POPAgriculture for the CropLife Foundation.
Thank you Henry at July 12, 2011 at 7:34 pm. I just finished reading the new article (Sissener et al. 2011, British Journal of Nutrition 106:42) you turned the community on to at the end of your post. I highly recommend this article as a shining example of incredibly well described methodology and objective analysis of the significance of the data, including a perspective on problems and confounding factors. Furthermore, this article contains discussion of the problems of comparing the effects of isogenic feeds with transgenic derivations. For example, the authors discussed that seed lots coming from plants grown in different fields can cause variations in concentrations of secondary metabolites that likely can contribute to confounding factors. Also, if you want to see one of the better pieces of communication about the use of microarray analysis for testing gene up and down regulation, the pitfalls encountered, and the need for validation with qPCR, this is the article that does it all. BTW, when you look at the effort that went in to the research and communication represented in this article, and compare it to the article by Aris & Leblanc that initiated so much discussion, I cannot imagine how you would not conclude the latter is very poorly done research.
Now, on to the discussion of the significance of this article. BTW, Henry, I’m not going to get into a semantic discussion with you on the subtleties in definition of health and harmful effects. While it is important in further communication that we understand our definitions, I don’t think it is germane to the point. I know that one’s main idea can get lost in a diatribe, so let me reiterate what I was trying to do in my last post. First, I wanted to convey the idea that looking at individual biomarkers is not an examination of adverse effects. Rather, it is an observation of physiologically induced responses affecting the underlaying biochemical networks. Any differences between treatment groups could be nothing but mere homeostatic responses, or depending on the specificity of the system, it could range from no functional effect to a toxic (i.e., adverse) effect.
My second point is that in the studies in question on our blog postings (i.e., the series from the National Institute of Nutrition and Seafood Research in Norway) used three diets: a reference (surrogate control of fishmeal modified with extra starch content), isogenic non Bt corn (non GM), MON 810 Bt corn (GM). The results sometimes showed small quantitative differences, albeit statistically significant, between various biomarker parameters measured in non GM and GM fed fish. However, any small differences between GM fish and reference fish were not statistically significant. Thus, the authors in other writings (they are a well published group) do not consider these to be of functional importance (health?). I’m not making an argument that is pro GMO or anti GMO. I’m acting as a reporter as well as interpreter of what has been published.
Now at this point, one might take the quote from the Sissener et al. (2011) review article (Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 68: 563–574) wherein they state, “In another study, Atlantic salmon postsmolt fed GM maize (MON810) at 15% and 30% of the total diet had substantially reduced feed intake, growth rate, and final mass compared with fish fed non-GM maize (Hemre et al. 2007)”, and consider that this is an adverse effect (harmful?). Furthermore, one might conclude that they should know because after all, they are talking about research from their own institution. But an examination of Table 2 in Hemre et al. (2007) and their statement in the Results section shows that an important piece of information was left off the summary in the review article statement. Here is what Hemre said about the data in Table 2 (the second paragraph of the Results section): “Final fish weight ranged from 561 to 625 g, and fish fed GM maize diets showed a significantly lower final weight and SGR [specific growth rate] compared with fish fed nGM maize, for both low and high inclusion levels. The Reference diet resulted in final weights and SGR in-between the nGM maize and GM maize diets, not significant from either diet group”. Thus, I reiterate my point about examining biomarker and integrated effects (like growth, etc.) in the context of historical diet controls. Frankly, my reading of this Norwegian groups series of papers has led me to the conclusion that they are not overtly concerned about Bt corn in feed having adverse impacts on aquaculture.
My third point will be to reiterate that the objective or purpose of a study is important to the interpretation as well as design of the study. The Norwegians are interested in this line of research because they are charged with protecting productivity in aquaculture. In 2009 they wrote a report for the government that addressed this issue of substitution of plant protein for the normal fishmeal diet. They examined every imaginable parameter, including transgenic crops. With studies still in progress, here is verbatim their conclusion, “Few studies are performed on the use of genetically modified (GM) plant proteins in fish diets, however, some publications exist on the use of Round-up Ready soybeans (RRS) and Bt-maize in salmon diets. The results in general show significant effects of including soya and / or maize in fish diets when compared to a reference diet based solely on fish meal and oil. In some studies GM-soybean resulted in larger spleen index compared to fish fed non-GM soybean. The increased spleen index was followed by increased number of red blood cells of reduced size; these results were not consistent between studies. Bt-maize resulted in reduced feed intake followed by reduced growth in some, but not all studies. Some data show that parts of the immune system can be affected by GM. These results are however not consistent. The glucose transporter system in the pyloric region of the salmon intestine seemed to be altered by Bt-maize, and the stress resistance, measured as changes in mRNA expression of heat-shock proteins 27 and 70, was in some studies altered, but not in other studies. No clear conclusion is drawn on the effect on fish health and the use of neither RRS nor Bt-maize in salmon diets.” (p. 14-15 under subheading Genetically modified ingredients (Chapter 4.5 for details)).” (URL: http://henry.ub.uit.no/munin/bitstream/10037/2466/1/article.pdf).
