News Anti-GMO hysteria now most dangerous anti-science movement

[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.

 

[Vanadium 50]

For example, one could inadvertently splice in a gene from one plant that produces a substance that causes a food allergy

True. But this can happen naturally as well. Navel oranges are all clones of a single mutant plant.

 

[russ_watters]

True. But this can happen naturally as well.

Yes, that's what I was saying with the rest of the post; why I don't see the risk as fundamentally different.
[Edit] On the other hand, the link in the OP points out that new techniques enable more precision/specificity than cross-breeding, which is a total crapshoot. That should make modern techniques safer.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

But on the specific issue we were discussing (glyophosphate resistance), the anti-GMO attack misses the the actual cause of the harm. It is generally better to attack a problem head-on than obliquely (if possible).

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.

Of course, that's a healthy skepticism. But we can't let such fears override good science and stunt progress. It also should be recognized that we are much better at identifying true risks today than in the past.

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').

I'm not clear on what you mean by "grown ecologically".

Are you lumping me in with them?

No, but they are the target/topic of this thread, per the thread title. To the extent that your concerns are legitimate somewhat makes them off-topic (but helps to define the legitimate boundaries of the concerns).
[Edit] And I do think this has been a productive conversation.

 

[russ_watters]

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?

"Details" is a tough request to fulfill. There have been thousands (tens of thousands?) of safety studies performed on GMOs. The possibility of long-term health effects (and lack of study thereof) is a common complaint, but is largely misguided. Yes, long-term studies are done, but the best "studies" for long-term effects by now are the history itself and in particular the tightly controlled breeding of livestock, which makes it easy to study:

...globally, food-producing animals consume 70% to 90% of genetically engineered crop biomass, mostly corn and soybean. In the United States alone, animal agriculture produces over 9 billion food-producing animals annually, and more than 95% of these animals consume feed containing GE ingredients. The numbers are similar in large GMO producing countries with a large agricultural sector, such as Brazil and Argentina...

Writing in the Journal of Animal Science, in the most comprehensive study of GMOs and food ever conducted, University of California-Davis Department of Animal Science geneticist Alison Van Eenennaam and research assistant Amy E. Young reviewed 29 years of livestock productivity and health data from both before and after the introduction of genetically engineered animal feed.

The field data represented more than 100 billion animals covering a period before 1996 when animal feed was 100% non-GMO, and after its introduction when it jumped to 90% and more. The documentation included the records of animals examined pre and post mortem, as ill cattle cannot be approved for meat.

What did they find? That GM feed is safe and nutritionally equivalent to non-GMO feed. There was no indication of any unusual trends in the health of animals since 1996 when GMO crops were first harvested. [emphasis added]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonenti...-is-over-thanks-to-a-new-trillion-meal-study/

This is in addition to the difficulty in identifying a mechanism by which GMO food could cause the long-term effects implied. Genes can't cause chemical harm (poisoning) in and of themselves. The added gene would have to cause the plant to generate an unexpected chemical (or biological agent), which could, of course, be detected. This makes blanket anti-GMO concern invalid: it is inherently impossible for genetic modification itself to cause harm. IE, even if a certain modification were found to be harmful, that would not provide a justification for banning all modification.

 

[brainpushups]

It also should be recognized that we are much better at identifying true risks today than in the past.

Maybe, and maybe we're always making that progress. However, I bet that same argument would have been used on products a generation ago that are now known to be harmful.

I'm not clear on what you mean by "grown ecologically".

Perhaps I don't even need a distinction like that. Let's just say that one product (non-GMO) and another product (GMO) are both grown in the exact same way. If there have been no demonstrated ill-effects of either product then I agree there is no reason to have a preference.

 

[gleem]

The added gene would have to cause the plant to generate an unexpected chemical (or biological agent), which could, of course, be detected. This makes blanket anti-GMO concern invalid: it is inherently impossible for genetic modification itself to cause harm. IE, even if a certain modification were found to be harmful, that would not provide a justification for banning all modification.

Blanket banning of research is irrational. Just as a drug can have an unexpected sequla does't justify the cessation of pharmaceutical research. However unlike pharmaceuticals food will be taken in by all so vigilance with regards to untoward effects should be of prime importance.

