You are here : Home > FIN Blog > Boulder Citizens Say No to GMOs, Will the Commissioners Listen?

I’ve seen this thing in the news time and again, and I have to say, Boulder, I really don’t get it.

You talk about the corporations and the people, corporations and the people, but what about the ones this really affects: the farmers. Do you think farmers LIKE paying for the cost of GE seed? You think they enjoy an additional cost that takes money right out of THEIR bottom line. No, that’s ridiculous. Why would they do it? Perhaps they find some benefit? Perhaps they, unlike many others, know what the alternative to GE crops is. Here’s a radical idea: let them choose. If they don’t want GE crops, fine, everybody’s happy. If the farmers do choose to spend that extra money, maybe you should accept that they know what they’re doing and not take away their rights to run their farms as they see fit.

Anyway, I find you made some errors in your piece here. First, it is absolutely false that there has never been any independent study on GE crops (you can find a list of about 100 such studies here: http://www.biofortified.org/genera/studies-for-genera/independent-funding/). Beyond that, I have yet to speak to any scientist who questions the safety of genetically engineered crops, and I’ve spoken to quite a number in my university’s biology, horticulture, genetics, and biochemistry departments. Sorry to be so blunt here, but the only ones who still think there is any legitimate debate about the safety of GE crops have clearly not gone through the literature on the subject. This is just like all those other so-called controversies (you know the ones I’m talking about). Heck, no one can find a single confirmed example of a single person having ever been harmed in any way from a GE crop, nor has anyone even put forward a plausible biochemical mechanism for how that could even happen.

You point out the claims of Surov and Séralini. As far as I know, Surov has yet to release his data. At first I thought your link was to his data, but when I clicked on it it, lo and behold, an article explaining that the data will be released in July…..2010. Now that’s open science right there! As for Séralini, the shoddy statistics used in his meta-study were widely discredited by pretty much everyone who gave it the time of day, including FSANZ, EFSA and France’s HBC (Haut Conseil des biotechnologies). As for the Round-Up toxicity claims, I notice a distinct lack of widespread birth defects among the millions of farming families who use Round-Up. If it really did cause birth defects, you would expect farmers to be the first to feel it. That has not happened. That observation aside, that study was pretty much cherry picking and is worth very little. Notice how these reports don’t exactly send shock waves throughout the scientific community. Ask yourself, why is that? Either the vast majority of biologists, zoologists, botanists, geneticists, microbiologists, toxicologists, biochemists, agronomists, and horticulturists (and naturally I’m one of them too) are in league with Monsanto for some nefarious purposes (although for some strange reason still eat the same GE food everyone else does), of the anti-GE position holds no water. When I hear hooves, I think horses, not zebras. So, uh, what was that about good science again? Shoddy statistics, cherry picking, and not even publishing your data are good science, but accepting scientific consensus isn’t?

Lets see here, what else….All GE crops require this herbicide? Wrong. Only the Round-Up Ready ones can tolerate it. Note that they don’t REQUIRE it any more than any other crop. The insect resistant Bt crops don’t require it, and the Liberty Link crops are resistant to another herbicide, glufosinate. Or course, there is also virus resistant GE crops, but there’s only two of them on the market right now, papaya and summer squash (obviously only one of which really matters for most growers).

Super weeds? A misleading misnomer. The correct term is glyphosate resistant weed. These weeds are resistant to glyphosate, not anything else. If you’re against using glyphosate, it doesn’t really matter anyway. The danger here is threatening to take away the advantages GE crops have already provided, not to be ‘super’ or whatever is meant to be implied with that term. Anyone who knows anything about population genetics.will tell you that when you apply strong selection pressure to a fast reproducing population you will produce a genetic shift. This has absolutely nothing to do with genetic engineering itself, indeed, this is hardly the first time a weed has become resistant to a widely used herbicide. It opens up the discussion of better weed management but that’s a different (and rather complex) subject. That EU countries, and many other countries, ban GE crops shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone who understands global agriculture. Ask yourself a question: how do you continue to prop up protectionist policies for your own agriculture in the face of the comparative advantage of countries such as the US and Canada after you’ve joined the WTO which clearly prohibits such policies? Simple, blame GMOs. It’s actually kind of clever. A number of other countries, particularly in Africa, not wanting to lose export markets to Europe, follow them and also ban the cultivation of GE crops. Is anyone really surprised by this?