And thus I am at my final point, which flows from the wonderful new article that we have been turned on to (i.e., Sissener et al. 2011). These Norwegian authors are so fastidious in their research, as well as being incredibly curious, that they decide to figure out why they may be seeing some differences (albeit small as they repeatedly describe) between biomarker parameters in non GM and GM fed salmon (recall that the GM fed salmon were not different than the salmon fed the reference diet). So they do the hard work, and find a BIG difference in one of the mycotoxins, deoxynivalenol. Low and behold, they think they may have found the confounding factor that explains it all, but even they are astutely seasoned and realized it only generates another hypothesis. By the way, the source of their tissues were the exact same fish used in the Sagstad et al. study (Journal of Fish Diseases 2007, 30, 201–212). They actually saved and archived everything so they could ask new questions and test followup ideas. I love these people.
Would that I had the time, style and temperament to generate posts like that on a regular basis (alas I believe I can only compete on length, and even here I am awestruck by your capacity to avoid boiling everything down to a soundbite)
Hopefully your delurking sticks.
Alan, you state “(recall that the GM fed salmon were not different than the salmon fed the reference diet).” is stated in the article.
H.Kuska comment. Yes it was stated and yet the authors, reviewers, and editors of what I have presented alowed statements such as the title of the most recent paper “Title: “Are apparent negative effects of feeding GM MON810 maize to Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar, caused by confounding factors?” Now the question is why? i.e. is what you pointed out important regarding the goals of the studies.?
All that I conlude from what you put into your recall quote is that the selected reference diet provided neutrients/benefits between the 2 diets of interest for the parameters on which the statement is based. The question being discussed in this thread is whether putting Bt in maise has “harmful” effects. To remove as many possible variables as possible a comparison of Bt altered maise and otherwise equivalent non-GM maize was looked at.
Stastically significant differences were observed.
ANOTHER POINT
Allan stated: “Frankly, my reading of this Norwegian groups series of papers has led me to the conclusion that they are not overtly concerned about Bt corn in feed having adverse impacts on aquaculture.”
H. Kuska comment. Allen made the following statement: “….. which flows from the wonderful new article that we have been turned on to (i.e., Sissener et al. 2011). These Norwegian authors are so fastidious in their research, as well as being incredibly curious, that they decide to figure out why they may be seeing some differences (albeit small as they repeatedly describe) between biomarker parameters in non GM and GM fed salmon (recall that the GM fed salmon were not different than the salmon fed the reference diet). So they do the hard work,…..”
I interpret the above as indicating that they were very concerned.
Hi Henry
Please help me understand something. I am not a scientist, just a reader of posts on this website (and not the actual journal articles).
I read Allan’s post above (July 13, 2011 at 8:18 am) and he notes that in the paper – Hemre et al. (2007) table 2 discussion – there is a statistically significant difference between the GMO fed fish and the non-GMO fed fish. However, the control group (non-corn fed) was in between the two groups and the difference between the control group and the corn fed fish were not statistically significant.
Does this indicate that the GMO fed fish was not harmed when compared to the control group?
Does this indicate that the non-GMO fed fish was not harmed/helped when compared to the control group?
Richard,
Not only does the data look insignificant statistically, the line “corn fed fish” was striking. Fish don’t normally eat corn so it is possible that they are all messed up in some way. Why would anyone do that experiment in the first place unless they had an agenda?
It appears I have an error in my post (due to not reading the study/tracking down the source). I called the control group “non-corn fed.” After reading the abstract I see that the control group was a corn fed group using a different corn. When I say corn fed, it was having to do with fish meal diets prepared with corn as a starch source (i.e. diet is not all corn, but starch in the diet comes from corn).
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2095.2007.00465.x/abstract;jsessionid=1318757DAC59893D53C74BDCD64D9A56.d03t03
Richard I did take a more detailed discussion about your excellent point out of my my July 13, 2011 at 10:26 am reply.
There is an argument whether farm fed fish are equivalent to “regular” fish. ie commercial fish food may not be an optimum source of “nutrition” see Google:
http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1R2IRFC_en&q=nutritional+value+of+farm+fed+fish+food&aq=0&aqi=m1&aql=&oq=neutritional+value+of+farm+fed+fish+food
AND Google Scholar:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=nutritional+value+of+farm+fed+fish+food&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1%2C36&as_sdtp=on
My statement on what was stated in the article was:
“All that I conclude from what you put into your recall quote is that the selected reference diet provided neutrients/benefits between the 2 diets of interest for the parameters on which the statement is based. The question being discussed in this thread is whether putting Bt in maise has “harmful” effects. To remove as many possible variables as possible a comparison of Bt altered maise and otherwise equivalent non-GM maize was looked at.”
Based on my reading of the literature, as cited above, I would “expect” that even the non GM maize diet could have “negative effects” relative to the diet that wild salmon normally obtain. This paper is saying there are more “negative effects” when GM maize is used than when the corresponding non Bt maize is used.
James at July 13, 2011 at 7:33 am. PLEASE start with a GOOGLE Scholar search using syntax related to your question. Please examine at least the abstracts and review the “weight of the evidence”. Then, if motivated, come back to the forum and let’s discuss specific issues raised in specific papers. The literature is so replete with information my head hurts. When I have time, I will be happy to tell you why the ARIS paper on Bt findings in blood would have never been published in a journal run by the American Chemical Society, which is known to publish the foremost journals in environmental chemistry and in agricultural & food chemistry.
