Anti-GMO hysteria now most dangerous anti-science movement

[BWV]

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-08/bc-g-081915.php

If a bunch of morons wants to believe that evolution is a myth then there is not all that much harm done. vaccine and global warming denial are more problematic, but nothing comes close to interfering with the science it's going to take to feed 11 billion people

 

[russ_watters]

It's a toss-up to me. The Catholic Church instructed Africans not to use condoms in 1990, just as the AIDS crisis was heating-up, potentially contributing to a the millions of deaths from AIDS since:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_HIV/AIDS#Pope_John_Paul_II

In 2003, four African countries declined food aid from the the US because it was genetically modified (all but Zambia later accepted) in the middle of a famine, at the behest of "environmentalists". One incident, of an overall resistance that puts millions of lives at risk:
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/280...e-zambia-strongest-anti-gmo-stance-in-africa/

Who's the bigger anti-science murderer? Tough call.

In third place, I would put some of the same "environmentalists" as above, who are also responsible for holding-back nuclear power, potentially contributing to hundreds of thousands of air pollution deaths, not to mention contributing to whatever happens to global warming (though ultimately, the GW issue will start and end with Chinese coal power).

 

[Evo]

Let's try to keep this on topic about the misquided fight against GMO foods.

 

[BWV]

Ok, my corporate overlords at Monsanto said this was a good overview of the science:

http://www.slate.com/articles/healt..._lies_and_errors.html?wpsrc=sh_all_mob_tw_topIt's a popular article but there are a lot of references to peer reviewed pieces

 

[BWV]

Anti-GMO activists use freedom of information act to demand full access to scientists' emails

http://news.sciencemag.org/scientific-community/2015/02/agricultural-researchers-rattled-demands-documents-group-opposed-gm

 

[DaveC426913]

Asking one's relationship with an issue is dirty play. It's essentially an ad hominem - it promotes attacks on the arguer, not on the argument.

A badly supported argument can be dismantled, regardless of whence it is issued. It is easy enough to refute an argument as biased without ever having to ask if the arguer is biased.

Also, it keeps the debate from getting personal.

 

[DaveC426913]

Anti-GMO activists use freedom of information act to demand full access to scientists' emails

http://news.sciencemag.org/scientific-community/2015/02/agricultural-researchers-rattled-demands-documents-group-opposed-gm

I take it you disagree with this policy?

 

[berkeman]

Obviously this thread is being monitored by the Mentors...

 

[russ_watters]

First @BWV what is your relationship to the GMO industry, concerned scientist , GMO research scientist, farmer, social activist, CEO of Monsanto ?

I am a concerned scientist.

[Not BWV, but...] I eat.

I wonder if someone might post some links to some non-industry sponsored, peer reviewed studies on the effects (or lack there of) of GMO foods?

What, specifically, are you wanting to know? How about the FDA's opinion:

Foods from genetically engineered organisms, also known as biotech foods and referred to by some as food from genetically modified organisms (GMOs), have been in our food supply for about 20 years.

Genetic engineering refers to certain methods that scientists use to introduce new traits or characteristics to an organism. For example, plants may be genetically engineered to produce characteristics that enhance the growth or nutritional value of food crops.

Using a science-based approach, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates foods and ingredients made from genetically engineered plants to help ensure that they are safe to eat.

Since people have been modifying plants for thousands of years through breeding and selection, FDA uses the term "genetically engineered," or "GE," to distinguish plants that have been modified using modern biotechnology from those modified through traditional breeding...

Food and food ingredients derived from GE plants must adhere to the same safety requirements under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic (FD&C) Act that apply to food and food ingredients derived from traditionally bred plants...

As of May 2013, FDA has completed 96 consultations on genetically engineered crops. A complete list of all completed consultations and our responses are available at www.fda.gov/bioconinventory...

And:

3. Are foods from genetically engineered plants safe?

Foods from genetically engineered plants must meet the same requirements, including safety requirements, as foods from traditionally bred plants...

8. Are foods from genetically engineered plants more likely to (1) cause an allergic reaction or (2) be toxic?

The foods we have evaluated through the consultation process have not been more likely to cause an allergic or toxic reaction than foods from traditionally bred plants.

http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodScienceResearch/Biotechnology/ucm346030.htm

The scientific consensus on GMOs is crystal clear.

 

[BWV]

A perfect bubble of confirmation bias where any contrary evidence can be disregarded as corrupt industry propaganda. No different than how vaccine denialists, 9-11 Truthers or any other pseudoscientific cult operates

 

[BWV]

I take it you disagree with this policy?