We hardly understand "natural" disease processes just look at pharmaceutical research, it is a guessing , albeit educated, game as to what approach will work and GMO consumption is a whole new game. Industry sponsored research will and should always be suspect on any product.

 

[russ_watters]

Blanket banning of research is irrational.
[but]
...Industry sponsored research will and should always be suspect on any product.

Agreed. The FDA is one of my more respected government agencies. I think it is good at its job and think our food/drug quality has improved markedly over the hundred years of its existence.

But just to be clear, an "all natural" food supply via blanket banning of all GMOs, pesticides and non-"natural" fertilizer (presumably, poo in our drinking water is ok though?) really is a central plank of the "environmentalist" movement. Another central plank has nothing directly to do with the environment: anti-corporate-ism. But these two planks intersect when it comes to GMOs and it is tough to separate the motives. IE, are GMOs themselves bad or is it just bad that Monsanto is allowed to patent genes? Sometimes it is tough to know which topic we are discussing.

[note: I just checked Greenpeace and the Sierra Club's websites to be sure both planks were on them.]

 

[gleem]

But just to be clear, an "all natural" food supply via blanket banning of all GMOs, pesticides and non-"natural" fertilizer (presumably, poo in our drinking water is ok though?) really is a central plank of the "environmentalist" movement. Another central plank has nothing directly to do with the environment: anti-corporate-ism. But these two planks intersect when it comes to GMOs and it is tough to separate the motives. IE, are GMOs themselves bad or is it just bad that Monsanto is allowed to patent genes? Sometimes it is tough to know which topic we are discussing.

Extremism in the protection of the environment is no virtue and extremism is very rarely, if ever, a good solution to any problem.

The issue with "corporate-ism' is its concentration on profits. I do not wish to imply that all corporate endeavors are not inconsiderate of the public good, but when push comes to shove and the product in which so much is invested becomes suspect it is a natural tendency to gloss over more or less the negative aspects. Industry can never regulate itself. Really if there where no consequence for mislabeling or false representation would we be better off?

or is it just bad that Monsanto is allowed to patent genes? Sometimes it is tough to know which topic we are discussing.

This is almost as troubling.

Have you seen the movie "Soylent Green" (1973). it doesn't seem so outlandish considering what we see in our future, a single corporation controlling a dwindling food supply.

 

[mheslep]

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

List of https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/809of the Genetically Engineered Food Right-to-Know Act - "Amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to deem misbranded any food that has been genetically engineered... "

Sen. Murkowski, Lisa [R-AK]* 04/24/2013
Sen. Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [D-NY]* 04/24/2013
Sen. Blumenthal, Richard [D-CT]* 04/24/2013
Sen. Begich, Mark [D-AK]* 04/24/2013
Sen. Tester, Jon [D-MT]* 04/24/2013
Sen. Sanders, Bernard [I-VT]* 04/24/2013
Sen. Merkley, Jeff [D-OR]* 04/24/2013
Sen. Schatz, Brian [D-HI]* 04/24/2013
Sen. Heinrich, Martin [D-NM]* 04/24/2013
Sen. Feinstein, Dianne [D-CA] 05/07/2013
Sen. Mikulski, Barbara A. [D-MD] 05/21/2013
Sen. Leahy, Patrick J. [D-VT] 07/31/2013
Sen. Shaheen, Jeanne [D-NH] 07/31/2013
Sen. Warren, Elizabeth [D-MA] 11/04/2013
Sen. Murphy, Christopher S. [D-CT] 01/13/2014
Sen. Booker, Cory A. [D-NJ] 07/31/2014
Sen. Reed, Jack [D-RI] 09/16/2014

I doubt all of the above are actually GMO-is-sccarrry nuts; some likely have some big donations from organic farmers and distributors and say what they're told to say.

