Neil deGrasse Tyson is not afraid of genetically modified foods

I agree. We have had millions of acres of genetically modified foods planted and eaten by nearly the entire population for many years now. AFAIK no deaths have been reported and indeed very little harm of any kind to any human has been documented. However, that doesn't mean that all types of modifications are desirable. And it certainly doesn't mean that all marketing and legal strategies are that have been used are desirable. The potential for helping mankind is enormous and so are the potential risks, so it is a technology that needs to be carefully regulated.

The risk of environmental damage seems to be much more serious, especially when it comes to unintended consequences. Since no long term studies have been done by independent sources, it is hard to say exactly how much is at risk. But until some dramatic damage is documented, it is likely that short term profits will drive the technology for some time to come.

I don't understand the argument of not selling "seeds that cannot reproduce themselves." For decades virtually all commercial seeds sold in the US have been hybrid seeds, which are not worth saving and replanting, since they seldom come true to seed. Some market gardeners may plant open pollinated crops, but hybrids have so many advantages that just about all commercial growers use them, and they must buy them every year.

I'm at least in agreement with him on the sub-issues behind it all. It isn't that I don't trust GMOs on principle, it is that I *specifically* don't trust Monsanto and the other corporations doing this.

I don't like their business practices. I don't like their anti-competitive attitudes. I don't like their use of legal threats against neighboring farmers when nature does what it likes to do (bees pollinate the flowers they get to, and don't give an ear of wax over who they might belong to or what patents may be filed). And yes, I don't like their practice of selling sterile seeds to 3rd world countries.

In fact, the 3rd World factor is the biggest concern of all. Natural selection (with a few rare cases in times of extinction events) tends to create diversity. Heck, if there wasn't the diversity, we wouldn't have had such a reason to come up with evolution as an explanation in the first place. When you talk about genetic modifications and 10,000 years, that's 10,000 years of finding the best crops for the land one is growing on.

This, in my view, is what is different about the modern approach: rather than finding the best crop for the land you have, which would imply as it did 150 years ago that a wheat best suited for South Dakota might not be the same wheat best suited for the dry panhandle of Oklahoma (nevermind for Eastern Australia), the current practice seems to be *one* type of seed, and if the land doesn't support it, change the land. Change fertilizer (at cost), change the irrigation (at an impact of others' needs for the water), import topsoil from other countries, and above all, change the practices that the local farmers have known and understood for generations.

The elimination of diversity. There's one species/variety that is "the best", so *everybody* should be growing it.

THAT is the aspect of the current agricultural practices that most scares me. The loss of diversification, leading to the mass dependency on both the corporation that generates the seed, the massive infrastructure (bureaucratic and legal included) to protect it from the inevitable blight, and the loss of local farming practice and knowledge. When you change the crop and change the land, you inevitably change the people: a loss of diversity.

Organic crops may not really be the best, but I'm not purchasing them and supporting them when possible not because I (perhaps mistakenly) believe they are better for my health. I am supporting them to support diversity in the last and only way I can, just as I do in my tastes of music, of movies, of television, of literature, and even of the computer languages I program in. Because the loss of diversity, or the idea that ONLY man-made (and corporate-values driven) diversity will be allowed in the future, scares me more than anything else about all of this.

I agree that genetically modified foods are most likely a net benefit, and cultural attitudes towards them (especially by people wealthy enough to afford expensively produced food) are an impediment to improving lives around the world.

However, I think the argument that they're just like traditional cultivars is disingenuous. In fact, if they were, we'd just stick with ordinary breeding methods. Recombinant DNA can combine genes that across species that would never get there through inheritance (except by very lucky coincidence). That's why it's such a powerful technique. It may have some unintended consequences and any potential products need to be tested for food safety as well as environmental impact on wild species.

The other thing I'm strongly opposed to is any suggestion that GM foods should be exempt from labeling. My reason for labeling is not based on scientific grounds, but on civic grounds. The reason for labeling is that a significant portion of the public wants to know and therefore has the right to know what they're purchasing. To suggest that they don't need to know is the kind of technocratic paternalism that is wrong to begin with and engenders suspicion. First educate the public that GM food is safe, change the cultural attitudes, then go ahead and label. This is not a change that should be accomplished by trying to trick people.

Monsanto claims that it only pursues actions against farmers who deliberately cultivate, collect, and replant protected seed strains, not farmers who just happened to have protected seed blow onto their property or get cross-pollinated or whatever.

I respectfully disagree on the labeling shtick. What's next, requiring a "grown within 100 miles of a nuclear power facility" label? Basing it on what "the public wants to know and therefore has a right to know" seems like a slippery slope; you're making policy dependent on the skill of pollsters. I'm sure that if asked "Would you like to know if the food you're eating was grown using nuclear power," most Americans would get alarmed and say yes. "Wants to know" is just dubious.

If there was a nutritional or other immediate health risk, that's one thing. But no such credible risk exists.

david.starling.macmillan said: I respectfully disagree on the labeling shtick. What's next, requiring a "grown within 100 miles of a nuclear power facility" label? Basing it on what "the public wants to know and therefore has a right to know" seems like a slippery slope; you're making policy dependent on the skill of pollsters. I'm sure that if asked "Would you like to know if the food you're eating was grown using nuclear power," most Americans would get alarmed and say yes. "Wants to know" is just dubious. If there was a nutritional or other immediate health risk, that's one thing. But no such credible risk exists.

david.starling.macmillan said: I respectfully disagree on the labeling shtick.

The other thing is that if I had personally contributed to the production of a better agricultural product using recombinant DNA, I'd be proud of it and want people to know. I grant that large parts of the public might not be ready to appreciate it in these terms.

I'd really much rather see the effort go into educating the public than in lobbying with the intent to foist it on them unknowingly. Actually, Tyson's remarks are a step in this direction and maybe some progress could be made if other popular and knowledgable figures were more outspoken about it.

However, I disagree with the emphasis (including Tyson's) that they're just the same as our "other" genetically modified foods (ordinary hybrids). If the process was just the same, there would be no advantage to it.

(I'm not completely sure about Monsanto and the non-reproducing seed issue. I don't think they're a great exemplar of corporate beneficence, but maybe it's not such a big deal. They've been the whipping boy for agriculture biotech for, what 20 years now? At least.)

Mostly unrelated: I remember reading that Johnny Appleseed was religiously opposed to fruit trees produced by grafting. As a result, his apples were not of consistent quality for eating, but they were suitable for cider. I doubt there are many people today who would go that far, but there are all kinds of things people care about.

phhht said:

david.starling.macmillan said: I respectfully disagree on the labeling shtick. What's next, requiring a "grown within 100 miles of a nuclear power facility" label? Basing it on what "the public wants to know and therefore has a right to know" seems like a slippery slope; you're making policy dependent on the skill of pollsters. I'm sure that if asked "Would you like to know if the food you're eating was grown using nuclear power," most Americans would get alarmed and say yes. "Wants to know" is just dubious. If there was a nutritional or other immediate health risk, that's one thing. But no such credible risk exists.

And then there's that whole "kosher" labeling schtick. "Wants kosher" is just dubious.

callahanpb said:

david.starling.macmillan said: I respectfully disagree on the labeling shtick.

One alternative is voluntary non-GMO labeling, which may serve the same purpose (and which is already out there).

Cobb County tried stickers for evolution--essentially, poisoning the well. To be sure, that ran afoul of the First Amendment, and presumably GMO stickers would be legal, but what point is there to it other than well poisoning? Warning labels should favor public health, not hysterics whipped up by unscientific demagogues.

For those who don't like GMOs, there are foods to buy that specifically exclude GMOs. Labeling is about scaring more people when there's no scientific reason for alarm. Should warning labels about gluten be next, or is just one scare-mongering fad be indulged by the government?

Moving on, I don't really see what the problem with crops engineered to be immune to glyphosate is. Glyphosate is one of the safest herbicides out there. Certainly it's no long-term solution, as weeds evolve their own immunity (now some crops are immune to two broad-spectrum herbicides, presumably less safe than glyphosate use alone), but you get a couple of decades of really good weed suppression and almost certainly less environmental damage during that time.

Bt is a very safe insecticide, whose problems are mainly akin to glyphosate--it's not permanent, or even all that long, but certainly valuable for a while. What is interesting is that the organism originally making it is almost the same as anthrax-producing bacteria, other than that the Bt toxin hits insects almost exclusively, at least among metazoa.

Glen Davidson

david.starling.macmillan said:

phhht said:

david.starling.macmillan said: I respectfully disagree on the labeling shtick. What's next, requiring a "grown within 100 miles of a nuclear power facility" label? Basing it on what "the public wants to know and therefore has a right to know" seems like a slippery slope; you're making policy dependent on the skill of pollsters. I'm sure that if asked "Would you like to know if the food you're eating was grown using nuclear power," most Americans would get alarmed and say yes. "Wants to know" is just dubious. If there was a nutritional or other immediate health risk, that's one thing. But no such credible risk exists.

And then there's that whole "kosher" labeling schtick. "Wants kosher" is just dubious.

Kosher labeling is 100% voluntary.

callahanpb said:

david.starling.macmillan said: I respectfully disagree on the labeling shtick.

One alternative is voluntary non-GMO labeling, which may serve the same purpose (and which is already out there).

Oh, I agree wholeheartedly. If someone wants to go to the trouble of making sure their product is gluten-free or lactose-free or cage-free or humanely-slaughtered or GMO-free, more power to them. Label away, as long as the label doesn't make additional misleading claims (e.g., "prevents cancer"). But mandatory labeling for non-injurious things like GMOs just becomes a political tool. I'm sure the oil and coal lobby would love to get "Made using nuclear energy" labels for anything that might push people to buy more oil and coal power. And I don't know whether that Monsanto claim is true or not, though it does seem like something that could be easily disproven if it was false.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: For those who don't like GMOs, there are foods to buy that specifically exclude GMOs. Labeling is about scaring more people when there's no scientific reason for alarm. Should warning labels about gluten be next, or is just one scare-mongering fad be indulged by the government? Glen Davidson

I’m also just very opposed to any suggestion that the public are rubes and ought to be treated as such.

If most people are wrong about what they think of genetically modified food (and I believe many people are wrongly concerned, even more so in Europe)

It is an article of faith that genetic modification is bad, and no amount of evidence can be adduced to change that opinion.

then they ought to be educated and persuaded.

This is how cultural change is supposed to happen in an open society, not through subterfuge.

Tyson argues, as I have for years, that all our food is genetically modified, but it took on the order of 10,000 years to get where we are now.

Finally, after a 12-year delay caused by opponents of genetically modified foods, so-called “golden rice” with vitamin A will be grown in the Philippines. Over those 12 years, about 8 million children worldwide died from vitamin A deficiency. Are anti-GM advocates not partly responsible?

phhht said:

david.starling.macmillan said:

phhht said: And then there's that whole "kosher" labeling schtick. "Wants kosher" is just dubious.

Kosher labeling is 100% voluntary.