You asking if I support the intimidation and harassment of legimate scientists by anti-science activist groups?

 

[DaveC426913]

I guess I'm just not convinced that the argument is that clear cut about the safety of GMOs, and I'm not sure that the FDA is an impartial source of information because of ties to the biotechnology sector http://ivn.us/2013/02/11/the-revolving-door-fda-and-the-monsanto-company/.

Not sure that 'impartial' is so much necessary as 'doing right by the people'.

Furthermore, I think that truly independent research into GMO is difficult or impossible to find

True, although it does directly follow that any-research-that-is-not-independent is therefore unreliable. You can draw that conclusion, but it would need to be defensible, otherwise you're simply cherry-picking the studies that bolster your stance.

It has also been reported that dissenting scientists are often faced with public relations maneuvers by GMO companies to discredit and silence them:

Probably true, but that does not in-and-of-itself mean the scientists have The Truth, and that the GMO companies are squelching truth.

eg. Wrong ideas are put forth right here on PF all the time, about all sorts of things, and PF actively silences them, but that does not mean that the ideas are right, and that PF is squelching truth.

Finally, I'm not saying, you're wrong about any of this, I'm just saying that this is another logical fallacy called poisoning the well. It's not a strong stance.

 

[Evo]

Inappropriate sources will be deleted, only valid peer reviewed sources (including articles that refer to and cite these sources are allowable). Personal opinions are not acceptable.

 

[DaveC426913]

You asking if I support the intimidation and harassment of legimate scientists by anti-science activist groups?

No. I'm asking you to state your case.

You posted a link to an article, but neglected to mention the point you want to make about it. I'm just guessing, unless you want to take the guesswork out.

 

[BWV]

No. I'm asking you to state your case.

You posted a link to an article, but neglected to mention the point you want to make about it. I'm just guessing, unless you want to take the guesswork out.

Thought the thing was appalling enough it didn't need comment or explanation

 

[DaveC426913]

Thought the thing was appalling enough it didn't need comment or explanation

It does. And it's actually required by PF rules. You must make your own argument, here, not in some offsite article. You can certainly refer to articles, but they're not a substitute for your explanation.

 

[brainpushups]

A perfect bubble of confirmation bias where any contrary evidence can be disregarded as corrupt industry propaganda. No different than how vaccine denialists, 9-11 Truthers or any other pseudoscientific cult operates

Look. I'm not denying the value of the general consensus of the scientific community. I'm just pointing that there does seem to be some disagreement out there and that some of these people who are disagreeing with the status quo have PhDs in related fields that I know very little about.

Probably true, but that does not in-and-of-itself mean the scientists have The Truth, and that the GMO companies are squelching truth

Agreed, but it makes me raise an eyebrow.

Inappropriate sources will be deleted, only valid peer reviewed sources (including articles that refer to these sources are allowable. Personal opinions are not acceptable.

Um... I don't think you looked at those sources carefully because two of them were from peer reviewed journals and the other was a NYT piece. I realize that one of the articles was from a personal website, but it was published in Nature (Nat Biotechnol. 2009 Oct;27(10):880-2. doi: 10.1038/nbt1009-880.); if I linked it there you wouldn't be able to actually read it. And may I point out that every other article linked in this thread does not fit this criteria (and includes a wikipedia link!). Is this some type of conspiracy to silence the dissenter? ; )

 

[Evo]

Look. I'm not denying the value of the general consensus of the scientific community. I'm just pointing that there does seem to be some disagreement out there and that some of these people who are disagreeing with the status quo have PhDs in related fields that I know very little about.

Do they have any peer reviewed papers in journals we accept?

 

[brainpushups]

Do they have any peer reviewed papers in journals we accept?

Let's start with some abstracts:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12441651

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17923672

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18648843

The title of each journal is at the top (directly above the title).

Now I realize that I've just cherry picked a couple of random studies. But the point here is that there are enough of them out there for me to find relatively easily.

 

[BWV]

The non-GMO, natural way to make cheese is to kill a calf and harvest the stomach enzymes for rennet. Fortunately for cows and consumers, scientists in the 80s figured out how to extract the rennet producing genes and insert them into bacteria. 80-90 percent of cheese in the U.S. And UK is made with this genetically engineered rennet

https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=184.1685

 

[BWV]

Let's start with some abstracts:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12441651

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17923672

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18648843

The title of each journal is at the top (directly above the title).

Now I realize that I've just cherry picked a couple of random studies. But the point here is that there are enough of them out there for me to find relatively easily.