Allan regarding the journal. This is what I posted in the thread about the Canadian Bt paper:
“This is what the Journal states:
“Out of 44 journals in the Agriculture, Multidisciplinary category, Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry is the #1 journal in total citations (56,340), #2 in ISI® Impact Factor (2.469), and #1 articles published (1,588). Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry is also the #1 ranked journal in total citations in Applied Chemistry and Food Science and Technology. *
James N. Seiber, Editor of the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, and formerly Director of the USDA Western Regional Research Center, is current chair of the Department of Food Science and Technology at the University of California, Davis. He continues as the Editor of JAFC, and the JAFC editorial office remains in the Environmental Toxicology Department at the University of California, Davis, where Dr. Seiber is an emeritus Faculty member.””
Talking about weight of evidence, I have reached a count of at least 410 published scientific articles that relate to GM food crop or feed crop safety.
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2007/06/150-published-safety-assessments-on-gm.html
This weight of evidence needs to be discussed in any search for improbable indications of possible harm. Relatively few if any raise questions of any substance. About 25 to 30 percent are non-corporate studies.
In contrast the documentation of real harms from microbial contamination of fresh vegetable produce is abundant. We should focus on that Elephant in the room.
David Tribe please define your use of the term “weight of Evidence” in your statement on July 13, 2011 at 6:18 pm
“This weight of evidence needs to be discussed in any search for improbable indications of possible harm.”
H.Kuska comment. If the reader does not understand why I am making this request please look at the following link:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00699.x/full
A quote from the above link:
”
“Weight of evidence” (WOE) is a common term in the published scientific and policy-making literature, most often seen in the context of risk assessment (RA). Its definition, however, is unclear.”
How about you Henry first tackle the substantive issue of 410 publications which reveal overall, that there is little or no evidence for any safety concern about GMO foods and feeds, rather than bringing in semantic side-issues, and legalistic concerns which are not very exciting for most readers . Semantic quibbling about side issue does not make good discussion, whereas substantial contributions like Allan’s discussion are fantastic for readers. That’s why a copy of them was made on the main Biofortified board, so other readers don’t miss out on intellectual enjoyment.
David Tribe stated on July 13, 2011 at 9:52 pm :
“How about you Henry first tackle the substantive issue of 410 publications which reveal overall, that there is little or no evidence for any safety concern about GMO foods and feeds…”
H.Kuska reply. There can be many studies that report that something is safe and then a new study (with, for example, more modern equipment, different testing approach, longer test period, testing with co-factors etc.) finds a danger. The mechanisms of the human body are very complex.
How many chemicals that were first deemed safe were later found not to be safe?
And yes Henry, with organic foods, and conventional foods much the same could be said as you just wrote, except that in these cases, the potential risks are not subject to the same heavy scientific scrutiny as GMOs, and exhibit objectively and empirically higher chances of unexpected genetic changes (as documented in the 410 studies link). Clearly microbial risks are greater with organic food (as documented in the posts on organic risks here and GMO Pundit. Similarly when natural pesticides are tested, they were equally likely to be carcinogens as are synthetic pesticides. (see Bruce Ames and Lois Gold’s work.)
So there’s harm uncertainty everywhere. The point is if we try and make everything safe, instead of focussing where there is more risk, we miss the most likely harms more often, as has just happened with E. coli and fenugreek in Germany , France, and Sweden. GMOs are not where the harm is. Its lethal germs and toxin producing fungi.
Henry,
If you are looking for absolute certainty, then you would never eat any new crop variety (no matter how it was developed) and you would always worry about anything old. That was the title of my blog (oh, remember that 500 comments ago). Way too much angst. Most of what you eat will never be GMO. In some cases that does not matter. In some cases things we like will get too expensive because of unsolved problems. Most importantly, poor people who might have benefited from GMO wheat, sorghum, bananas, cassava… will suffer or die because your sort of precautionary thinking has prevailed, particularly in EU influenced Africa.
Steve Savage on July 14, 2011 at 5:21 am stated: ”
Henry, If you are looking for absolute certainty, then you would never eat any new crop variety (no matter how it was developed) and you would always worry about anything old. ”
H.Kuska reply. A clear case of trying to set up a “straw man” diversion. We are in a subthread talking about the scientific method here.
“Weight of evidence” (WOE) is a common term in the published scientific and policy-making literature, most often seen in the context of risk assessment (RA). Its definition, however, is unclear.”
Good question. Perhaps you can answer this yourself to illustrate your point.
I’d however request that we restrict it to a list of chemicals which were deemed safe by sound scientific testing in the first place and for which a credible danger was later discovered – I’m sure all involved in the discussion are aware that many substances deemed safe in the 50’s for instance were more deemed safe on the whim of PR rather than based on any sound scientific study.
Ewan R on July 14, 2011 at 7:51 am stated the following: ” I’m sure all involved in the discussion are aware that many substances deemed safe in the 50′s for instance were more deemed safe on the whim of PR rather than based on any sound scientific study.”