Ok, so a bunch of people are against GE crops. I would strongly question the level of knowledge those people have regarding this subject. And I would also like to live were policy decisions are made by people who have strong understanding of the subject. Should we take a public vote on which surgical techniques are used in operating rooms, or should we let that decision up to, I don’t know, surgeons? What if these people were saying that farmers HAD to grow GE crops? How would that be any different? I confess, I don’t live there, I’m just someone who has been seeing this story pop up in GoogleNews time and again but really, why aren’t the farmers factoring into this? If they don’t want it, there’s no need for a ban, if they do, whose side are you really on?

1. Ok, so now we agree that there were rewards, that’s good. No one is saying that it isn’t bad, however, it is those benefits that are threatened. Anyone is free to switch to something else. And don’t tell me they can’t, heck, watch anything on RFDTV and it won’t be long before you see a Liberty Link soybean commercial encouraging just that (that of course is not the only option). And of course it should be stated again that this has more to do with the cultivation than the technology. Believe it or not, weeds have been found that have developed seeds that have cycles of dormancy such that they can better weather crop rotation. Doesn’t mean that anyone should stop using crop rotation.

What alternatives would they prefer? Tillage, which degrades and erodes the soil and promotes fertilizer runoff? Perhaps older herbicides that were used before the adoption of GE crops, herbicides that are quite a bit nastier and have higher impacts on the environment? Do they understand this? It isn’t a question of what causes no harm, but what causes the least harm. I know which one I’d rather live next to. And I fail to see how the midwest where they grow many of these crops is an infertile weed patch.

2. Look at studies number 6, 32, 35, 38, and 56. You say that it is ‘preposterous to claim a biological alteration as being safe after studying it for such an absurdly short period of time.’ Let me ask, do you apply the same logic to all biological alterations? What about conventional breeding techniques? That changes the genes, and furthermore, it does so in unknown ways. Remember the Lenape potato…even breeding is not without risk. What about hybridization, somaclonal variation, chemical/radiation induced mutagenesis, induced polyploidy? What if marker assisted selection, wide crosses, or embryo rescue is involved? Do you apply the same logic to these? It’s genetic change, right. What if you can’t find anything different in the proteome between the GE plant and its non-GE isogenic counterpart? What if not a single person out there can describe in detail a single protein or metabolite out of place in a GE crop? Something cannot be dangerous if there is nothing dangerous present. And at what point do you consider something safe? You have to have a set criteria for declaring that something is safe, otherwise, you’re taking a position that cannot be disproven. You can take these as rhetorical questions if you want, my point is that there is a lot more nuance than you seem to indicate.

I don’t recall ever hearing much about any Dr. McNeill. A quick google search and I finds some things he’s said, some true, some not so much, and some kinda weird (spraying glyphosate is like giving a plant AIDS? Huh? How is Immunodeficiency anything like halting amino acid synthesis?) I’d have to know the exact situation any one person was in if they’re making money with non-GMO food. It does make me thing of this study (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6001/222.abstract) which claims that those who do not grow GE crops surprisingly get more benefit out of GE crops than the people actually growing them! Huber is another one who hasn’t published his data. He makes some really, really extraordinary claims, but nothing to back them up. Not much else to say about that. There’s that ‘open science’ again. Kind of a double standard that you’ll take Huber at his word but if he reached the opposite conclusion I doubt anyone would.

As for the American Academy of Environmental Medicine, who are they? Just another non-recognized pseudoprofessional organization, like so many others. Check out what sciencebasedmedicine.org, a site that doesn’t even deal in issues of genetic engineering, has to say about them. They’ve even got themselves a spot on Quackwatch. Anyway, I can list more than a few more reputable organizations, among them the World Health Organization, who have much different statements.