It is not difficult to find articles on pubmed claiming a link between vaccines and autism
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/21623535/

And there is an absolute scientific consensus against any link - it has come as close to being actively disproven as any epidemiological issue can be

The site takes a lot of marginal research of little value

 

[Student100]

Do they have any peer reviewed papers in journals we accept?

Not as much disagreement as he'd think: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-entine/post_8915_b_6572130.html

Nature did an entire issue on GMO's which dispels a lot myth: http://www.nature.com/news/specials/gmcrops/index.html

 

[Evo]

Let's start with some abstracts:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12441651

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17923672

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18648843

The title of each journal is at the top (directly above the title).

Now I realize that I've just cherry picked a couple of random studies. But the point here is that there are enough of them out there for me to find relatively easily.

And those are fine, except they show no harm to humans.

1. GM foods currently available on the international market have passed safety assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved.

http://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/

 

[brainpushups]

Well, fair enough. I can concede that there is no doubt that the consensus that GMO foods are safe is higher than I thought. And, for the record, I am not opposed to the use of GMO.

One thing that is bothersome however is that GMO crops are often designed to be resistant to glyphosate which is (I believe) a known carcinogen. What are your thoughts about the increased use of glyphosate for GMO crops?

 

[Student100]

Well, fair enough. I can concede that there is no doubt that the consensus that GMO foods are safe is higher than I thought. And, for the record, I am not opposed to the use of GMO.

One thing that is bothersome however is that GMO crops are often designed to be resistant to glyphosate which is (I believe) a known carcinogen. What are your thoughts about the increased use of glyphosate for GMO crops?

I side with the EPA: http://www2.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/glyphosate, http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/glyphogen.html

 

[russ_watters]

It is not difficult to find articles on pubmed claiming a link between vaccines and autism
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/21623535/

And there is an absolute scientific consensus against any link...

Indeed, a [loose] criminal conspiracy!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield

 

[russ_watters]

One thing that is bothersome however is that GMO crops are often designed to be resistant to glyphosate which is (I believe) a known carcinogen. What are your thoughts about the increased use of glyphosate for GMO crops?

glyophosate is a herbicide - a weed killer. It kills weeds that would otherwise choke crops. That's a good thing. Making crops more resistant to it enables higher doses and more effectiveness, resulting in higher crop yields.

You didn't state what your objection is, so I'll have to infer it: you think people are consuming it, which could make them sick. Yes. Just like any other pesticide ever used in the past hundred years. Wash your vegetables before you eat them.

Note: this objection isn't specifically a GMO objection, it is a weed-killer chemical objection.

 

[brainpushups]

glyophosate is a herbicide - a weed killer. It kills weeds that would otherwise choke crops. That's a good thing. Making crops more resistant to it enables higher doses and more effectiveness, resulting in higher crop yields.

Yes. I understand that is the idea. Just because it kills plants doesn't mean it doesn't have adverse affects on animals.

You didn't state what your objection is, so I'll have to infer it: you think people are consuming it, which could make them sick. Yes. Just like any other pesticide ever used in the past hundred years. Wash your vegetables before you eat them.

My objection isn't necessarily about direct consumption. My objection is about increasing the amount of the chemical to the environment. I'd imagine that increased use would amount to an increased presence in water supplies and may therefore result in increased consumption by any organism that isn't ingesting treated water.

Note: this objection isn't specifically a GMO objection, it is a weed-killer chemical objection.

Correct, but there is a connection because one of the specific modifications has been to make crops resistant to plant killing chemicals.

 

[russ_watters]

My objection isn't necessarily about direct consumption. My objection is about increasing the amount of the chemical to the environment. I'd imagine that increased use would amount to an increased presence in water supplies and may therefore result in increased consumption by any organism that isn't ingesting treated water.

Potentially, yes. That's why every chemical is tested and every water supply monitored for chemical levels.

Correct, but there is a connection because one of the specific modifications has been to make crops resistant to plant killing chemicals.

Sure, but with any potential problem, one must keep their eye on the ball and focus on the thing actually creating the harm. If glyophosphate were found to be a hazard to drinking water, it would be banned -- but the glyophosphate resistant crops could still be eaten because the chemical being bad doesn't say anything about the genetic modification itself being harmful. Anti-GMO'ers want to stop genetic modification itself, regardless of what its purpose is.

In my view, the FDA's line on food regulation isn't strict enough, but the irony is that if food and drug regulation were made more strict, it could be the "organic" foods (and those who sell them) that would suffer, not the GM foods. "Organic" (such an arrogant name, isn't it?) advocates often tout non existent health benefits or claim superiority of inferior products. In my view, this sort of false advertising should not be acceptable. Then again, there's still the whole "supplement" market that has been inexplicably exempted from FDA oversight regarding false advertising (or even actual harm). A much worse problem than "organic" food, at least in the narrow sense...though in the broad sense, I consider "organic" shoppers partially responsible for the deaths of African famine victims.