H.Kuska comment. Of course that has happened, but one does not have to go back to the 50’s. Here is what appears to be a present example:
Title: “Scant evidence supports EPA’s pyramided Bt corn refuge size of 5%”
Author: Andrei Alyokhin1
Published in: Nature Biotechnology, Volume 29, Pages:
577–578, (2011)
This from the abstract. “A review of registration materials I have obtained under the US Freedom of Information Act and the existing scientific literature shows that currently available evidence in support of reducing refuge for the pyramided Bt corn to 5% of the total crop area is limited to predictions of a single unpublished mathematical model, developed in-house by industry scientists. Until more scientific evidence is available, I suggest that the reduction in refuge size to 5%, currently being implemented by the EPA for pyramided Bt corn, represents a gamble.”
Please see
———————-http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v29/n7/pdf/nbt.1911.pdf?WT.ec_id=NBT-201107
to put the statement in context.
I have transferred Henry and Allan’s fishy discussion to a new post
https://biofortified.org/2011/07/genetically-modified-plants-as-fish-feed-ingredients/
at Biofortified and GMO Pundit, with applause.
Maybe this overly long discussion thread can now continued at that link, where it will be much easier to read. We could follow Allan’s advice to nor reply individually , but instead refer to a name and time and add comments at the end of the thread?
I do like threaded discussion for keeping track of different conversations on the same post. The sunflower should indicate which posts are new each time you view the page. It does get confusing when some people use threading and others don’t.
I have not given permission for my comments to be moved.
Your comments have not been moved. If you go and look at the post, Dr. Tribe simply gave you credit for bringing up the paper “Genetically modified plants as fish feed ingredients”. He did re-post Allen’s comment.
Anyone can use your comments on Biofortified (including reposting on this site or to other sites) as long as they follow Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license, per the comment policy. https://biofortified.org/about/comment-policy/
Anastasia thank you for pointing out that my posts have not been moved but a copy has been placed in another thread.
I went to the site that you say gives anyone the right to repost somewhere else. I could not find anything that I interpreted as saying that. Please cut and paste what you feel gives you that right to repost without my permission.
This is off topic. Please see my response in the Forum.
its really very simple…..label the foods that contain GMO’s…..thus the consumer can make his/her choice on buying them!Problem solved!But we know this want happen, as the sales of such products would plumet.The vast majority of people dont want GMO’s in the food chain, but if they are unaware of them being in there, this would protect the bottom line of the companies and investors of said companies.Profit before people….simple as that!As far as creating so called safe GMO products…wake up!!The scientist that do such, are no where near being some advanced alien race that has mastered the skill of being the creator.It’s funny, yet sad that there always seems to be a group of people whom think they can out-do nature…..it will never happen…PERIOD!Besides your creations dont come from the heart…they surface from the ego of power…greed…and arrogance…with eugenics at the forefront leading the way….I will never indulge in it…nor accept it!!
Labeling is not going to change very much, research has shown that even when labeled people don’t read the label and don’t notice. But what it would do is add an extra expense onto everyone’s food bills. Frankly, your comment about eugenics show that you have little worthwhile to contribute.
Karl,
That bit about eugenics is actually a narrative of its own in the campaign against GMOs. Supposedly, the Club of Rome and the Rockefeller foundation have collaborated to reduce population growth by releasing GM seeds onto the market. Jeffrey Smith has claimed that GM food causes rats to not be able to reproduce very well, which is said to be a sort of birth control for humans. And supposedly, consumers are not getting GMO labeling because that could interfere with the clandestine program to impose population control.
I could go on, and explain related narratives, such as the involvement of Planet X, the Nibiru, chemtrails, and reptilian aliens holding public office, resulting in human slavery, but I think you get the picture.
Karl….my dear lad….If you can’t see that eugenics is the hidden agenda behind GMO’s, then what you deem as worthwhile is as worthless as the tits on a boar hog.
Jobe,
If you think it is “simple” to label all foods containing GMO ingredients, then you don’t know much about the global food system either in terms of scale or complexity. Essentially every packaged food or baked product would be labeled. Almost all meat and dairy products would be labeled because of GMO feed crops. The only way sales could “plummet” would be for most people to stop eating most of what they eat today.
If you want to direct your angst against a real threat, consider how many ingredients come from China with virtually no testing. This is particularly true of Organic products today. I’m not trashing China, but there is some history there. Most of the old, nasty pesticides are manufactured in China. There are heavy metal issues in soils and water. There is little control over mycotoxin contamination of cooking oils. You are wasting perfectly good fear on things that are not worth fearing. You could put it to better use
From whence the premise that to create something safe one must belong to an advanced alien race? I don’t know that I’ve come across this claim before in the debate, and demand further explanantion.
Allowing, for a moment, the false dichotomy between man and nature… I’m communicating to you on a tool which is wholly unnatural and completely outdoes anything that nature has provided to allow for such communication – it would appear, at first glance, that one need only open ones eyes for a moment or two to see that nature is quite easily out-done (indeed simply looking at the structure of the vertebrate eye and engineer can see a pretty simple method by which nature could have its ass handed to it in the ‘doing’ stakes)
To paraphrase Sagan – most folk try not to think with their hearts. Best leave them to pumping blood around.
