Is GMO/GE food actually harmful or "bad"? What about treated foods?

Factual Questions
61

Go back and reread what I said - which is that antivaxers and anti-GMOers share similar tactics and beliefs. Both rely on unverifiable anecdotes, a scant number of fringe, poorly conducted studies and handwaving about we can’t trust science because of Big Corporate Whatever. Did I mention that both sets of pseudoscience advocates love to paint their evidence-based opponents as corporate shills? Turns out I didn’t need to.

Attaboy, play that shill gambit. :rolleyes:

Oh, and I mentioned this in a previous thread: it is bad form to selectively quote a person or organization in support of one’s beliefs, when that person/organization actually has quite different views. For example:

That quote as you indicate dates from the year 2000. Nature Biotechnology’s editors had this to say in 2013 in light of extensive research and practical experience:

*"GM food has an uncanny ability to spook consumers. It does not matter that many of us have been consuming GM cornflakes, sweet corn, starches and sugars in processed food for over a decade. It does not matter that no adverse health effects have been recorded from eating them. Nor does it matter that august agencies, such as the World Health Organization, the US National Academy of Sciences, the European Commission or the American Medical Association, have come out with ringing endorsements of their safety. The fact is, negative attitudes remain entrenched and widespread. And changing them will require a concerted and long-term effort to develop GM foods that clearly provide convincing benefits to consumers—something that seed companies have conspicuously failed to do over the past decade.

On p. 794, our Feature asks why the same circuitous debates and concerns keep circulating regarding the health risks of GM food. This time last year, a peer-reviewed paper by (Seralini et al), claiming that glyphosate-resistant corn causes tumors in Sprague Dawley rats (Food Chem. Toxicol. 50, 4221–4231, 2012), sparked a media circus about the cancer risks of eating GM corn. This methodologically and statistically flawed study—the claims of which have since been debunked—grabbed headlines around the world and provided shocking images of animals overgrown with tumors.

The report and others like it making extraordinary claims about health risks represent a tiny minority of all the peer-reviewed studies on GM food. But each time one is published, anti-GM activists seize upon it, no matter how flimsy the evidence or flawed the study design. And all too often, an uncritical and sensationalist media leaps upon negative findings, continuing the cycle of scares, urban myths and downright mistruths about GM food, all of which serve to stoke consumer paranoia."*

http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v31/n9/full/nbt.2700.html

I don’t know what you think you’re gaining by promoting an isolated 2000 quote as indicating current beliefs of the editors of that journal - but it’s not crediblity.

*Speaking of “convincing benefits to consumers”: as indicated earlier, I think it will take a significant crisis in food production due to insects or diseases threatening the existence/affordability of popular products like coffee and orange juice, for the segment of consumers that currently avoids GM foods to embrace them. If there’s no morning cup of joe because the trees that produce arabica beans are being wiped out and the only real solution is a genetically modified tree that resists the pathogen, those GMO-doubters are likely to convert in a hurry. Just like antivax ideology fails when outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases occur.

62

Sorry, I guess I misinterpreted your question. I don’t claim that GMO foods are necessarily different – in fact I just said several times that the evidence is overwhelming that the GM foods currently on the market are safe. One might argue in reference to things like your grilled cheese sandwich example that these products have in fact been effectively whole-food tested, because they’re common foods with a substantial equivalence to foods our species has been eating for a very long time, which is how we also know that some foods are a lot healthier for us than others.

From that standpoint one might try to argue that natural foods are safer than GM foods, but I reject that notion because I think there’s been sufficient focus on them and experience with them and a sufficient independent body of evidence to establish their safety. The point I’m making is the one that you have neglected to comment on and is in the chart that I linked, which is that the NRC has established a taxonomy of GMO risks based on the different technologies that are used to make them; additionally, there is what is generally considered to be an even more significant taxonomy of risk based on the degree to which the new product’s genetic makeup is substantially different from its predecessor.

So not all GMOs are equivalent, there are indeed significant differences, just as there are among traditional breeding methods but potentially even more so, especially as bioengineering technology evolves. This speaks to the need for appropriate regulatory, testing, and labeling regimes, much as was recommended among the more than 50 specific policy recommendations in that Elements of Precaution report I mentioned and pretty much echoed by the US National Academies of Science. My particular concern is the extraordinary degree to which the industry wields control over US public policy – no different than the fossil fuel industry, the health insurance industry, and all the others – but from an international perspective, extraordinary nonetheless. Whatever the final verdict on GMO’s evolving potential, it’s pretty much a sure bet that legislation and regulation is going to favor the industry and not the consumer.

That’s all I wanted to clarify and I regret that what was supposed to be a one-post comment has raised such rancor with some, despite being entirely supportive of genetic engineering.