But people "want to know" for reasons which are not rational, e.g. "kosher." Why not tell them? There is nothing shameful about GMO, is there?

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: What subterfuge? You haven't produced the slightest evidence for that charge, it's a made-up attack. Glen Davidson

david.starling.macmillan said: But insisting on labeling for GMO food is like insisting on a "non-kosher" label. It's the wrong way round.

What has always annoyed me about this issue is that the reason that "bt" and "Roundup ready" crops are the face of GMO is the simple fact that it is almost impossible to get funding to make beneficial crops. This is primarily thanks to groups like Greenpeace. Where I come from, the well has been so poisoned that no amount of information will ever convince Jane and Joe Public that GM crops are anything other than Frankenfood.

I did have another question for Glen Davidson that I forgot.

If I wanted to know if any product contained GMO products (food, furniture, shoe polish), should I be able to? How much work should it require? E.g., if it's fresh produce, then I should be able to look up the variety pretty easily. If it's a highly processed good, perhaps there is no reasonable expectation of any audit trail. Both seem fine as long as there is not an intention to conceal the origin of the product.

I can also sort of accept your point that scare labeling is potentially detrimental, but I have always (perhaps mistakenly) thought that the stance against labeling was that it's better for most people not to worry about it at all, since it really will be safe, and there is just a lot of misunderstanding about it. Maybe I've been misreading the view the whole time. I am really not an advocate of labeling, in case you thought so. I dislike anything that smacks of we-know-better-than-you paternalism, and if that's a "made up attack" regarding GMO it is certainly not unprecedented in other technology areas such as nuclear power.

callahanpb said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: What subterfuge? You haven't produced the slightest evidence for that charge, it's a made-up attack. Glen Davidson

I didn't actually make any charge, but I'll withdraw the entire sentence if it makes a difference.

This is how cultural change is supposed to happen in an open society, not through subterfuge.

The counterargument strikes me as the slippery slope fallacy.

This is a label people actually want enough to campaign for.

Your well-poisoning has already happened and this is a symptom.

You can imagine all kinds of other "fads" but this is the only one I'm aware of that has a serious constituency. We can talk about nuclear plant proximity labeling (David's example) as soon as you point to a significant group that wants it.

So we have one state where the democratic process did its thing, and the answer was GMO labeling.

The government is actually empowered to pass a law requiring such labels if people vote for representatives that pass such a law.

BTW, what do you think of cancer warnings on buildings in California?

I would also like to counter any suggestion that I was equating GMO labels to "education".

The GMO issue has been kicking around for over 20 years. I have read a lot of complaints about the public being misinformed, and precious few constructive suggestions of what to do about it.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: No, you can go ahead and justify laws

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:

Finally, after a 12-year delay caused by opponents of genetically modified foods, so-called “golden rice” with vitamin A will be grown in the Philippines. Over those 12 years, about 8 million children worldwide died from vitamin A deficiency. Are anti-GM advocates not partly responsible?

The figures might not be etched in stone, but there are devastating consequences of the nonsense coming from the anti-scientific Luddites Rich nations can afford the BS much better, even labeling if legislated, but fostering this nonsense has real consequences in the poorer countries. Glen Davidson

callahanpb said: I did have another question for Glen Davidson that I forgot. If I wanted to know if any product contained GMO products (food, furniture, shoe polish), should I be able to?

How much work should it require?

E.g., if it's fresh produce, then I should be able to look up the variety pretty easily.

If it's a highly processed good, perhaps there is no reasonable expectation of any audit trail. Both seem fine as long as there is not an intention to conceal the origin of the product.

I can also sort of accept your point that scare labeling is potentially detrimental, but I have always (perhaps mistakenly) thought that the stance against labeling was that it's better for most people not to worry about it at all, since it really will be safe, and there is just a lot of misunderstanding about it.

Maybe I've been misreading the view the whole time. I am really not an advocate of labeling, in case you thought so.

I dislike anything that smacks of we-know-better-than-you paternalism, and if that's a "made up attack" regarding GMO it is certainly not unprecedented in other technology areas such as nuclear power.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:

This is how cultural change is supposed to happen in an open society, not through subterfuge.

If you weren't responding to subterfuge, why would you mention it? Glen Davidson

callahanpb said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: No, you can go ahead and justify laws

If a law is constitutional and is passed according to a constitutional process, no further argument is needed to justify it, at least on legal grounds.

To be sure, that ran afoul of the First Amendment, and presumably GMO stickers would be legal, but what point is there to it other than well poisoning? Warning labels should favor public health, not hysterics whipped up by unscientific demagogues.

You seem to be suggesting that you can invalidate a democratic process simply because you disagree with the conclusion.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: Clearly I know that the laws can be passed, but decent people want decent laws, not mobocracy.

So why is an industry poised to do great things so bad at marketing its own potential?

This is actually pathetic. I mean this as a real criticism, not a snark. I have seen a lot of complaints about the stupid uninformed public for at least 20 years.

Given the resources of multi-billion dollar industries, there ought be some attempt to move the needle a little.

I still feel there is a lack of imagination here. The assumption seems to be that people will never actually desire GMO food and there is no way to change that.

Eventually, the developing world may have to lead the way because they really can’t afford boutique products. Having the luxury to afford what you actually want to eat makes other products a tough sell whether or not you rationally “should” be willing to eat them.

Many people are fooled about their own finances, something that they actually do care a great deal about, yet they’re naive enough to fall for scams.

A Masked Panda said: There was a lot of money opposed to Monsanto, and European interests protected themselves (believing their own junk, or not) by demonizing GMOs. Poor countries paid the real price.

callahanpb said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: Clearly I know that the laws can be passed, but decent people want decent laws, not mobocracy.

Maybe I'm not a decent person. I primarily want laws that reflect the will of the people (according to a particular process that will often not represent all people). If the law is fairly harmless on other grounds, I prefer it to whatever other law I might impose if it were up to me. Beyond a certain point, a law can be unjust (Jim Crow, obviously or laws that try to inject creationism into science class). If it's unconstitutional, it can be overturned on those grounds, but I would oppose an unjust law independent of its constitutionality.

jws.fbmm said: This, in my view, is what is different about the modern approach: rather than finding the best crop for the land you have, which would imply as it did 150 years ago that a wheat best suited for South Dakota might not be the same wheat best suited for the dry panhandle of Oklahoma (nevermind for Eastern Australia), the current practice seems to be *one* type of seed, and if the land doesn't support it, change the land. Change fertilizer (at cost), change the irrigation (at an impact of others' needs for the water), import topsoil from other countries, and above all, change the practices that the local farmers have known and understood for generations. The elimination of diversity. There's one species/variety that is "the best", so *everybody* should be growing it.

david.starling.macmillan said: Monsanto claims that it only pursues actions against farmers who deliberately cultivate, collect, and replant protected seed strains, not farmers who just happened to have protected seed blow onto their property or get cross-pollinated or whatever.

jws.fbmm said:

david.starling.macmillan said: Monsanto claims that it only pursues actions against farmers who deliberately cultivate, collect, and replant protected seed strains, not farmers who just happened to have protected seed blow onto their property or get cross-pollinated or whatever.

As I said, I don't trust them. Every big corporation says everything is fine even when it isn't. It is on the verge of illegal to say otherwise in this country. I've read plenty of stories of being sued for cross-pollination situations. Maybe they're less common now after negative publicity, but it shouldn't have happened in the first place.

callahanpb said:

david.starling.macmillan said: But insisting on labeling for GMO food is like insisting on a "non-kosher" label. It's the wrong way round.

I actually think that voluntary non-GMO labeling is sufficient for purposes of keeping the public informed, and would be nearly equivalent in practice.

I am not against GMO foods a priori, but I will never trust huge American corporations as a rule! If they end up doing something that's actually beneficial for the world, they do it in spite of themselves.

I'd have to have my botanist phd sister actually talk about this since it's her area of work, but I've gathered from what I know about her work that a lot of African countries have been pushed to grow "marketable" cash crops, at the expense of long term environmental sustainability from the traditional locally-suited crops. Part of her work is to reintroduce the traditional crops. I don't think it is specifically related to gmo crops, but I see some related issues.

I also remember seeing some documentary about the introduction of high-producing modern western dairy cows to some small country in Africa where the traditional, low-producing dairy cattle were essential to the economy (and culture), and though at first the high-producing cows were seen as a great blessing, the dairy market quickly became super saturated and the average dairy owner (like 1-3 cows) became far worse off, and the modern cows were much more expensive to maintain and much worse for the local ecology than the traditional locally-suited cattle.

I am not into "organic" foods and I will argue with any extreme localvore that it is not suitable as a global solution because it would require reducing the global population by a few billion. BUT I give any argument coming from American or multinational corporations that "it's good for Africa" about as much credibility as old <1960's claims that cigarettes are good for you.

I admit that Glen has me wondering if I'm a bad person, or just naive about the motives of people trying to pass labeling laws. The labeling law in Vermont looks very new, so it will be possible to see how it pans out if it is fully implemented. It could lead to a flight of GMO products from that state or it could lead to general apathy about the labels the way Californians are accustomed to ignoring notices about carcinogens in buildings.

Opposition to GMO food in Europe is clearly a problem, but maybe since I'm not exposed to it directly, I don't fully appreciate the scale and intensity. I can find such articles as "Monsanto drops GM in Europe" and should probably research it more.

Based on the wiki page, it sounds like Golden Rice is still moving along. I don't know how much the progress has been impeded by protests. Not every technology is as successful as it sounds like it should be.

New technologies can require a cultural shift to be accepted, and this is particularly true with foods. Tomatoes were thought to be unfit for human consumption for a long time in parts of Europe (though not as long as I thought now that I check). The developers of the a new food product bear the onus of gaining cultural acceptance. Many changes in production process just slip in over time because people don't investigate how their food is made. I have no objection to this, but that does not mean you have the right as a food producer to slip in changes unnoticed if there is public interest in knowing.

I still stand by my assertion that you should not sell people something they don't want just because you think they should want it. First, you get people to want it through sales and marketing. A product will only be successful if its benefits are sufficient to supersede other objections. As Glen points out, people will accept GMO technology in life-saving drugs. Farmers will eagerly purchase something that promises a reduction in production costs, and we're already consuming more GMO food than we know. In that sense, GMO is a successful technological development. People might not accept it just to pay 10% less for a bag of corn chips. That's their right, even if it amounts to superstition.

But, OK, let's say for the sake of argument that millions of people are starving throughout the world primarily due to the slow acceptance of GMO food production that could actually help them. Is that true? If so, I would accept that I'm really a bad person for taking a sanguine attitude about the present state of affairs.

I think this is a false dichotomy: I am either in favor of doing things the way agribusiness would like or else condemning millions to starvation. I don't think agribusiness is primarily driven by humanitarian concerns. I do think that they would rather just do an end run around the real issue of cultural acceptance, and lack the imagination to explore what it would take to gain such acceptance openly.