I realize you’ve been called on this, and Eric has somewhat explained the bizarritude… but in what way is GMO even remotely related to Eugenics (other than that they are both offshoots of genetics I guess) – lets keep in mind that Eugenics isn’t simply about population control but about improving the genetic composition of a population by controlling reproduction – I simply can’t think of a plausible mechanism by which one would suggest GMOs are doing this – perhaps you can help me with this – population control != eugenics, regardless of how much you’d like it to. (I am of course working on the premise here that you harbour the bizarre belief that GMOs somehow effect fertility – seems muddled thinking in this arena is about the only way the GMO –> eugenics link could be made without serious quantities of hallucinogenics or such)
Well, no, I don’t imagine you will – I forsee you having immense troubles even managing to open a qiagen kit, nevermind understanding the instructions well enough to purify a plasmid.
Cute, ever increasing exclamation points. Add a few more and you’d qualify quite nicely under Pratchett’s methodology of identifying insanity.
Insanity..according to you….Earwig!Thats a good one coming from someone whom thinks GMO’s are harmless, or that we can hand nature’s arse on a plater, when we want.It obvious you think your a top intellectual!More a scripted intellectual, who doesnt have a clue on how to think freely.Sure….many things can be learned through study, but these very text you ingest are nothing but a clever form of brainwashing.And the more of you that participate in it, the more this evil can be cloaked and protected by ill inform wannabe intellectiuals.
Really, I provide such ammunition as Ewan and the best you can come up with is Earwig? That’s frankly terrible. I’ve heard better from grade schoolers.
That’s what the evidence suggests. Provide your evidence that they are not – thus far all we have is hand waving and baseless smugness.
Not even close. Just a good deal closer than yourself (a distinction with little merit as it likely includes over 75% of the population of the planet)
Would that I had only approached the subject using your methodology – I presume this involves reading nothing, learning nothing, and simply pulling ideas out of the air.
Demonstrate evil, you’ve thrown out weird accusations, but have failed to address the rebuttal of the whole eugenics arguement (or indeed anything) – back up your claims with explanations, mechanisms, evidence.
Ok…here you go…. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/list.php
this website gives a huge list of names of scientist that are against GMO’s.So if its so great, then why the dissent in the scientific community?
Here’s another site about “Bertram Verhaag and Scientists under Attack for their stance on GMO’s ….why do the powerful try to quash them? Are they affraid they may spill the beans? http://organicconnectmag.com/wp/2011/07/bertram-verhaag-and-scientists-under-attack/
I could go on and on, but i feel your one of those people that needs to be shown first hand in a lab or something.Even if a top scientist showed data that pointed to the hazards of GMO’s, I reckon you wouldn’t believe it.So in saying that, I feel there is nothing I could do nor say!The day shall come, when the evidence will be overwhelming on the terrible blunder that was made on allowing GMO’s to make there way into the food chain.Sometimes, we must go through hell and back, before we open our eyes!Sadly it’s very unfair that many of us, have no choice but to ride along on this train to hell.But then again, we stupid masses need those in authority and power to think for us.A very sad state of affairs, indeed.
The folks at ISIS are so far around the bend that most of the anti-GMO people avoid citing their work whenever possible.
Your right…it isnt worth wasting time or energy, as i would never expect to sway anyone whom has been totally brainwashed!You will believe what you want, through falseified documents and loud mouthed scientist preaching the gospels on how wonderful GMO’s are for the planet, to an army of zombie followers chanting GMO’S…GMO’S…GMO’S.The sad thing is, that the damage has already been done, the planet is in decay and on its way out…thanks to the frankenscience.The elites may get there wish for a huge cull of population, including all the “really” smart supporters of such nonsense!But in saying all this, we still love you, even though your genetically modified in the head….peace!!
Eric Baumholder on August 6, 2011 at 2:09 pm stated: “The folks at ISIS are so far around the bend that most of the anti-GMO people avoid citing their work whenever possible.”
H.Kuska comment. Please cite the “sources” that you base your statement on.
Gosh, Henry, you’re the anti-GMO specialist in the room. You should know far more about ISIS than any of us. Answer your own question.
Eric Baumholder stated on August 7, 2011 at 8:25 am · “Gosh, Henry, you’re the anti-GMO specialist in the room. You should know far more about ISIS than any of us. Answer your own question.”
H.Kuska comment. In a scientific discussion I expect that a person making a statement would be able and willing to provide the basis for the statement.
You stated: “The folks at ISIS are so far around the bend that most of the anti-GMO people avoid citing their work whenever possible.” Are you going to retract/somehow modify your statement?
Apparently Reuters feels that ISIS is worth citing:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/08/glyphosate-epa-idUSN0819166920110408
If one uses Google Scholar one finds 237 hits. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22The+Institute+of+Science+in+Society%22++&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1%2C36&as_sdtp=on
If one uses Scirus one gets 352 hits (some duplicates). http://www.scirus.com/srsapp/search?q=%22The+Institute+of+Science+in+Society%22++&t=all&drill=yes&sort=1&p=0
The following is one example of its use in the scientific literature(where the full paper is available):
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9523.2007.00446.x/full
“Such as the European Environmental Bureau that sees a system of certificates relating to the production methods of biofuels as the sine qua non condition for any further increase of biofuel production and use. The Institute of Science in Society (2006) has produced a similar proposal.”