3. I did have some fun with that. The site you linked to here is just a directory. It does not list his data, although it does have his email. What I found funny was that Google decided to translate Суров Алексей Васильевич as Severe Shubnikov. I get how they can translate ‘суров’ to ‘severe’ from but how do the get Shubnikov out of Алексей Васильевич (Alexei Vasilevich)? Sure my Russian is pretty poor but I don’t get that. But I digress….

As for the meat & potatoes here, first, the Argentinian study. I remember that one from a while back. From what I can tell about the only conclusion you can draw from that is don’t inject Round-Up into embryos, which sounded like a good idea before the study. Considering how much Round-Up is applied, then how much degrades, then how much is lost in processing, then how much is actually absorbed into the body, that study doesn’t exceptionally scare me. I’ve seen similar studies about pure caffeine. Doesn’t bother me.

The Zentek study, I hope you know, was withdrawn. Read about it (with links to the European Commission summery) here: http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/news/499.docu.html and here: http://www.gmo-safety.eu/news/599.does-maize-cause-impotence-efsa-experts-voice-doubts.html and here: http://www.biofortified.org/2010/04/update-on-austrian-feeding-study/ Not a good idea to cite withdrawn papers, though I must chuckle a little when I notice that anti-GE sites like Greenpeace’s and Jeffery Smith’s have no problem bringing up that study but curiously neglect to mention this. Almost as if they’re putting an agenda above facts, no?

As for the Vecchio study, I can’t actually read beyond the abstract from where I am now (there’s a paywall) so can’t comment on it. The two listed in the NIH don’t even mention GE. You going to bring up Pusztai next 😉

4. If that is what you mean you should specify it, otherwise it gives the false impression that all GE crops require a specific herbicide. You certainty wouldn’t consider Bt crops the same as Ht ones, would you? And market share or not, there’s always the option of buying LL over RR.

5. It does matter. I’m not trying to be high horse at all, but it is a weasel word. It gives a false impression. They’re not super, no more so than the GE crops themselves are ‘super’ for being able to do the same thing. I’ve never heard of them being able to damage farm equipment as a result of glyphosate resistance. IIRC the resistance typically comes from a mutation that either changes how glyphosate is transported in the plant, alters the shape of the EPSPS protein so that glyphosate no longer affects it, or produces so much EPSPS that it survives the glyphosate through brute force. I can’t figure out how any of those would make the weeds any more likely to damage farm equipment, but if you could post a link I’d find that interesting.

6. Do you apply the same logic to the other side? I notice you link to Jeffery Smith. By your logic, you should disregard everything he says because he makes a living off anti-GE professional activism. Séralini was funded by Greenpeace, another case where the professional activism issue arises. I’m certainty not saying you shouldn’t be skeptical of people selling you something. Of course you should, you’d have to be pretty credulous not to. But the vast majority of professionals in relevant fields support these crops. If you look abroad, you see much the same, be it research in China, Bt rice in Iran, emerging biotech abilities in the EUA and Malaysia, virus resistant bananas in Ughanda, low GI wheat in Australia, virus resistant grape rootstocks in France, fungus resistant potatoes in the Netherlands, the beans that ANBIO just approved in Brazil. Granted, I’m talking about the technology as a whole there, but you should realize that this is more than a few companies, and if you’re drawing all that back to just them, then quite frankly you’ve firmly entered tinfoil land. Which is to say, lets get the notion that the process is the issue here out of the way and talk honestly about the traits. This however does not site well with a clearly defined black and white pro-GMO vs anti-GMO worldview.

Dang, I guess I did kinda sound like I was cheering on the Liberty Link ones there didn’t I? Well, getting called a Bayer shill instead of a Monsanto shill would be a nice change of pace. However, I can tell you I for one haven’t heard them mentioned much by anyone here. Come to think of it, in the biotech class I took I don’t even remember discussing the bar gene and glufosinate (if we did and I just don’t remember, it wasn’t in great detail). I bring them up because the best way to prevent weed resistance is to use multiple different herbicides with differing modes of action. If there’s a 1/X chance of a resistance to one type of herbicide emerging, and a 1/Y chance of resistance to another emerging, the odds of both emerging is 1/(XY), which any way you cut it is going to be a lot smaller. Mathematically speaking, the best approach is a good rotation and multiple varieties of weed control.