This conversation about GMO's is like almost every other conversation about GMO's I have seen - essentially science content-free. Does anyone here actually have knowledge of the nuts-and-bolts details of the actual genetic transfers that are undertaken? (I certainly don't, btw)

But, I have read arguments that in some cases things are not as simple as one might think. That it is not, for example, simply a clean snippet of a gene product that is added to an organism. That it is, in some cases, the coding for a gene product plus one or two genetic activators that become part of the modified organism's genetic code. I don't know how dangerous that might be - if it all - but it sounds a bit ominous.

What would be really useful here is, instead of the usual statements about how safe and useful GMO products are, if someone who really knew the topic would play devil's advocate. Let us hear the worst possible potential and specifically scientific case against GMO's, and whether or not that case has a significant probability of becoming a health or ecological concern.

callahanpb said: I still stand by my assertion that you should not sell people something they don't want just because you think they should want it.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: But why should they desire GMO food, other than that it's cheaper? Glen Davidson

Katharine said: One of the sad consequences of this anti-GE hysteria, however well-placed the EU thought their concerns were. Many African farmers will not grow GE crops, although it is more economical in terms of resources and seed price for them, because they cannot sell them back to Europe.

The labeling discussion is science-lite because opposition to GMOs is science-lite. There is no credible risk from consuming GMO food; the consumer is going to be just fine. Labeling is a consumer safety issue; if there is no consumer safety risk, you don't need mandatory labeling.

GMO food is safe to consume because "you are what you eat" doesn't extend to DNA. There's a reason oral administration is almost never used for gene therapy; your stomach and GI system are designed have evolved to extract nutrients, not sample new genes.

If there is any credible risk, it would be an ecological one; it may be that GMO crops could alter ecological niches in a potentially hazardous way. But many agricultural practices not only "could" alter the ecological balance, but do. It's like fair trade or responsible farming or humane slaughter or free range -- if you want it, support farmers who go out of their way to do it.

Is cultural acceptance important? Yes. But that's not the issue we're dealing with. We're dealing with a tide of politically-motivated irrationally-manufactured anti-science hysteria, and pandering to those demands by mandating GMO labeling will do nothing to stem that tide. It would be like requiring children who have received vaccines to wear a gold syringe sticker so that people who were afraid of "shedding" could avoid them.

callahanpb said: I would find it more compelling if African farmers were refusing to grow food crops to feed themselves based on their own objections to GMO or those promulgated by Europe. For all I know that is also true, but it's not illustrated by your example.

callahanpb said: Sorry, I mean:

callahanpb said: I would find it more compelling if African farmers were refusing to grow food crops to feed themselves based on their own objections to GMO or those promulgated by Europe. For all I know that is also true, but it's not illustrated by your example.

david.starling.macmillan said: The labeling discussion is science-lite because opposition to GMOs is science-lite.

The crazier people in the anti-GMO crowd are really obstructing our ability to talk reasonably about real problems with GMO's, for example there effects on honey bees. Instead we have to listen to people borderline threatening people because they think pro-GMO journalists are complicit in mass murder.

callahanpb said: I still stand by my assertion that you should not sell people something they don't want just because you think they should want it. First, you get people to want it through sales and marketing.

I don't think agribusiness is primarily driven by humanitarian concerns.

I have one data point about modern farming but with that one point I learned - It's not your great grandfather's farming.

Farming is not plowing behind a mule and throwing seed into the furrow out of a sack. But most people IMHO probably think that farming is somewhat like that, replace the mule with a tractor.

My one data point is a farmer from Illinois I met who showed me his seed planting iPad app. On his iPad he had his entire farm mapped out consisting of thousands of acres scattered across several counties. In different plots he planted different corn: 150 day corn, 180 day corn, different varieties.

Here's the cool part. He operated a computer and GPS controlled seed planter that planted individual seeds at a particular spacing and depth, recording where each seed went so the farmer could monitor individual plants if he wanted to. The machine was able to track if a hole was double-seeded or if a seed missed a hole. His machinery was driverless.

Then he told me about the seed and that was quite amazing. In addition to the GMO aspect, each seed had various coatings containing nutrients, anti-bug stuff and other things. He could tailor the kind of seed he was planting to the soil and weather conditions, and he could control maturity of the crop to maximize yield and harvesting schedules.

I had no idea how sophisticated farming had become and I keep up on stuff! Imagine the general ignorance across the US population. All they know is that golden corn comes frozen in a plastic bag with a picture of a Green Giant on it.

callahanpb said: I wanted to comment on this:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: But why should they desire GMO food, other than that it's cheaper? Glen Davidson

Maybe because it offers something new. This is true of non-GMO agricultural developments. Pluots became popular when introduced, not because they were cheaper, but because people liked them (maybe there are some production cost issues I don't know about). Recombinant technology provides new opportunities and could potentially introduce revolutionary products that people like better than non-GMO products. I agree that this not very relevant in today's cultural context, but it illustrates what I mean by a lack of imagination. Why not try to convince people of the merits of biotech on its own terms? This clearly works in the case of life-saving drugs. It works in the US at least in terms of animal feed and non-food GMO. If it is not as easy in terms of food (because of unfounded fears and "ick" factor) but it needs to be addressed by the sellers of technology, like any other marketing obstacle, not derided as hysteria.

burllamb said: This conversation about GMO's is like almost every other conversation about GMO's I have seen - essentially science content-free. Does anyone here actually have knowledge of the nuts-and-bolts details of the actual genetic transfers that are undertaken? (I certainly don't, btw) But, I have read arguments that in some cases things are not as simple as one might think. That it is not, for example, simply a clean snippet of a gene product that is added to an organism. That it is, in some cases, the coding for a gene product plus one or two genetic activators that become part of the modified organism's genetic code. I don't know how dangerous that might be - if it all - but it sounds a bit ominous. What would be really useful here is, instead of the usual statements about how safe and useful GMO products are, if someone who really knew the topic would play devil's advocate. Let us hear the worst possible potential and specifically scientific case against GMO's, and whether or not that case has a significant probability of becoming a health or ecological concern.

David.starling.macmillan said:

" There is no credible risk from consuming GMO food;... GMO food is safe to consume because “you are what you eat” doesn’t extend to DNA. There’s a reason oral administration is almost never used for gene therapy; your stomach and GI system are designed have evolved to extract nutrients, not sample new genes."

And yet, there is:

Netherwood et al, "Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract," Nature Biotechnology 22 (2004): 2; Chowdhury, et al, "Detection of genetically modified maize DNA fragments in the intestinal contents of pigs fed StarLink CBH351," Vet Hum Toxicol. 45 , no. 2 (March 2003): 95­6; P. A. Chambers, et al, "The fate of antibiotic resistance marker genes in transgenic plant feed material fed to chickens," J. Antimic. Chemother. 49 (2000): 161­164; and Paula S. Duggan, et al, "Fate of genetically modified maize DNA in the oral cavity and rumen of sheep," Br J Nutr. 89, no 2 (Feb.2003): 159­66.

That first reference to Netherwood et al is described by Jeffrey Smith of the Organic Consumers Organization [http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_11361.cfm] ( I have no idea of his bona fides) as providing evidence that "Unlike safety evaluations for drugs, there are no human clinical trials of GM foods. The only published human feeding experiment verified that genetic material inserted into GM soy transfers into the DNA of intestinal bacteria and continues to function.[36]"

His article [again -[http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_11361.cfm] lists and references some potentially troubling findings:

Soy allergies skyrocketed by 50% in the UK, soon after GM soy was introduced.[8] A human subject showed a skin prick allergic-type reaction to GM soy, but not to natural soy.[9]

The level of one known soy allergen is as much as 7-times higher in cooked GM soy compared to non-GM soy.[10]

GM soy also contains an unexpected allergen-type protein not found in natural soy.[11] has references - some are mere news articles, others appear to be scientific journals

Mice not only reacted to Bt-toxin, they had immune responses to formerly harmless compounds.[20].......

Similarly, a mouse test indicated that people eating GM peas could develop allergies both to the peas and to a range of other foods. The peas had already passed all the allergy tests normally used to get GMOs on the market. It took this advanced mouse test, which was never used on the GMOs we eat, to discover that the peas could be deadly.[21]............

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rats fed GM potatoes had smaller, partially atrophied livers.[22]

The livers of rats fed GM canola were 12-16% heavier.[23]

GM soy altered mouse liver cells in ways that suggest a toxic insult.[24] The changes reversed after their diet switched to non-GM soy.[25]......

---------------------------------------------------------------

More than half the offspring of mother rats fed GM soy died within three weeks.[26] Male rats[27] and mice[28] fed GM soy showed changes in their testicles; the mice had altered young sperm cells.

The DNA of mouse embryos whose parents ate GM soy functioned differently than those whose parents ate non-GM soy.[29]

Many offspring of female rats fed GM soy were considerably smaller,and more than half died within three weeks (compared to 10% of the non-GM soy controls). [30]...............................

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When sheep grazed on Bt cotton plants after harvest, within a week 1 in 4 died. Shepherds estimate 10,000 sheep deaths in one region of India.[31] Farmers in Europe and Asia say that cows, water buffaloes, chickens, and horses died from eating Bt corn varieties.[32]

About two dozen US farmers report that Bt corn varieties caused widespread sterility in pigs or cows.[33]

Filipinos in at least five villages fell sick when a nearby Bt corn variety was pollinating.[34]

The stomach lining of rats fed GM potatoes showed excessive cell growth, a condition that may be a precursor to cancer. Rats also had damaged organs and immune systems.[35]...............................

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Animal studies show that DNA in food can travel into organs throughout the body, even into the fetus.[37].............

------------------------------------------------------------------------

"If the antibiotic gene inserted into most GM crops were to transfer, it could create super diseases, resistant to antibiotics.

If the gene that creates Bt -toxin in GM corn were to transfer, it might turn our intestinal flora into living pesticide factories."

Please note - I am not making any of these claims, nor am I suggesting they are valid. But I would say that this issue does not appear to be as simple as would be inferred from "GMO food is safe to consume because “you are what you eat” doesn’t extend to DNA."

For example, (from http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/01/09/confirmed-dna-from-genetically-modified-crops-can-be-transfered-to-humans-who-eat-them-2/):

" a new study published in the peer reviewed Public Library of Science (PLOS), researchers emphasize that there is sufficient evidence that meal-derived DNA fragments carry complete genes that can enter into the human circulation system through an unknown mechanism." [http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0069805]

This is why I think we could benefit from someone who really knows this field to act as a Devil's advocate and present the best scientifically reasonable case against GMO foods.

I didn't mean to imply that GMO foods were somehow protected from causing any ill effects; I meant that the risk usually imagined by the general public -- that somehow the "genetically engineered" DNA will get into your cells -- is nonfactual. Sure, any DNA you eat can survive through your GI tract, but it's not going to mutate you or anything like that.

Any new food source can pose risks, cause allergies, whatever. I'm all in favor of testing for stuff like that.

DS said: Actually, the technology is much more powerful than that. It has the potential to significantly increase the shelf life and nutritional content of most food crops, including providing vitamins and other nutrients that would ordinarily not be found in significant quantities in some crops. It can be used to impart cold resistance, drought resistance, herbicide resistance, pesticide resistance and any number of other potential benefits.