 

[Evo]

List of https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/809of the Genetically Engineered Food Right-to-Know Act - "Amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to deem misbranded any food that has been genetically engineered... "

Sen. Murkowski, Lisa [R-AK]* 04/24/2013
Sen. Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [D-NY]* 04/24/2013
Sen. Blumenthal, Richard [D-CT]* 04/24/2013
Sen. Begich, Mark [D-AK]* 04/24/2013
Sen. Tester, Jon [D-MT]* 04/24/2013
Sen. Sanders, Bernard [I-VT]* 04/24/2013
Sen. Merkley, Jeff [D-OR]* 04/24/2013
Sen. Schatz, Brian [D-HI]* 04/24/2013
Sen. Heinrich, Martin [D-NM]* 04/24/2013
Sen. Feinstein, Dianne [D-CA] 05/07/2013
Sen. Mikulski, Barbara A. [D-MD] 05/21/2013
Sen. Leahy, Patrick J. [D-VT] 07/31/2013
Sen. Shaheen, Jeanne [D-NH] 07/31/2013
Sen. Warren, Elizabeth [D-MA] 11/04/2013
Sen. Murphy, Christopher S. [D-CT] 01/13/2014
Sen. Booker, Cory A. [D-NJ] 07/31/2014
Sen. Reed, Jack [D-RI] 09/16/2014

Shakes head, they don't even give any reasoning.

 

[brainpushups]

Shakes head, they don't even give any reasoning.

What do you mean? This is straight from the bill:

SEC. 2. PURPOSE AND FINDINGS.(a) Purpose.—The purpose of this Act is to establish a consistent and enforceable standard for labeling of foods produced using genetic engineering, including fish, thereby providing consumers with knowledge of how their food is produced.

(b) Findings.—Congress finds that—

(1) the process of genetically engineering food organisms results in material changes to food derived from those organisms;

(2) the Food and Drug Administration requires the labeling of more than 3,000 ingredients, additives, and processes;

(3) individuals in the United States have a right to know if their food was produced with genetic engineering for a variety of reasons, including health, economic, environmental, religious, and ethical;

(4) more than 60 countries, including the United Kingdom and all other countries of the European Union, South Korea, Japan, Brazil, Australia, India, China, and other key United States trading partners have laws or regulations mandating disclosure of genetically engineered food on food labels;

(5) in 2011, Codex Alimentarius, the food standards organization of the United Nations, adopted a text that indicates that governments can decide on whether and how to label foods produced with genetic engineering; and

(6) mandatory identification of food produced with genetic engineering can be a critical method of preserving the economic value of exports or domestically sensitive markets with labeling requirements for genetically engineered foods.

What more reasoning do you expect from lawmakers?

 

[edward]

Evolution has just proven itself. Our first wide scale venture into to GMO has given us weeds that have adapted to Roundup herbicide. So now that we have knowledge of the unexpected consequences of the first round of GMO what is going to happen? I think we all know what is going to happen. Dicamba and 24D resistant GMO crops are on the way.

https://www.extension.purdue.edu/extmedia/id/id-453-w.pdf

Below is an interesting point of view given to is by the Union of concerned Scientists. Sorry it is a PDF. I can't cut and paste the good parts, then again it is a very informative 8 page read. It addition to the resistant weed problem, it also brings up the issue of growing the same crop over and over in the same fields.

http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/food_and_agriculture/rise-of-superweeds.pdf

 

[edward]

What do you mean? This is straight from the bill:
What more reasoning do you expect from lawmakers?

Their reasoning, most likely, is being heavily influence by the fact the genetic food lobby is not going to go away.

 

[gleem]

List of https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/809of the Genetically Engineered Food Right-to-Know Act - "Amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to deem misbranded any food that has been genetically engineered... "

Yet now in the house is bill H.R. 4432 Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2014 which favors GMO products see


https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/4432/text

 

[Vanadium 50]

Our first wide scale venture into to GMO has given us weeds that have adapted to Roundup herbicide

Herbicide resistance predates Roundup Ready. It even predates Roundup. Roundup resistant pest species have nothing to do with GMO.

 

[edward]

Herbicide resistance predates Roundup Ready. It even predates Roundup. Roundup resistant pest species have nothing to do with GMO.