I guess that I should add the “about 133,000” hits reported by normal Google:
http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1R2IRFC_en&q=%22The+Institute+of+Science+in+Society%22+&btnG=Google+Search&oq=%22The+Institute+of+Science+in+Society%22+&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=s&gs_upl=3078l3078l0l4594l1l1l0l0l0l0l63l63l1l1
Henry, I have no intention of defending Eric’s claim about ISIS.
But about thirty seconds of searching told me that ISIS is directed by Mae Wan Ho. I’ve seen numerous statements from Dr. Ho that have led me to consider her a member of a fringe rather than a scientist to be taken seriously. Do you agree? If so, dou you think ISIS should be taken seriously?
The number of hits to a google search is irrelevant, I get 87 million hits to a search on “pi=3”.
Henry,
We’re not talking about search engine ‘hits’. We’re talking about how many anti-GMO persons and groups rely on ISIS for authority on biotech topics. Too bad Mae Wan-Ho took down her once-famous speech comparing non-reductionist science to a fire-breathing dragon in orbit around the Earth. She also has a paper somewhere which claims that genetic engineering disturbs the natural harmonic vibrations of cells.
Eric Baumholder on August 7, 2011 at 12:08 pm stated: “Henry,
We’re not talking about search engine ‘hits’. We’re talking about how many anti-GMO persons and groups rely on ISIS for authority on biotech topics.”
H.Kuska reply.
How about a Google search with the keywords: “The Institute of Science in Society” AND biotech?
Only 43,600 hits. How does this number explain your comment? “The folks at ISIS are so far around the bend that most of the anti-GMO people avoid citing their work whenever possible.”
Again I repeat my question: “Are you going to retract/somehow modify your statement?”
http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1R2IRFC_en&q=ISIS+for+authority+on+biotech+topics&btnG=Google+Search&oq=ISIS+for+authority+on+biotech+topics&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=s&gs_upl=2140l2140l0l3687l1l1l0l0l0l0l63l63l1l1#hl=en&pq=isis%20for%20authority%20on%20biotech%20topics&xhr=t&q=%22The%20Institute%20of%20Science%20in%20Society%22%20%20biotech&cp=46&pf=p&sclient=psy&rlz=1R2IRFC_en&source=hp&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=%22The+Institute+of+Science+in+Society%22++biotech&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=68b3f9ae28a95316&biw=1114&bih=543&bs=1
Henry,
I have absolutely no intention in retracting/modifying my statement.
Here’s what needs to be done, and I’ll leave doing it up to you. Go to the Greenpeace websites and search for ISIS. Then do the same for the Friends of the Earth websites. And do the same at the WWF. And the same with the Union of Concerned Scientists. And so on.
Popularity with Google is not the same as popularity within the international anti-GMO industry.
And however you might prize Google hits, your latest search string actually yields only 154, ending on p. 16 of search results. Pretty shabby.
If you can do better, do it and set an example.
The first you suggested was Greenpeace.
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/groups/portsmouth/event/portsmouth-green-fair
Guess who the opening speaker is?
“The Fair will be opened by Dr Mae-wan Ho of the Institute of Science in Society.”
Any time you make a statement on a scientific based forum, I feel that it is (or at least should be) your responsibility to back it up (if questioned).
There are 14200 “hits” using the keywords: Greenpeace AND “Mae Wan Ho”
Concerning the number of Google hits when using the keywords” “The Institute of Science in Society” AND biotech”. The following is a cut and paste from the results. “About 43,100 results (0.31 seconds)”.
Google Scholar gives 1090 hits for “Mae Wan Ho” with citations and patents turned off. The first paper was published by the National Academy of Sciences. It was cited by 204 papers.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22Mae+Wan+Ho%22&as_sdt=1%2C36&as_ylo=&as_vis=1
This seems to be an elaborate way to avoid addressing Mae Wan Ho’s accuracy in reporting the facts. Every time a new disease comes out she suggests that it is due to genetic engineering. How about SARS? Or the German E. coli? These are details that Google Scholar citation lists will not reveal. And technically, citing an article to say “this is preposterous” is a citation, and will be counted in those numbers.
Karl Haro von Mogel stated on August 7, 2011 at 8:12 pm the following: “This seems to be an elaborate way to avoid addressing Mae Wan Ho’s accuracy in reporting the facts.”
H.Kuska comment. I expect that the readers will look at the papers and then look at the papers that cite the papers when making up their own minds as to the value of a given publication. I feel that the fact that Google Scholar cites which papers have cited each paper (and gives the actual link) is one of its most important contributions to science. (Before we had to go to the paper volumns of Citation Index.)
Shurely all one need do to assess the level of crazy that pervades ISIS is to go to their website and peruse.
While there are some things there that may not be bugshit nuts, there’s a lot there that is (homeopathy, gaia theory, teleporting DNA and HIV electromagnetism – and that’s without getting into any of the GMO stuff)
Its all well and good to go to google scholar when primary evidence isn’t available, but you’re rather missing the opportunity when the primary evidence is standing staring you in the face – it’d be like having full video documenting OJ murdering his victims and then claiming that looking at the size of the glove was a pertinent thing to do.