Dave Lovell said:

callahanpb said: I still stand by my assertion that you should not sell people something they don't want just because you think they should want it. First, you get people to want it through sales and marketing.

I think agree with what you were trying to say there, if not the strange way you said it.

david.starling.macmillan said: We're dealing with a tide of politically-motivated irrationally-manufactured anti-science hysteria, and pandering to those demands by mandating GMO labeling will do nothing to stem that tide.

It would be like requiring children who have received vaccines to wear a gold syringe sticker so that people who were afraid of "shedding" could avoid them.

callahanpb said:

DS said: Actually, the technology is much more powerful than that. It has the potential to significantly increase the shelf life and nutritional content of most food crops, including providing vitamins and other nutrients that would ordinarily not be found in significant quantities in some crops. It can be used to impart cold resistance, drought resistance, herbicide resistance, pesticide resistance and any number of other potential benefits.

No arguments from me, though I admit I don't have the background to verify all these claims. But (shamelessly using this as a segue) I don't see how you get around the crappy job of public outreach done by agribusiness. There has been discussion of GMO for over 30 years. This is how long that industry has had to prepare the general public for accepting the benefits of a technology that everyone knew was coming along. Instead of even attempting serious public outreach (as far as I'm aware) they went for the low hanging fruit--e.g,corn farmers and large-scale processed food producers. So they have a degree of market penetration, but if it's limited, they have (mostly) themselves to blame. Sorry, I just find something laughable about Monsanto as David up against the Goliath of some activists in Vermont. I also accept that maybe pro-labeling is in part some kind of astroturf campaign for moneyed interests that benefit from delaying the use of GMO. So it's probably a more complicated issue, particularly in related to European trade restrictions. But continued lack of acceptance for GMO when identified as such is a symptom of poor outreach by industry, not "hysteria."

callahanpb said:

david.starling.macmillan said: It would be like requiring children who have received vaccines to wear a gold syringe sticker so that people who were afraid of "shedding" could avoid them.

No, it would be absolutely nothing like that. Requiring candy bar wrappers to "wear" a label is not an act that stigmatizes any individual. I'm not a big fan of "corporations are people" but I hope we can all agree that candy bars aren't people.

david.starling.macmillan said:

callahanpb said:

david.starling.macmillan said: It would be like requiring children who have received vaccines to wear a gold syringe sticker so that people who were afraid of "shedding" could avoid them.

No, it would be absolutely nothing like that. Requiring candy bar wrappers to "wear" a label is not an act that stigmatizes any individual. I'm not a big fan of "corporations are people" but I hope we can all agree that candy bars aren't people.

I'm just saying, if we're in the habit of "I'm afraid of such-and-such so I deserve to have it labeled so I can avoid it..."

callahanpb said: Right, but I'm saying that unlike your example, the harm would not outweigh the (hypothetical) public demand for such labeling.

eric said: You want to know some coffee bean comes from Andean farmers and not Monsanto's agribusiness in Mississsippi? That's Starbuck's problem, not the FDA's. The very last thing we want to happen is special interest groups using government label imprimatur to foster misconceptions about what matters for health and safety and what doesn't.

callahanpb said: ...maybe as a pragmatic issue, the appropriate message to send is "Your understandable concerns (*) are already addressed by voluntary non-GMO labeling" not "Your concerns are unscientific and hysterical."

There is a lot of thinking with the uterus instead of the upstairs brain on this issue, just as there is with vaccines, so call it whatever you like. The fact is that those who have done the most to damage the image of GMOs have done so using vague, inconclusive information or outright untruths. That's not to say there are not valid concerns about GMOs, especially where law and ethics are concerned, but the vast majority of the outcry against it is based on fear and self-righteousness, and not on science or an understanding of farming. (I should know, I was in that camp until a few years ago.) That's sufficient for me to think of it as hysterical, anyway.

Where California is concerned, the amount of legislation devoted to broad, information-deficient, self-contradictory disclaimer signs is antithetical to education. Their purpose in practice (regardless of intent) is less "the more you know" and more "you can't sue us because you were forewarned of the dangers by this sign." It doesn't really give anyone any tool to protect themselves or make informed decisions, but it's highly effective at spreading fear--largely to people who don't care to or don't know how to do follow-up research, don't know what regulations are already in place to protect them, but are likely to spread what they took away from the sign to others. Not to mention the economic toll of enforcing all that legislation, and the taxpayers and small businesses paying the brunt for the privilege. So I would disagree that they're really as harmless as they seem.

burllamb said: David.starling.macmillan said: " There is no credible risk from consuming GMO food;... GMO food is safe to consume because “you are what you eat” doesn’t extend to DNA. There’s a reason oral administration is almost never used for gene therapy; your stomach and GI system are designed have evolved to extract nutrients, not sample new genes." And yet, there is: snip...

j. biggs said: I find cut and paste jobs with a lot of references suspect. So I checked the link and the bibliography.

The dependence of GMO food plants on chemicals – particularly petrochemicals - is a Catch-22 solution to growing highly productive plants to feed a growing population. We remain dependent of fossil fuels and their effect on climate change.

During the initial stages of eliminating disease and starvation, there is a huge population explosion. If the growing population is lucky enough to develop an efficient educational system that promotes women’s rights and birth control, there is a chance to control population and find a sustainable balance.

But pests add an additional wrinkle. Neonicotinoids and other pesticides for pest control are implicated in killing off the bee population. Without pollinators, food production plummets and we are back to square-one.

lynnwilhelm said:

j. biggs said: I find cut and paste jobs with a lot of references suspect. So I checked the link and the bibliography.

Thanks for doing that. As someone a little bit familiar with agribusiness, I can say that companies like Monsanto did have willing consumers (and great demand) among farmers. It was absolutely brilliant of Monsanto to create RoundUp-Ready crops to market alongside their well-known herbicide. Isn't that how business is done in a capitalist economy? Monsanto did it very well (I don't have to like it to admit it). Agribusiness companies were quite shortsighted when they didn't think seriously about the response from their secondary consumers to GE crops. Monsanto sells to farmers, and as Doc Bill described, farmers want crops that are easier to grow.

callahanpb said: I'm not a big fan of "corporations are people" but I hope we can all agree that candy bars aren't people.

DS said: Modern society needs to be educated in genetics and genomics. Only then can they make informed decisions about genetic manipulations to crops and livestock. Of course a little education about population genetics and evolution would be nice as well, as long as we are making wishes.

burllamb said: David.starling.macmillan said: “ There is no credible risk from consuming GMO food;… GMO food is safe to consume because “you are what you eat” doesn’t extend to DNA. There’s a reason oral administration is almost never used for gene therapy; your stomach and GI system are designed have evolved to extract nutrients, not sample new genes.” And yet, there is: snip… I find cut and paste jobs with a lot of references suspect. So I checked the link and the bibliography.

How about the people worried about GMO food presenting some actual evidence of harm before panicking and urging a major regulatory change?

You know what we've been doing to create new varieties of plants for a lifetime before the introduction of direct genetic manipulation? Mutation breeding. It is VASTLY less controllable and specific and we have virtually no idea what will happen ahead of time, unlike engineered GMO plants that have everybody in a tizzy. Despite this long-standing and widespread practice, it seems nobody has been harmed by mutagenically-bred plants. There is no evidence of harm from the much younger transgenic GMOs, either.

Why stop at crops? We use transgenic germs to create new medicines. WHAT IF an unexpected result of inserting the desired genes turns out to be that the target E. coli starts churning out cyanide that contaminates the insulin we want? This is actually far more likely than some of the WHAT IFs I've seen floating around about GMO crops.

All the evidence we have suggests that even uncontrolled, massive, and random changes to a food crop's genome presents ridiculously low risks to consumers. I am not saying new varieties shouldn't be tested for general safety (I wouldn't want a mutation to rekindle the toxic defenses of potatoes), but I am saying that the public controversy seems to be raging despite the lack of scientific justification. It's completely disproportionate.

burllamb said: Mr MacMillan's major argument against the possibility that GMO's might present unknown drawbacks, was that it was impossible for recombinant DNA to survive the GI tract.

Without being hysterical, when you read stuff like
http://www.alternet.org/food/why-monsanto-wrong-about-gm-crop-promises
you do start to wonder what is going on. Obviously GMO foods can potentially be very beneficial, but I don't trust Monsanto to tell the truth about what they've achieved.

Like I said, the risks (if they exist at all) are ecological and agricultural. Which is definitely something worth looking into. But potential ecological and agricultural risks are not retail consumer risks, so retail consumer labeling should not be mandated concerning them.

richard09 said: I don't trust Monsanto to tell the truth about what they've achieved.

david.starling.macmillan said:

burllamb said: Mr MacMillan's major argument against the possibility that GMO's might present unknown drawbacks, was that it was impossible for recombinant DNA to survive the GI tract.

Not really, no. I never claimed recombinant DNA couldn't survive the GI tract; I rather claimed that engineered DNA in GMO foods could not migrate into the human genome through the GI tract any more than unengineered DNA in ordinary food can.

callahanpb said: ...for purposes of passing through the GI tract, DNA is DNA. Lateral gene transfers from food to a human is not a reasonable concern (at least until somebody produces any evidence of it ever happening) and the source of the genes (recombinant or not) would not make any difference.

david.starling.macmillan said:

callahanpb said: ...for purposes of passing through the GI tract, DNA is DNA. Lateral gene transfers from food to a human is not a reasonable concern (at least until somebody produces any evidence of it ever happening) and the source of the genes (recombinant or not) would not make any difference.

Right. It's my suspicion (though I could of course be wrong) that the general hysteria over GMOs is that somehow they will result in lateral transfer.

Wait until the public finds out that some of the crop varieties they are eating were produced by radiation mutation! Where is the cry for labeling all of those monstrosities?

Business does not have an unblemished history, there is ample reason for mistrust (and for transparency, regulation, independent oversight, enforcement). As for practices which also affect biodiversity or those of market domination with societal impact, perhaps this is appropriate (http://billmoyers.com/segment/vandana-shiva-on-the-problem-with-genetically-modified-seeds/). There is also the perceived potential for pathogenic unknowns and environmental impact in ecosystem. Perhaps addressing public concerns is a more prudent course...

mcknight.td said: Wait until the public finds out that some of the crop varieties they are eating were produced by radiation mutation! Where is the cry for labeling all of those monstrosities?

Mike Elzinga said: The dependence of GMO food plants on chemicals – particularly petrochemicals - is a Catch-22 solution to growing highly productive plants to feed a growing population. We remain dependent of fossil fuels and their effect on climate change. During the initial stages of eliminating disease and starvation, there is a huge population explosion. If the growing population is lucky enough to develop an efficient educational system that promotes women’s rights and birth control, there is a chance to control population and find a sustainable balance. But pests add an additional wrinkle. Neonicotinoids and other pesticides for pest control are implicated in killing off the bee population. Without pollinators, food production plummets and we are back to square-one.