Picky picky picky : ) I mentioned Roundup because it was the herbicide of choice used by Monsanto when they created the GMO. This was the first incidence of a widely used GMO becoming obsolete due to weed resistance to the herbicide the GMO was created to tolerate. If you read the links you will see that the same is expected in the future with whatever GMO and herbicide it has been developed to tolerate.

 

[russ_watters]

Evolution has just proven itself. Our first wide scale venture into to GMO has given us weeds that have adapted to Roundup herbicide. So now that we have knowledge of the unexpected consequences of the first round of GMO what is going to happen?

In addition to what V50 pointed out, Roundup resistance also predates roundup ready modification, so you've got the entire issue backwards.

...This was the first incidence of a widely used GMO becoming obsolete due to weed resistance ...

Roundup Ready is not obsolete - it's still on the market (and indeed now that its patent is expired a generic version was recently produced).

If you read the links you will see that the same is expected in the future with whatever GMO and herbicide it is developed to tolerate.

Of course. It is expected that most pesticides/herbicides will become less effective over time as weeds/bugs adapt. That's part of the reason why resistant crops are needed/created. Again, you've got the entire issue backwards.

 

[Evo]

Yet now in the house is bill H.R. 4432 Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2014 which favors GMO products see


https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/4432/text

You seem to be out of date.

H.R. 4432 (113th): Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2014Introduced:
Apr 9, 2014
113th Congress, 2013–2015

Status:
Died in a previous Congress
This bill was introduced on April 9, 2014, in a previous session of Congress, but was not enacted.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr4432

 

[gleem]

Re: H.R. 4432

I saw that it was sent back to committee but did not know it died. So I guess that a win for the anti GMO faction.

 

[BWV]

Perhaps worth mentioning that drought resistance is another key goal of GMO crops and no issue of evolutionary resistance there

Also pest resistance does have evolutionary dynamics but at least the goal is reduced use of pesticides which are at least as subject to evolution

 

[Evo]

Re: H.R. 4432

I saw that it was sent back to committee but did not know it died. So I guess that a win for the anti GMO faction.

Yeah and a win for the uninformed isn't a win, is it? Political caving to lobbyists. It's no longer about the science but about the politics.

 

[edward]

Of course. It is expected that most pesticides/herbicides will become less effective over time as weeds/bugs adapt. That's part of the reason why resistant crops are needed/created. Again, you've got the entire issue backwards.

In what time frame is it expected ? Monsanto never mentioned anything about resistance happening this fast.

Monsanto, which once argued that resistance would not become a major problem, now cautions against exaggerating its impact.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/business/energy-environment/04weed.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

[Paul Uszak]

Just to throw in my Zloty's worth:-

Just to flesh me out, I consider myself a Transhumanist, man of the World and not uneducated. I am disinterested in GMO. The previous three pages have been interesting, and I appreciate that this is a scientific forum, but one thing that seems to have been omitted is the People. The People pay for this research and are the beneficiaries of it. Science cannot operate in a vacuum (get it?). It must not operate for science's benefit only. Science without social context and acceptance will always be fraught with distrust and derision.

Clearly anti GMO rhetoric is pervasive and powerful, yet by no means the most dangerous anti science movement. Embryology, Creationism and (in the UK) on shore wind are equally controversial. Scientists cannot be elevated to a high podium from where they dictate what is in our best interest without consultation. Smoking is bad for me, yet I smoke. The debate cannot only be an elitist conversation reserved for the chattering classes. The scientific community cannot impose their will on the People because they know best. That's a dark road to totalitarianism.

Sometimes, whatever the apparent benefits, the people must be allowed to say no.

 

[Vanadium 50]

In what time frame is it expected ? Monsanto never mentioned anything about resistance happening this fast.

1. Whether or not Monsanto is good at predicting how fast resistance develops in weeds is irrelevant to the question of the safety of GMOs.
2. It's hard to blame herbicide resistance on Roundup-Ready GMOs since, as Russ says, it predates it.

 

[Evo]

Sometimes, whatever the apparent benefits, the people must be allowed to say no.

That makes absolutely no sense at all. Uninformed people should not be allowed to make decisions, much less decisions based on hysterics and misinformation.