 

[gleem]

Does anyone know the details of the safety studies that are or have been done on GMO crops particularly long terms studies of chronic health effects or reproductive effects?

 

[brainpushups]

Sure, but with any potential problem, one must keep their eye on the ball and focus on the thing actually creating the harm.

I'm not sure I agree with that completely. I think that both a narrow view and a wide angled view are important to consider.

If glyophosphate were found to be a hazard to drinking water, it would be banned

I can think of instances where certain chemicals or products were believed to be safe by the establishment and then later found to be harmful. This is perhaps the source of my skepticism.

but the glyophosphate resistant crops could still be eaten because the chemical being bad doesn't say anything about the genetic modification itself being harmful

I would have no objection to a GMO crop being grown and sold if it has undergone rigorous study and grown, let's say 'ecologically' (to avoid the connotations associated with 'organic').

Anti-GMO'ers want to stop genetic modification itself, regardless of what its purpose is.

Are you lumping me in with them? I'm just trying to have a conversation. I like to think that my tentative opinions regarding most issues that I am fairly ignorant about are not too strong to be abandoned in the light of compelling evidence.

"Organic" (such an arrogant name, isn't it?) advocates often tout nonexistant health benefits or claim superiority of inferior products. In my view, this sort of false advertising should not be acceptable. Then again, there's still the whole "supplement" market that has been inexplicably exempted from FDA oversight. A much worse problem than "organic" food.

If a person believes that an organic apple (say) is superior to a GMO apple simply for the reason that one is organic and one is not then I would agree they are probably misguided. So would the individual choosing GMO for the same reasons Now, if a person has other reasons for choosing organic (like the objection to the use of herbicides) OR for choosing GMO (like they think it has better flavor) then perhaps those are valid reasons for making the choice.

 

[BWV]

Ultimately one has to demonstrate that genetic alteration through gene splicing and other modern techniques produces results that are somehow different than the results of selective breeding, which has radically altered nearly everything we eat beyond any resemblance to its original 'natural' ancestor.

 

[russ_watters]

Ultimately one has to demonstrate that genetic alteration through gene splicing and other modern techniques produces results that are somehow different than the results of selective breeding, which has radically altered nearly everything we eat beyond any resemblance to its original 'natural' ancestor.

I think part of the concern is that splicing genes together from different organisms might result in hermaphroditic velociraptors.

They forget that any organism's DNA already contains a lot of code in common with other organisms. I was at a genetics exhibit in a museum (Smithsonian NH?) that had this in graphical form:

What percent of their genes match yours?

Another human? 100% - All humans have the same genes, but some of these genes contain sequence differences that make each person unique.
A chimpanzee? 98% - Chimpanzees are the closest living species to humans.
A mouse? 92% - All mammals are quite similar genetically.
A fruit fly? 44% - Studies of fruit flies have shown how shared genes govern the growth and structure of both insects and mammals.
Yeast? 26% - Yeasts are single-celled organisms, but they have many housekeeping genes that are the same as the genes in humans, such as those that enable energy to be derived from the breakdown of sugars.
A weed (thale cress)? 18% - Plants have many metabolic differences from humans. For example, they use sunlight to convert carbon dioxide gas to sugars. But they also have similarities in their housekeeping genes.

https://www.koshland-science-museum.org/sites/all/exhibits/exhibitdna/intro03.jsp

The comparison is somewhat arbitrarily done, of course. It is tough to measure because there is a lot of junk code and sequences that are repeated -- but you get the idea.

 

[brainpushups]

Ultimately one has to demonstrate that genetic alteration through gene splicing and other modern techniques produces results that are somehow different than the results of selective breeding, which has radically altered nearly everything we eat beyond any resemblance to its original 'natural' ancestor.

I think there is a difference though because of the possibility of such rapid change. AFAIK there is no way to predict how altering an organism's DNA will affect other organisms that consume it. I know there have been some unexpected consequences for things that appear to be safe. For example, the now known chiral toxicology of thalidomide. For me, it isn't the method or principle of altering genes by engineering that makes GMO require strict testing, its the rate of change.

 

[russ_watters]

Yes, there are potentially legitimate risks with any sort of genetic modification. For example, one could inadvertently splice in a gene from one plant that produces a substance that causes a food allergy. Mixing peanut genes with something else. I see no fundamental difference in the type of risk, only in the potential magnitude of the concern due to the fact that our power to make such changes has increased.