Actually, I'm curious if anyone has gone back to varieties produced by radiation mutagenesis (e.g. Rio Star Grapefruit is listed in Wikipedia) and sequenced them to find out what the mutation(s) were introduced. Were any novel variations of proteins produced, or was the effect usually more along the lines of deactivating a gene that was inhibiting something else? In the Purple Orchid potato, "The unusual color resulted from overexpression of the flavonoid anthocyanin." http://lifesciencesfoundation.org/magazine-Atomic_Gardens.html suggesting to me that the latter case might hold.

While it was an innovative idea at the time, I wonder if there are much better ways to introduce more controlled variations, such as (somehow) generating a random sample of SNPs in a particular range within a gene of interest.

I'm not saying that these would gain any wider public acceptance than genes spliced in from other species, but I wonder what techniques are available. (I worked as a software engineer in biotech, but it was limited to human bioinformatics).

harold said: Because the mainstream US political party that traditionally represents conservatives has gone over to Alice in Wonderland level denial of scientific reality, some conservative science supporters desperately seek false equivalence, scanning the horizon with the desperation of a shipwreck victim on a raft for any sign of science denial on the "left".

Mike Elzinga said:

harold said: Because the mainstream US political party that traditionally represents conservatives has gone over to Alice in Wonderland level denial of scientific reality, some conservative science supporters desperately seek false equivalence, scanning the horizon with the desperation of a shipwreck victim on a raft for any sign of science denial on the "left".

This is one of the main reasons that the current Republican Party has become dangerous to the human race. It is run primarily by ideologues that see everything through ideological glasses and want to rule according to ideologies that simply ignore facts. Energy is going to have to come from a mix of sources. We can’t build wind farms without intense energy sources to make the windmills. Just the transition to sustainable energy requires concentrated energy sources; hence power plants that use nuclear energy and fossil fuels. Similar arguments can be made for sustainable agriculture; and sustainable agriculture requires a controlled human population. I don’t know if it is possible for any organism – including humans – to learn how control their population and to use energy in a sustainable fashion. I’m not even sure such an organism would enjoy long term survival if it is hit by contingencies that wipe out a large percentage of the population. Could such an organism survive a bottleneck? But it seems clear that the current human population is a dangerously large footprint on the food and energy sources that are currently available to us given the harvesting and distribution techniques we currently employ.

harold said: But it's actually the high childhood mortality rate that increases the population. People "overshoot", it seems.

Mike Elzinga said:

harold said: But it's actually the high childhood mortality rate that increases the population. People "overshoot", it seems.

I have noticed over the years that some organisms tend to reproduce more rapidly when under stress. For example, the soft maple trees in our area are far more prolific in the numbers of seeds they produce when stressed by drought conditions. I am not sure if this applies generally to most forms of reproduction; perhaps some of our biologists can shed some light on this. If there is something to this tendency to increase the rate of spreading of seeds during periods of stress, I suspect it would have evolved quite early in the evolution of life on this planet. If so, we humans would have some pretty powerful evolutionary traits that led to our survival of some pretty horrific bottlenecks in the past. But this raises some interesting questions about whether or not the rate of evolutionary change is increased in stressed populations. If we screw up our planet and suffer the consequences, what kind of human descendants, if any, will survive and what will they look like? I would guess that the more complex and delicate an organism becomes, the tighter the required environmental margins in which it can survive, and the less likely it will survive as a species over the long haul. It takes a lot of energy and resources to maintain humans within the temperature range they exist comfortably. Will humans last as long as the dinosaurs did? Punctuated equilibrium, anyone?

burllamb said: I am sure there is hyperbole on this issue. The question is, however: do we really know what the best case against GMO's might be? Mr MacMillan's major argument against the possibility that GMO's might present unknown drawbacks, was that it was impossible for recombinant DNA to survive the GI tract.

The PLOS paper, alone, is a peer-reviewed study which possibly refutes and certainly challenges Mr MacMillan's contention. Combined with the claim that GMO foods have not undergone rigorous human testing, I would think that caution would be warranted before dismissing all GMO foods as safe for consumption. I simply do not know enough about the subject. But at least I know I am ignorant enough to want to know the facts of the matter.

It is easy to dismiss the entire subject as you have. You have even added the ad hominem of comparing anti-GMO claims to creationists and AGW deniers. It is easy to dismiss data as not being peer-reviewed. But that is the whole problem - has there been sufficient peer-reviewed study? The PLOS paper, and possibly other results suggest that the answer to that question may be "No".

By the way Burllamb, is this the PLOS/One article you keep referring to? The title says it all, No Adjuvant Effect of Bacillus thuringiensis-Maize on Allergic Responses in Mice. I'll let others evaluate it and decide for themselves whether or not you are misrepresenting it by implying it provides evidence against GMOs.

I find it quite disingenuous of you to come here and intimate that you haven’t yet made up your mind about GMO’s.

harold said: I don't know what alleles are increasing in frequency in the human population, but I do know that whatever alleles they are, they're mainly coming from desperately poor subsistence farmers and people who live in massive shantytown areas of third world "megacities".

"The analysis of all the publicly available circulating cell-free DNA sequencing data of over 1000 human subjects confirms our hypothesis that the presence of foreign DNA in human plasma is not unusual. It shows large variation from subject to subject following strikingly well a log-normal distribution with the highest concentration in patients with inflammation (Kawasaki disease, IBD). These findings could lead to a revision of our view of degradation and absorption mechanisms of nucleic acids in the human body."

It seems that the Pandas at Pandaville are uncommonly quick to sniff out disingenuity and claptrap.

I like it here.

j. biggs said: By the way Burllamb, is this the PLOS/One article you keep referring to? The title says it all, No Adjuvant Effect of Bacillus thuringiensis-Maize on Allergic Responses in Mice. I'll let others evaluate it and decide for themselves whether or not you are misrepresenting it by implying it provides evidence against GMOs.

j. biggs said: Just a correction, Burllamb actually provided a link to the PLoS/ONE article to which he was refering. The article itself has nothing to do with GMOs but instead about the ability from genetic material from GI contents to pass into the bloodstream. The conclusion was as follows:

"The analysis of all the publicly available circulating cell-free DNA sequencing data of over 1000 human subjects confirms our hypothesis that the presence of foreign DNA in human plasma is not unusual. It shows large variation from subject to subject following strikingly well a log-normal distribution with the highest concentration in patients with inflammation (Kawasaki disease, IBD). These findings could lead to a revision of our view of degradation and absorption mechanisms of nucleic acids in the human body."

Nothing negative about GMOs there at all. Nothing really even all that surprising in my opinion. Again, I will leave it up to others to decide if this article is being misrepresented.

By the way Burllamb, is this the PLOS/One article you keep referring to? The title says it all, No Adjuvant Effect of Bacillus thuringiensis-Maize on Allergic Responses in Mice. I’ll let others evaluate it and decide for themselves whether or not you are misrepresenting it by implying it provides evidence against GMOs.

Human trials would require a null hypothesis.

I find it quite disingenuous of you to come here and intimate that you haven’t yet made up your mind about GMO’s. It’s obvious how you feel. You admit you don’t know the facts and then you present what you believe to be “the facts”, and when others here point out some misconceptions you may have based on your source, you misrepresent us. It is clear, at least to me, that you are being intellectually dishonest, but please do prove me wrong.

I personally feel that this particular common trick is the sign of a poor character. It doesn’t mean that what the person is saying is untrue, but it does alert us that we are dealing with someone who has little compunction about making statements that are untrue. Those who endorse this dishonest behavior often refer to it as “stealth apologetics”.

"GMO food is safe to consume because “you are what you eat” doesn’t extend to DNA. There’s a reason oral administration is almost never used for gene therapy; your stomach and GI system are designed have evolved to extract nutrients, not sample new genes."

DS said: The issue is not whether DNA passes form the digestive tract into the blood stream. That apparently happens all the time. The issue is whether the DNA transforms human cells. Apparently it does not.

Here is an article in the Journal of Medical Toxicology. It reviews the relevant literature and is anything but science free. Sorry if I misread what you were trying to imply with your article, but you have misrepresented more than one commenter since you arrived. If you weren't trying to imply that your PLoS/ONE article provided evidence against GMOs I retract what I said, even if that leaves me wondering why you mentioned it in the first place.

After a cursory glance at the literature on GMOs, I remain unconvinced that they pose much of a risk. The majority of the recent literature indicates that GMOs are perfectly safe and that the criticisms against them are largely unwarranted claims backed by pseudoscience. That is not to say GMOs are without risk because if history tells us anything, almost every scientific advance has pros and cons.

PS: I hope you note that I corrected my response almost immediately after I posted the first article. I had to go back a few pages to find your original reference to the article.

burllamb said: J.biggs said:

I find it quite disingenuous of you to come here and intimate that you haven’t yet made up your mind about GMO’s. It’s obvious how you feel. You admit you don’t know the facts and then you present what you believe to be “the facts”, and when others here point out some misconceptions you may have based on your source, you misrepresent us. It is clear, at least to me, that you are being intellectually dishonest, but please do prove me wrong.

harold said:

I personally feel that this particular common trick is the sign of a poor character. It doesn’t mean that what the person is saying is untrue, but it does alert us that we are dealing with someone who has little compunction about making statements that are untrue. Those who endorse this dishonest behavior often refer to it as “stealth apologetics”.

I would like to point out to you gentlemen what I wrote just after that list of statements by Jeffrey Smith of the Organic Consumers Organization (of whom I said I had no idea of his bona fides): "Please note - I am not making any of these claims, nor am I suggesting they are valid. But I would say that this issue does not appear to be as simple as would be inferred from “GMO food is safe to consume because "you are what you eat doesn't extend to DNA.”

Should have said noticed instead of noted in that first sentence.

david.starling.macmillan said:

harold said: I don't know what alleles are increasing in frequency in the human population, but I do know that whatever alleles they are, they're mainly coming from desperately poor subsistence farmers and people who live in massive shantytown areas of third world "megacities".

But are those alleles spreading through the population at large, or are they concentrated within those regions? We're social animals whose courtship process (for better or worse) places a heavy emphasis on social status. I'd really like to see a simulation of global gene flow over the past half-dozen generations (with projections out for another couple of centuries)...we may not be so far from Well's Time Machine after all.

burllamb said:

By the way Burllamb, is this the PLOS/One article you keep referring to? The title says it all, No Adjuvant Effect of Bacillus thuringiensis-Maize on Allergic Responses in Mice. I’ll let others evaluate it and decide for themselves whether or not you are misrepresenting it by implying it provides evidence against GMOs.