The ISIS list above, which I believe I’ve dealt with before on biofortified (someone more competent or less lazy at searching may be able to find my prior analysis) contains such a hodge podge of professions and names that one can hardly make anything of it – there appear to only be two or three actual toxicologist signatories (ignoring ecotoxicologists) so claims about toxicity can hardly be refuted based on the list (assuming it is accurate) and it appears a large number of non-scientists (there is at least one entry along the lines of “I don’t know what you’re talking about” which suggests that not all signatories are even for the letter.
The abject lack of identity confirmation also makes the list pointless (the first name from poopy den afghanistan appears later in the list from poopy canada – the fact he is from poopy suggests something is up in the first place)
But hey, so long as you’ve got a big list of names who believe something that makes it true right?
Which explains why Mormonism, Right wing literal christianity, Left wing namby pamby christianity, Buddhism and Islam are all 100% true. Right? (it states at least once that Islam is true in the ISIS list, so I assume that’s a given)
Wow, I never noticed that, Ewan! You are 100% correct, the first signer on their World Scientists Statement is indeed from “poopy den s, Afghanistan”
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/list.php
A couple other gems:
Prof. Dennis Dennis poopy none Canada
Dr. M. Murphy Pediatrician NAMBLA Canada (quite a combination)
Anna D. Noikov B.A.B.Ed. B.A.B.Ed. Wholistic Practitioner Edmonton Canada (long title basically means “Citizen of Canada”)
Dr. Ye Hua over 20 000 pieces hand painted oil painting and picture frames in stock for sale at lowest prices http www art98 com China (over 20,000 pieces? Where can I find these bargains?)
Lotz Frank Wolfgang Expert in The Vedic Health System Bestselling Author Germany
Frank Wolfgang Research on Vedic Health Food and Bestselling Author Germany (In for another signature)
Prof. Julissa Martin Ph.D student i do not know what your talking abou t idk Hong Kong
Dr. Nikki Broglowskhini Ph.D I am well equipped with all things scientifical. The society for science Iceland (Maybe they can explain it to Julissa Martin, above)
Devinder Sharma Geneticist Plant Breeder and Writer Forum for Biotechnology and Food Security New Delhi India (Devinder Sharma is not a geneticist or plant breeder)
A very distinguished list!
Ewan R on August 8, 2011 at 7:36 am stated: “Shurely all one need do to assess the level of crazy that pervades ISIS is to go to their website and peruse.
While there are some things there that may not be bugshit nuts, there’s a lot there that is (homeopathy, gaia theory,….”
H.Kuska comment. Homeopathy has been discussed in another thread. Gaia theory is summarized at the following link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis
I think that this is a good spot to tell about one of my experiences. In graduate school I discovered that our library was a depository for all government translations of Russian journals. They were all kept in their original shipping boxes in one room (never unpacked). I found the readings in physical chemistry very interesting. At that time in the U.S. Valence Bond Theory was the accepted way for chemists to explain bonding. I found that the Russians were very critical of Valence Bond Theory and promoted Quantum Mechanics instead.
” Pauling’s theory of resonance was viciously attacked in 1951 by a group of chemists in the Soviet Union in their Report of the Commission of the Institute of Organic Chemistry of the Academy of Sciences………To these chemists Pauling’s operational definition was totally unacceptable”
http://www.quantum-chemistry-history.com/Simo_Dat/Issues/SimGavr1.htm
In the early 60s a young U.S. chemist (Ph.D., sorry I cannot remember his name) who worked at a private, but very famous research institute, started to critize V.B, theory at National Meetings and to advocate Quantum Mechanics. The story is that the chemical “power structure” came down very hard on him, he lost his position, and the last I heard (many years ago) he was selling shoes in Chicago (please note, that was before the “married with children” TV show). Now (2011), I feel, that quantum mechanics is the “presently” accepted model for chemical bonding. The reason I bring this up is there is often a resistence to “new ideas” in science. Part of the problem, I feel, that some/many? young scientists are trained to think that everything that is being taught them is correct and that there are no possible “better” theories/models yet to be developed (or are being developed today). I hope/expect that a Ph.D. degree signifies that the holder has developed the ability to utilize “critical thinking” and not just that the person was able to add one more unit of significance to the boiling point of water.
My gosh, anyone allowing a NAMBLA member on their list of signatories is desperate.
Meanwhile, Jeffrey Smith is not on the list. Perhaps his standards are too high?
Hoorah to McDonalds! How do bio technologists assess long term effects of engineered food for the next three generations. What if three generations later we had an entire community suffering from a strange form of cancer…will they say …ehhm strange we did not look this far in our research.
at least the Mexican government can see clearly on GMO’s… http://www.naturalnews.com/031295_Mexico_GMO_corn.html
Robyn O’Brien points out some interesting correlations between GMOs and the increase in food allergies and cancer in the US. It doesn’t prove causation, but it does make one wonder whether a 90-day study is sufficient to determine the long-term safety of food modified with foreign genes.