No, it was http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0069805 titled: "Complete Genes May Pass from Food to Human Blood" And I really don't know where what I wrote morphed into an implication that it provides evidence against GMO's. I tried to say it seems to justify questions - but the whole point of my several posts here has not been to make a case against GMO's - it has been to ask someone knowledgeable about the topic to act as a Devil's advocate and to present the best case against it. Because I do not have enough knowledge of the field to bring a cogent case against them. Frankly, I think there likely is NOT a cogent case against GMO foods. And I am certainly not against them. Good grief, we need hardier and more nutritious foodstuffs. The potential of GMO's is enormous. Golden rice, for example. What I am against is seeing article after article on the topic of GMO food safety to be virtually content-free. I can not recall a scientific question that has been less critically discussed than this topic among the scientifically literate. It has become a veritable touchstone for inclusion into the informed rational set. The anti-GMO line is that there have been no human trials. Is this so? If so, does that not strike you as curious? Perhaps human trials are not needed? Then, what is the best possible case against GMO's, how spectacularly does it fail, and does this mean that long-term trials are not actually warranted?

harold said:

burllamb said:

By the way Burllamb, is this the PLOS/One article you keep referring to? The title says it all, No Adjuvant Effect of Bacillus thuringiensis-Maize on Allergic Responses in Mice. I’ll let others evaluate it and decide for themselves whether or not you are misrepresenting it by implying it provides evidence against GMOs.

No, it was http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0069805 titled: "Complete Genes May Pass from Food to Human Blood" And I really don't know where what I wrote morphed into an implication that it provides evidence against GMO's. I tried to say it seems to justify questions - but the whole point of my several posts here has not been to make a case against GMO's - it has been to ask someone knowledgeable about the topic to act as a Devil's advocate and to present the best case against it. Because I do not have enough knowledge of the field to bring a cogent case against them. Frankly, I think there likely is NOT a cogent case against GMO foods. And I am certainly not against them. Good grief, we need hardier and more nutritious foodstuffs. The potential of GMO's is enormous. Golden rice, for example. What I am against is seeing article after article on the topic of GMO food safety to be virtually content-free. I can not recall a scientific question that has been less critically discussed than this topic among the scientifically literate. It has become a veritable touchstone for inclusion into the informed rational set. The anti-GMO line is that there have been no human trials. Is this so? If so, does that not strike you as curious? Perhaps human trials are not needed? Then, what is the best possible case against GMO's, how spectacularly does it fail, and does this mean that long-term trials are not actually warranted?

This is an interesting line of research. I suspect it's not necessarily relevant to GMO foods. Humans are omnivores who consume almost anything. There are plenty of people who already eat fish that have a gene for an "anti-freeze" protein for example. The DNA doesn't seem to hurt them when it comes from the fish. So even if small amounts of relatively intact sequences of that gene might sometimes transiently get into the post-prandial circulation, I don't see why it would be any worse coming from tomatoes. I think it's a stretch to worry about this. In addition to all the plant, fungus, and animal DNA we take in all the time, our guts and skins are lined by microbes with their own DNA. Any segment of DNA that exists can end up in a virus, and thus in our genome, but that's equally true with or without GMO foods. To date, with the caveat that we don't know everything, there doesn't seem to be any known health concern that is directly related to eating GMO foods. GMO technology has more capacity to alleviate allergies than vice versa. Either breeding or a GMO approach could theoretically generate peanuts that lack major allergens, for example, but a GMO approach might be faster. As I noted, and will repeat, "GMO" refers to a basic idea with near infinite possible applications. Some applications would be fantastic, others are problematic. A global dismissal of the overall concept seems silly, though. I do have reservations about some current commercial applications of this idea.

burllamb said: The anti-GMO line is that there have been no human trials. Is this so? If so, does that not strike you as curious?

Then, what is the best possible case against GMO's, how spectacularly does it fail, and does this mean that long-term trials are not actually warranted?

Comic book science usually only happens in comic books.

In hindsight, this is actually kind of surprising to me. You’d think some virus or bacterium would’ve figured out how to do this. What an enormously advantageous adaptation it would be! Get eaten, convert your eater into you.

david.starling.macmillan said: Comic book science usually only happens in comic books.

harold said: Any segment of DNA that exists can end up in a virus, and thus in our genome, but that's equally true with or without GMO foods.

In hindsight, this is actually kind of surprising to me. You'd think some virus or bacterium would've figured out how to do this.

Maybe I’m mistaken, but isn’t that what retroviruses already do? (I have only vague layman’s knowledge about it, I admit.)

harold said:

Maybe I’m mistaken, but isn’t that what retroviruses already do? (I have only vague layman’s knowledge about it, I admit.)

No, not at all. I'm going to explain in a simple but useful way, and if virologists want to further expand or clarify my answer, they're welcome to.

Sorry for the postscript, but maybe the point of contention is whether the retrovirus gets any reproductive benefit out of the DNA it left behind in the cell. The answer seems to be no, and I may have been unclear on that point.

Henry J said:

david.starling.macmillan said: Comic book science usually only happens in comic books.

Oh, you're only saying that because Dr. Banner seems to ignore conservation of mass before he smashes something. Or maybe because Mr. Stark discovers a new element that gives him an improved power source. (In the movie version, anyway; I don't know about the original comic. )

Sure, retroviruses are used for genetic engineering, along with Ti plasmids, transposons and lots of other delivery vectors. They all reproduce by insertion into a host genome, that's why they are useful for genetic engineering. Since they usually insert randomly, there is always the possibility that they could disrupt normal gene function. Indeed, the human genome carries literally millions of endogenous retroviruses from many sources. Sometimes they cause disease and even death.

As to whether or not eating food with such constructs included increases the risk of infection, I am unaware of any evidence to indicate that this is the case. If it were, the anti GMO movement would no doubt make use of the fact as a talking point. Most likely everything we eat is already contaminated with many such elements that are naturally occurring, so I doubt that the risk would be increased much if at all.

Still, you should never underestimate the power of humans to devise ingenious ways to make short term profits without testing for long term damage. Genetic engineering is like any other powerful technology, there is potential for great good and for great harm. Since the stakes are so high, it just seems prudent to take proper precautions.

david.starling.macmillan said:

Henry J said:

david.starling.macmillan said: Comic book science usually only happens in comic books.

Oh, you're only saying that because Dr. Banner seems to ignore conservation of mass before he smashes something. Or maybe because Mr. Stark discovers a new element that gives him an improved power source. (In the movie version, anyway; I don't know about the original comic. )

That particle accelerator scene in Iron Man 2 was...painful. So painful. Apparently, once you have a circular beam going, it...stays there? Indefinitely? And you can use a mirror to bend the beam...but only using a gigantic wrench to twist the mirror? I mean, theoretically, unbiseptium or some other transuranic metastable element could potentially have really cool energy-producing applications. I don't think an "arc reactor" could work with palladium, though -- considering the energy output, it would need to be a cold nuclear reaction of some kind, but palladium isn't suitable for that. Moreover, the only way I can think of to actually make use of the energy would be if it produced an electrical potential, but you'd need room-temp superconductors to keep from roasting the whole apparatus instantly, so that's kind of a wash. The repulsors look cool, I suppose...some sort of hyper-efficient air-breathing ion thruster? Ionize air and then use narrow-frequency sound waves to force the plasma into a directed flow?

david.starling.macmillan said: The repulsors look cool, I suppose...some sort of hyper-efficient air-breathing ion thruster? Ionize air and then use narrow-frequency sound waves to force the plasma into a directed flow?

ksplawn said:

david.starling.macmillan said: The repulsors look cool, I suppose...some sort of hyper-efficient air-breathing ion thruster? Ionize air and then use narrow-frequency sound waves to force the plasma into a directed flow?

They're repulsors. They repulse. That's what they do! Superhero "physics" is and always has been the hand-waviest of handwaves. The repulsors and arc reactor from the Iron Man films aren't even the biggest offenders FROM IRON MAN. At one point in the comics he had a beam weapon that, once fired, actually got stronger as it traversed more distance.

Sort of a ram-jet gun?

Superhero comics are a lot like modern day mythology, and I think for similar reasons, it is probably more fruitful to ask what do they say about the values of our culture than to try to explain the "science" as presented.

Of course, it's fun to do that, and I totally understand the appeal of these discussions. I think if YECs would step outside themselves a bit, they'd see that they've basically gone fan-boy on Genesis. That doesn't mean they're not entitled to post-hoc rationalizations of absurd claims, but it does mean that they shouldn't expect to be taken seriously by anyone else.

harold said: Since the terms could equally apply to me, I'll offer this lighthearted observation... A dork obsessively watches Star Trek and Iron Man movies. A geek achieves expertise in some technical field that is unrealistically depicted in Star Trek and Iron Man movies. But nerd does both, and then complains on the internet about the unrealistic science in Star Trek and Iron Man movies.

Henry J said: Sort of a ram-jet gun?

callahanpb said: Superhero comics are a lot like modern day mythology, and I think for similar reasons, it is probably more fruitful to ask what do they say about the values of our culture than to try to explain the "science" as presented. Of course, it's fun to do that, and I totally understand the appeal of these discussions. I think if YECs would step outside themselves a bit, they'd see that they've basically gone fan-boy on Genesis.

I'll just put this link down here…
http://www.homeonthestrange.com/view.php?ID=211

callahanpb said: Superhero comics are a lot like modern day mythology, and I think for similar reasons, it is probably more fruitful to ask what do they say about the values of our culture than to try to explain the "science" as presented. Of course, it's fun to do that, and I totally understand the appeal of these discussions. I think if YECs would step outside themselves a bit, they'd see that they've basically gone fan-boy on Genesis. That doesn't mean they're not entitled to post-hoc rationalizations of absurd claims, but it does mean that they shouldn't expect to be taken seriously by anyone else.

harold said: But current use of GMO is going in the wrong direction. This is a fair generalization - with some exception, it's mainly used by commercial interests to increase rather than decrease the use of non-renewable and polluting chemicals in agriculture, actually exacerbating the sustainability and pollution issues which we should be seeking to mitigate. When the company that makes the herbicide also makes and pushes seeds that are great because they allow you to use massive doses of the herbicide, that's not necessarily wrong, but it should give us a bit of pause.

It was my understanding that Roundup-Ready crops typically let a farmer replace several pesticides

"The pseudonymous blogger, SkepticalRaptor, notes that GM foods are to many on the left as global warming is to many on the right: It is an article of faith that genetic modification is bad, and no amount of evidence can be adduced to change that opinion."

Not to mention the anti-fracing crowd who can throw out non sequiturs, sophistry, red herrings, straw man arguments and out right lies with the best of the creationist crackpots.

I'll be the first to admit that the oil and gas industry, like any industrial activity, has some problems but the dire predictions of the anti fracing crowd are completely unfounded. Like any of these contentious issues a hard look at the real data is instructive.

air said:

It was my understanding that Roundup-Ready crops typically let a farmer replace several pesticides

Roundup is an herbicide (a herbicide?) not a pesticide. /pedantry

air said:

It was my understanding that Roundup-Ready crops typically let a farmer replace several pesticides

On the labeling thing - I don't think I have seen the argument made here that the job of the government is to protect public health; hence warnings on cigarettes which arguably violate the First Amendment rights of those people known as cigarette making corporations. By the same token, in the absence of a clear public health threat is would be inappropriate for the government to intervene in the same way in food by requiring a GMO label. This position may not be consistent with the European 'precautionary principle' but it is consistent with US government policy and practice.

Carl W said:

harold said: But current use of GMO is going in the wrong direction. This is a fair generalization - with some exception, it's mainly used by commercial interests to increase rather than decrease the use of non-renewable and polluting chemicals in agriculture, actually exacerbating the sustainability and pollution issues which we should be seeking to mitigate. When the company that makes the herbicide also makes and pushes seeds that are great because they allow you to use massive doses of the herbicide, that's not necessarily wrong, but it should give us a bit of pause.

It was my understanding that Roundup-Ready crops typically let a farmer replace several pesticides with a single pesticide, that less glyphosate (the active ingredient of Roundup) is used than the pesticides that it replaces, and that glyphosate is less toxic than the pesticides it replaces. If that's true, then it seems like the use of Roundup-Ready crops is actually a net win from the point of sustainability and pollution (unless, I suppose, the manufacture of glyphosate is particularly bad for the environment somehow).

air said:

It was my understanding that Roundup-Ready crops typically let a farmer replace several pesticides

Roundup is an herbicide (a herbicide?) not a pesticide. /pedantry On the labeling thing - I don't think I have seen the argument made here that the job of the government is to protect public health; hence warnings on cigarettes which arguably violate the First Amendment rights of those people known as cigarette making corporations. By the same token, in the absence of a clear public health threat is would be inappropriate for the government to intervene in the same way in food by requiring a GMO label. This position may not be consistent with the European 'precautionary principle' but it is consistent with US government policy and practice.

This is of course the problem. The technology is being driven by large corporations whose motivation is primarily short term profits. THey are the ones who are deciding what applications will be developed. They are the ones who are investing in research and development. They are the ones who are doing the testing and reporting the results. And they are the ones who are making the profits, (along with the farmers), if successful. They are not primarily concerned about ecological damage or sustainability in the far future. They are most likely more concerned about public perception than they are about health issues.

As for the government, they do not appear to have either the desire or the resources to fund or regulate this technology. Nor do they seem to be any more interested in long term considerations than the corporations. The EPA and the FDA are essentially impotent. They have not conducted or required the kind of testing that is necessary in order to address long term concerns. And of course the same applies to government regulation of the pharmaceutical industry and genetic engineering, The government seems to get bigger and bigger and still manages to do lees and less of the things that are most critical to it's citizens. Others can speculate as to why this is the case.

alicejohn said: GMO labeling would give me the opportunity to not participate in a vast, uncontrolled clinical trial.

...regarding the government should not intervene absent a clear public health threat, I strongly disagree. Taking that stance to the extreme, government mandated drug trials should be eliminated.

harold said: Does the First Amendment prohibit requirement of any warning labels? What about explosives, or compounds that are extremely corrosive or toxic? Where do we draw the line? I think you’re saying that you do believe that the government should protect public health. I’ll give my own opinion. The government should protect public health. The government is made up of the representatives of the people. The government is in essence the only body which has both the motivation (when functioning in a non-corrupt manner) and the authority to protect public health. Many private non-profit entities also take an interest in protecting public health. However, on their own, they can only make recommendations for voluntary behavior, or provide information, in those venues which permit such information to be provided.

air said: Allowing a company to label its product as 'completely free of GMO' (assuming that is in fact the case) is in my opinion a legitimate marketing tool and should be allowed, although this position was debated within the government and the industry, some arguing to forbid such labeling.

harold said: This may be the case; I had not heard those arguments made before. If so, I would modify my argument to note that commercial interests may not be motivated to pursue the most socially beneficial possible applications of GMO technology, even if creating incremental improvement in the name of profit.

I'd appreciate a citation about these benefits of using plenty of Roundup. This is obviously a topic which would be expected to generate biased output from both sides. Even if there is a good argument that using plenty of Roundup is an objective improvement with regard to sustainability and pollution, and I'd be delighted to learn that, there is still the possibility that even better things could be done with GMO, and there are still some concerns raised by vertical integration/quasi-monopoly considerations in the agribusiness industry.

david.starling.macmillan said: The question is whether simply saying 'completely free of GMO' is potentially misleading, like 'this poultry raised without artificial growth hormones' is misleading because NO poultry sold in the United States may be raised with artificial growth hormones.

callahanpb said:

david.starling.macmillan said: The question is whether simply saying 'completely free of GMO' is potentially misleading, like 'this poultry raised without artificial growth hormones' is misleading because NO poultry sold in the United States may be raised with artificial growth hormones.

You definitely see this in "no trans fats" labeling that is applied to products that never had trans fats. I'm not sure there is any way to regulate against this, though I agree it's misleading. If you suggested that your claim made you any different from competitors, there might be an issue. (I'm not a lawyer, so I have no idea.)

callahanpb said: You definitely see this in “no trans fats” labeling that is applied to products that never had trans fats. I’m not sure there is any way to regulate against this, though I agree it’s misleading.

DS said: The EPA and the FDA are essentially impotent. They have not conducted or required the kind of testing that is necessary in order to address long term concerns.

I have seen this logic a couple of times and it disturbs me: Until evidence of harm is found, all GMO's should be considered safe. This attitude is irresponsible. For some people, the major objection is environmental damage that may be occurring. I recall when GMO's were first being grown the companies insisted the GMO could never transfer to the wild. When evidence of GMO was found in the wild, the response from the same companies was who cares because no damage is being caused. How can we reasonably predict the long term affect of the changes to the environment? Given a choice between great financial gain and a small chance of a disaster, powerful people will choose the money nearly every time. Again, to me requiring labeling is a reasonable compromise to allow people to not support an industry that they feel may be causing harm to themselves or the environment.

Ultimately, the bottom line is regardless of labeling, GMO's aren't going anywhere unless a disaster occurs. The GMO industry is too big. I read that an estimated 75% of processed food in the US contains GMO. I doubt the number will go down if labeling is required simply because a vast majority of people don't know or care what a GMO is. I suspect most people don't even read a food label or know what it means. Even for people who do read the labels, knowing what it means can be challenging (ex, The US can never be the county of origin for Organic Honey).

callahanpb said:

david.starling.macmillan said: The question is whether simply saying 'completely free of GMO' is potentially misleading, like 'this poultry raised without artificial growth hormones' is misleading because NO poultry sold in the United States may be raised with artificial growth hormones.

You definitely see this in "no trans fats" labeling that is applied to products that never had trans fats.

I want to know what "no added sugar" means on the 'churned style' ice cream I buy. It's plenty sweet, and vanilla has no inherently sweet ingredients such as fruit. It also has no 'fake sugar' stuff, so it obviously has real sugar. Then what does "no added" mean? After they put in the sugar they didn't add any more?

Fairly balanced article in The Nation this week -- she blames Monsanto's heavy-hnded tactics and dreadful PR for much of the opposition to genetically modified foods, but concludes that we need both science (including GMO's) and good farming practices to solve the problem of agriculture in a warming world. The article is limited to subscribers, but perhaps some other readers of The Nation can comment further.

Sigh. Make that heavy-handed. (Why do I always notice those typos the minute after I hit "Submit"?)

Carl W said:

DS said: The EPA and the FDA are essentially impotent. They have not conducted or required the kind of testing that is necessary in order to address long term concerns.

What additional tests do you think the FDA should require? Should crops created with mutation breeding have the same requirement? How about conventional breeding?

Matt Young said: Fairly balanced article in The Nation this week -- she blames Monsanto's heavy-hnded tactics and dreadful PR for much of the opposition to genetically modified foods, but concludes that we need both science (including GMO's) and good farming practices to solve the problem of agriculture in a warming world. The article is limited to subscribers, but perhaps some other readers of The Nation can comment further.

DS said: Well for starters, it would be a good idea to test crops that are engineered to express high levels of pesticides in order to determine if the genes are expressed in pollen. This would have sent up a warning flag that could have helped to prevent the damage done to monarch caterpillars.

ksplawn said:

DS said: Well for starters, it would be a good idea to test crops that are engineered to express high levels of pesticides in order to determine if the genes are expressed in pollen. This would have sent up a warning flag that could have helped to prevent the damage done to monarch caterpillars.

This has already been done, going back at least to 1999. The pesticide-producing strains of GMOs (e.g. Bt corn) don't present a risk to monarchs with their pollen, because even inside the actual corn field itself not enough pollen gets onto their food to become a detrimental dose of toxin. What actually threatens the monarch butterfly is the loss of milkweed that happens when Round-Up destroys the patches of it growing in and closely around the fields. But because so much of the milkweed tends to grow IN and AROUND the agricultural fields rather than in undisturbed prairie, doesn't this indicate that the the prevalence of milkweed is linked to the amount of disturbed land caused by agricultural development? If that's true, we need to take it into consideration when we think about monarch populations and what is actually natural vs. a consequence of human development in the first place. I suspect that by the time we had a good grasp on monarch butterfly populations, we had already turned the Midwest into a giant breadbasket of human farms which had significantly disturbed the natural prairie and caused the weedy species (e.g. milkweed) to experience a population boom, along with anything that feeds heavily on them. This may have given us a distorted view of what their populations were really like before we started applying Round-Up. What if the numbers we're used to are themselves artificially inflated by human activity? What if they're one of the several species of animals, like rats and pigeons, that have actually exploded in numbers because of human activity, at least up to this point? I'm not saying we shouldn't be concerned about their decline, especially when there are other factors involved like the loss of their winter habitats closer to the equator. But if we're going to start talking about the impacts of GMO crop use on wild animals, it's also useful to consider how those animals have reacted to human activity in the past. Perhaps someone more familiar with the issues (or with better access to the scientific literature) than me could look into these questions.

Mandatory warning labels clearly also violate the free speech of corporations that manufacture chemicals, but are consistent with the US government’s commitment to the protection of public health and safety.

I suspect that by the time we had a good grasp on monarch butterfly populations, we had already turned the Midwest into a giant breadbasket of human farms which had significantly disturbed the natural prairie and caused the weedy species (e.g. milkweed) to experience a population boom, along with anything that feeds heavily on them. This may have given us a distorted view of what their populations were really like before we started applying Round-Up. What if the numbers we’re used to are themselves artificially inflated by human activity? What if they’re one of the several species of animals, like rats and pigeons, that have actually exploded in numbers because of human activity, at least up to this point?

We don't engineer plants to produce herbicides. We engineer them to resist herbicides, and specific ones at that. Somewhat different kind of consequences there.

I don't even known how we'd create transgenic crops with herbicidal features. Wouldn't that generally make the crop itself non-viable? In nature, there are plants with mild herbicidal properties via allelopathy in order to out-compete other species in the same space, but those mechanisms are probably very intricate and tightly-dependent on several genetic traits distributed throughout the genome working together instead of being a package of a single gene, promoters for that gene, and genetic markers to ferret out cross-breeding abuses. I think fears of accidentally creating weeds with super-allelopathy (or however you'd want to make a plant literally herbicidal) are pretty much unreasonable to start with.