Quote from Skeptic’s Dictionary:
http://www.skepdic.com/skeptimedia/skeptimedia3.html
James,
I’ve contacted Robyn and she initially said she would be happy to talk. She actually has no scientific background and has just made this a personal campaign based on her own family experience. As with most of these arguments, they completely ignore the difference between which crops have allergy issues and which have been genetically modified. Peanuts, wheat, strawberries, rice – all the crops that have real issues – are not yet GMO on a commercial scale. There are a thousand dietary changes one could correlate with allergies or the intense concern about them. GMO crops are probably one of the least likely candidates because we know what proteins have changed.
I blame it on video games. They’ve progressively got bigger and better since the early 80’s (and indeed, more expensive) – this correlates incredibly well with increases in allergies and cancer (except where it doesn’t, but we’ll ignore that – causation is all I need)
I of course meant correlation… I have it appears fallen victim to the xbox
I can’t help but notice how they’ve never charted sales of organic food with this alleged increase in [insert problem here]. Wonder why it’s only the rise in GE crops that gets the finger pointing for allergies/diseases/CCD/ect but never organic whatevers.
That logic might make sense if organic food was new to human consumption.
In November California voters will consider Proposition 37 to establish if they wish to require labeling of food products containing GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms).
Monsanto provides most GMO seeds which include Roundup Ready (RR) soy, corn, canola, sugar beets and more. Many RR crops are genetically engineered to survive insects and spraying with Roundup herbicide during weed abatement efforts.
Monsanto asserts that GMO laden food requires no labeling because ‘they have not been proven to be harmful’. Industry insiders, the FDA, EPA .et al remain so infused with employees from each other’s organizations that consumer safeguards are severely compromised. Example: The FDA recruited Michael Taylor, a Monsanto attorney, to manage the creation of its GMO policy, a policy in effect today that empowers biotechnology companies to establish if their GMOs are nontoxic. Taylor then departed the FDA to become Monsanto’s vice president.
Since the introduction of GMOs in the 1990s rates of autism, allergies, obesity, cancer and assorted health issues have soared. There is no definitive proof indicting GMOs; nevertheless the biotechnology industry is circumventing labeling that would facilitate the necessary research. Why? Is there a stench here reminiscent of tobacco companies?
Independent research and case studies raise alarms worldwide. Many RR GMO crops have genes inserted into their DNA structure that manufactures an insect-killing toxin known as Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) in every plant cell; insects ingest the plant and poison tears open their stomach to exterminate them. Bt produced from soil bacteria has been employed by organic farmers as a spray for natural insect control for decades. The primary distinction here is that Bt-toxin in GMO plants is thousands of times more potent than Bt spray and can never be washed off the plant prior to eating like the spray version. Despite industry assurances to the contrary, several studies confirm that the GMO Bt toxin survives the human digestive process as well; one study reveals that the gene inserted into GM soy transfers into the DNA of our intestinal bacteria to function in our gut as a living pesticide factory [Nature Biotechnology 2004]. In May 2011, the Canadian journal Reproductive Toxicology published a study revealing the following: 93% of the pregnant women they tested had Monsanto’s corn derived Bt-toxin in their blood; 80% of their unborn fetuses did as well. Autism related? Again there is uncertainty.
The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) recently warned physicians “to educate their patients, the medical community, and the public to avoid GM foods when possible….,”further stating “Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food,” including infertility, immune problems and gastrointestinal issues, concluding that “There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation.”
Ohio allergist Dr. John Boyles asserted “…now that soy is genetically engineered, it is so dangerous that I tell people never to eat it.” Salk Institute biologist David Shubert cautions that “children are the most likely to be adversely effected by toxins and other dietary problems” related to GM foods. In March 2006, Dr. Irina Ermakova from the Russian Academy of Sciences published a report to the European Congress of Psychiatry disclosing that rats and their offspring fed GM soy displayed anxiety and aggression, while a control group fed non-GM soy failed to exhibit such aberrant behaviors. Similar health concerns prompted the American Medical Association on June 19, 2012 to call for mandatory pre-market safety testing of GMO foods.
Why are we learning of such concerns now? Media intimidation – Monsanto’s lawyeristic bullying behind the scenes for decades.
Before 1980, patent law did not apply to living organisms. Now farmers suffer bankruptcy after being devastatingly sued by Monsanto for cross-pollination of their non-GMO crops by neighboring GMO plants. Incredulous as it sounds, the exploitative use of patent law permitted Monsanto to successfully sue farmers for patent infringement, even though they never planted GMOs. The threat here is doubly apparent to organic farmers.
Consumers currently enjoy rights to determine which foods contain MSG, dyes, artificial sweeteners, peanuts and other additives that they want to avoid. It must be our right, not Monsanto’s, to determine likewise with GMOs. Polls confirm that a majority of Americans desire this. Fifty countries, including China, Russia and the entire EU require GMO labeling, such labeling is not costly, but impending TV ads from Monsanto will endeavor to persuade you otherwise, much like Monsanto’s costly propaganda campaign to defeat Oregon’s 2002 GMO labeling measure.
Tony Favero
Freelance Writer and Researcher
Half Moon Bay, Ca
Tony,
You are many months late in commenting on this topic. You have delusional fears. If you want to talk more write me at savage.sd@gmail.com
Huh, Tony Favero, can you supply the case #’s, dates and states those Monsanto suits were filed? I figure you’ll have this information since you are a freelance writer and researcher and it will save the rest of us a lot of time.