Again, I'm not saying we shouldn't be keeping on top of this stuff. But it does bug me when the potential risks are so misunderstood. It's almost like saying "What if we accidentally created ivy that dissolves human flesh?"

ksplawn said: I suspect that by the time we had a good grasp on monarch butterfly populations, we had already turned the Midwest into a giant breadbasket of human farms which had significantly disturbed the natural prairie and caused the weedy species (e.g. milkweed) to experience a population boom, along with anything that feeds heavily on them. This may have given us a distorted view of what their populations were really like before we started applying Round-Up. What if the numbers we're used to are themselves artificially inflated by human activity? What if they're one of the several species of animals, like rats and pigeons, that have actually exploded in numbers because of human activity, at least up to this point?

[Monarch migration] is an essential part of indigenous folklore and rituals in large areas of Mexico; a natural time clock for the changing of the seasons.

ksplawn said: We don't engineer plants to produce herbicides. We engineer them to resist herbicides, and specific ones at that. Somewhat different kind of consequences there.

callahanpb said: Do you have anything better than suspicion to go on? This is the first I've heard of the idea that monarch underwent a population boom with modern agriculture. It would change the picture somewhat if we had any reason to believe it, but you'd need better evidence to back it up.

callahanpb said:

ksplawn said: We don't engineer plants to produce herbicides. We engineer them to resist herbicides, and specific ones at that. Somewhat different kind of consequences there.

In practice, I'm pretty sure you're right that we don't, though there's no obvious contradiction assuming the plant in question is immune to the effects of whatever herbicide it could produce. Plants clearly do have means of competing with other species of plants, at least by starving them out or depriving them of sunlight. I'm not sure if it extends to the production of herbicides that affect other species, but it would surprise me if nothing like this ever happened.

But overreliance on Roundup accelerated the spread of weeds resistant to glyphosate. After the first few years of remarkably clean fields, farmers began to notice that they needed to apply Roundup earlier in the year, when weeds were no more than 3 or 4 inches tall. Then, some fields began to need two or three applications a year for effective weed control. Weeds that were resistant to glyphosate survived, flowered and seeded. In fields that used the herbicide year after year, the weed populations skyrocketed.

ksplawn said: We don't engineer plants to produce herbicides. We engineer them to resist herbicides, and specific ones at that. Somewhat different kind of consequences there. I don't even known how we'd create transgenic crops with herbicidal features. Wouldn't that generally make the crop itself non-viable? In nature, there are plants with mild herbicidal properties via allelopathy in order to out-compete other species in the same space, but those mechanisms are probably very intricate and tightly-dependent on several genetic traits distributed throughout the genome working together instead of being a package of a single gene, promoters for that gene, and genetic markers to ferret out cross-breeding abuses. I think fears of accidentally creating weeds with super-allelopathy (or however you'd want to make a plant literally herbicidal) are pretty much unreasonable to start with. Again, I'm not saying we shouldn't be keeping on top of this stuff. But it does bug me when the potential risks are so misunderstood. It's almost like saying "What if we accidentally created ivy that dissolves human flesh?"

alicejohn said:

ksplawn said: We don't engineer plants to produce herbicides. We engineer them to resist herbicides, and specific ones at that. Somewhat different kind of consequences there. I don't even known how we'd create transgenic crops with herbicidal features. Wouldn't that generally make the crop itself non-viable? In nature, there are plants with mild herbicidal properties via allelopathy in order to out-compete other species in the same space, but those mechanisms are probably very intricate and tightly-dependent on several genetic traits distributed throughout the genome working together instead of being a package of a single gene, promoters for that gene, and genetic markers to ferret out cross-breeding abuses. I think fears of accidentally creating weeds with super-allelopathy (or however you'd want to make a plant literally herbicidal) are pretty much unreasonable to start with. Again, I'm not saying we shouldn't be keeping on top of this stuff. But it does bug me when the potential risks are so misunderstood. It's almost like saying "What if we accidentally created ivy that dissolves human flesh?"

This is not correct. Bacillus thuringensis (Bt) bacteria is a natural herbicide. Additionally, it is non toxic to people. BT corn has been genetically altered to produce Bt. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_maize Bt happens to be one of the few herbicides the organic community can use without affecting the organic label. Organic practices would dictate it's use only when necessary. When Bt corn was introduced, the organic community strongly objected because constant exposure to the pesticide is the sure way to produce Bt resistant pests (as has been demonstrated with other pesticides). Bt resistant insects would have significant adverse affect on organic farming. While big agriculture will simply move on to the next chemical/GMO solution to the problem, devastated organic farms will be left in the wake. Multi-billion dollar agriculture vs. small individual organic farms. Who has the political power? Who do you think won that battle? There you have it folks. Documented evidence of doing one thing causing problems later. Yet, it was allowed to happen. GMO labeling would allow consumers who wish to put free market pressure on the agriculture industry are prevented from doing so because GMO products are hidden among non-GMO products on the shelf. In my opinion, GMO labeling is a reasonable compromise.

GMO labeling would allow consumers who wish to put free market pressure on the agriculture industry are prevented from doing so because GMO products are hidden among non-GMO products on the shelf. In my opinion, GMO labeling is a reasonable compromise.

ksplawn said: If you had read beyond the portion you quoted, you would see something addressing this question of my personal certainty

Do you have anything better than suspicion speculation about the effects of Great Plains agriculture to go on?

Again, please read my posts beyond the part you're quoting. And if you encounter

a word you might not be familiar with, please do look it up.

"Perhaps someone more familiar with the issues (or with better access to the scientific literature) than me could look into these questions."

If you really can't devote the time to read an entire comment, why do you devote the time respond to part of it?

ksplawn said: "Perhaps someone more familiar with the issues (or with better access to the scientific literature) than me could look into these questions." If you really can't devote the time to read an entire comment, why do you devote the time respond to part of it?

ksplawn said: "Perhaps someone more familiar with the issues (or with better access to the scientific literature) than me could look into these questions." If you really can't devote the time to read an entire comment, why do you devote the time respond to part of it?

but I wonder if you're interested in the question enough to make a more convincing case.

Jesus Christ, get over yourself.

ksplawn said: Jesus Christ, get over yourself.

What makes me laugh, or is it cry, is Monsanto marketing Round-Up for home use. Have you seen the inane TV ads? In the time it takes to drive to the store, buy Round-Up, and drive back home you could pull all the weeds from your yard. You won't be left with dead plants in your sidewalk cracks or flower beds, you won't be applying poisons to your lawn, and you will save tons of money. This is a company manufacturing a solution for a non-problem. For the most part, home use of herbicide or pesticides should be avoided.

There are several problematic weeds that really are asking for a spritz of glyphosate.

Dandelions have a substantial taproot, and if you don't manually pluck out the whole thing a dandelion can quickly grow back. Blackberries can be extremely invasive. They root very deeply and have starchy nodules that let them come back after being manually mowed, trimmed, or pulled. Poison ivy can be a severe irritant to many people, preventing manual removal and control. I know my mother sometimes gets problems just by mowing it, even if her skin never physically touches the plant itself.

Not that I'm totally against "weeds." Dandelions are very edible and nutritious. Blackberries, likewise. Heck, even kudzu has significant benefits and is used commercially in its native lands for human AND animal feed. That's not even considering the upsides to erosion control and reducing runoff for just about all of those.

But the old adage is that "a weed is a plant where you don't want it." And the "weediest" species of plants tend to be very good at getting into the places they're not wanted, despite our best efforts.

I started to use glyphosate (low toxicity, in fact), and it was an interesting experience to finally go to a store.

I mean, it's not like anyone goes to stores for other things, and might actually buy glyphosate then.

Glen Davidson

DS said:

Carl W said:

DS said: The EPA and the FDA are essentially impotent. They have not conducted or required the kind of testing that is necessary in order to address long term concerns.

What additional tests do you think the FDA should require? Should crops created with mutation breeding have the same requirement? How about conventional breeding?

Well for starters, it would be a good idea to test crops that are engineered to express high levels of pesticides in order to determine if the genes are expressed in pollen. This would have sent up a warning flag that could have helped to prevent the damage done to monarch caterpillars. Testing for introgression into native populations would also be a good idea, along with more safeguards to try to prevent such things from happening. Testing for persistence of herbicides in waste produced by harvesting would also be desirable, as well as testing persistence in soil, ground water, runoff, streams and lakes. In general, somebody should be considering the long term consequences of planting millions of acres in genetically engineered crops and they should be doing this before planting occurs. The type of testing required would depend on the type of modification. If the companies that are marketing these products cannot, or will not, perform the testing, then the government should be responsible.

Lower toxicity than pulling weeds by hand?

No one knows for sure how long the butterflies have been coming to these mountaintops, or how long indigenous people have lived in their midst. What we do know is that the butterflies have influenced the culture of these people for centuries, as evidenced by the myths and folklore that surround them. The monarchs arrive on or near November 2, when Dia de los Muertos (The Day of the Dead, known as All Souls Day by Christians in the US) is celebrated across Mexico as a time to remember loved ones who have passed on. Because the two events have coincided for so long, many in these mountains believe that the butterflies carry with them the returning souls of their ancestors.

david.starling.macmillan said: I guess I'm not sure what mandatory GMO labeling would accomplish that voluntary non-GMO labeling wouldn't. And in this particular instance, we'd be better served with a "contains/does not contain genetically-expressed Bt pesticide-grown crops" label.

If we began labeling GMOs we would see thousands of people develop "GMO allergy" overnight.

Carl W said: Those sound like tests you think the EPA should perform or require. I haven't read enough about ecology, or the ecological effects of GMOs, to even have an opinion on the topic. I specifically asked about the FDA, rather than the EPA.

callahanpb said: but farming technology changed significantly between 1937 and 1975. Even if 1937 monarch populations were high, 1975 populations would be higher if the cause had been milkweed associated with cultivated land.

Among the milkweeds, this species is the best at colonizing in disturbed sites. Within its range it can be found in a broad array of habitats from croplands, to pastures, roadsides, ditches and old fields. It is surprisingly rare in prairies in the Midwest being found mostly in disturbed sites within these habitats.

Deforestation due to European settlement may have expanded the range and density of milkweed.

DS said: Well the FDA should definitely test for allergic reactions and label accordingly. This is probably not a big problem, but it could at least alleviate some fears.

They should also test for the effects of altered hormone levels in modified animals, such as growth hormone in cow milk.

And of course, any immunization program should be carefully tested and monitored, especially considering some of the fears over immunization. You can't really object on "religious grounds" if you don't know that you are being immunized. This is also probably not a big problem, but the idea of informed consent kind of depends on the informed part. This can be especially problematic in third world countries, where such technology is most likely to be employed.

Really, long term tests on the effects of any significant modification in nutrient content would be a good idea, if only to demonstrate the efficacy of the modification. Whatever the original intent, unintended consequences can always occur. This is certainly true for any modification involving shelf life. The appearance of the product might not remain a reliable indicator of nutritional content, so proper testing would have to be done to determine the more subtle effects of these modifications.