63

I don’t know what you think you’re gaining by quoting an editorial that I agree with, consistent with what I’ve said here several times about the safety of GMOs, and consistent with what I say frequently about the sensationalist tendencies of commercial media and the conspiratorial mindset of some of the general public. It’s not inconsistent with the wisdom of the precautionary principle that I quoted.

64

Excuse me if I have difficulty reconciling this huge supportiveness with your statements not just in this thread but in previous ones on the Dope.

I’m reminded of your declaring that a change in one gene and a promoter sequence made a genetically modified salmon “a whole freaking new species”. :slight_smile:

And who could forget your comments on resistance to mandatory GMO labeling, in which you raised the specters of Big Tobacco, environmental lead contamination and the thalidomide disaster?

(this thread references these and other fun statements).

Meantime, I’m still waiting to hear what GMO products (food and medical) still in the pipeline are ones you think should be held up by new stringent regulations due to the specter of “unintended consequences” (and what those regulations should be). Is it time for anti-GMOers to drop their bizarre resistance to vision and life-saving golden rice? Or is it still too scary?

65

Link to last thread about this issue

66

How is this any different than conventional or organic farming which typically requires more applications of more dangerous alternatives?

It is special pleading to ignore those issues.

67

This may give anti-GMOers the screaming meme-ies.

68

Err, transgenic farming is a form of conventional farming. And the alternative to roundup isn’t usually applications of more toxic chemicals, it’s usually tilling the soil. That has its own set of problems, like faster soil erosion. But it doesn’t generally lead to poisoning the farm hands.

The broad story is that rapid significant changes in farming, as in any other endeavor, often lead to unforseen consequences, including negative externalities that society hasn’t developed tools to deal with.

And transgenic technologies make extremely really changes possible.

That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it. It is a technology with enormous promise. But it does mean we should move cautiously. We shouldn’t just blindly say “all science is good.” Lots of science has made our lives better in countless ways. Transgenic foods will, too. (And in some ways, already have.)

But we should test new foods, perhaps with some threshold based on how much they have been changed. We should be willing to regulate new technologies if we see problems developing. That’s all.

69

Alternative herbicides promoted and sold for organic farming can be more toxic than Roundup. Take for instance herbicidal vinegar products, which are considerably more concentrated than household vinegar and can have deleterious effects, including:

“Severe eye irritation, burns, and possible irreversible damage potential.
 Severe skin irritation and possible allergic sensitization
 Prolonged or repeated exposure may cause dermatitis, chronic bronchitis, and erosion of teeth”

Not so good for the farm hands.

https://extension.umd.edu//sites/extension.umd.edu/files/_docs/programs/ipmnet/Vinegar-AnAlternativeToGlyphosate-UMD-Smith-Fiola-and-Gill.pdf

D-limonene, sold as Avenger brand weed killer, has been found to be carcinogenic in male rats (although this is not thought to be an issue for humans because of physiologic differences; still, this chemical has been studied and evaluated in practical use far less than Roundup).

Further note: one way soil tilling causes problems is its deleterious effect on earthworm survival. If you have to keep turning over the soil to limit weeds, earthworms die and soil quality suffers.

70

Huh, I have never seen anyone suggest using vinegar to clear a field. I guess I have seen it suggested for weeds on a gravel walkway.

The “organic” suggestion I’ve seen to clear weeds from a large-ish patch of land prior to replanting is “polarizing”, putting clear plastic on the ground to use the sun to bake the soil. But I can’t imagine anyone does that in commercial farming, that’s a hobbyist thing. The traditional ways to clear land of weeds are tilling, roundup, and mulch.

71

“For broadcast spray application to control weeds. Application types include pre-plant (prior to crop establishment), preharvest desiccation (to kill crop foliage prior to harvesting the crop) postharvest crop desiccation (remaining crop residues after crop has been harvested). Use 15 to 30 gallons of this product per acre…For spray application to control weeds, apply 15 to 30 gallons of this product per acre. Thorough coverage is necessary to achieve desirable control. For dense and/or heavy weed populations, use the higher spray volume to ensure adequate coverage. Apply with flat fan nozzles and at the lowest pressure needed to achieve required coverage, but do not exceed 35 PSI. If treating along the side of crop plants, shielded or hooded sprayers must be used to avoid crop injury…
For both non-organic and certified organic operations, the addition of a high quality adjuvant can substantially enhance the performance of the vinegar herbicide through improved leaf surface coverage and adherence. Certified organic operations will need to use an adjuvant approved for organic use.”

https://commercial.naturalorganicwarehouse.com/vinegar-20-weed-organic-herbicide-weed-control

Wonder how the current anti-Roundup frenzy has affected organizations and agencies battling “invasive exotic” plants in nature preserves and other wild areas, where glyphosate-based herbicides have long been a staple of control efforts.

72

By the way, I think the “Arctic Apples” (a few types of GMO apples that don’t turn brown when exposed to air) are likely to change the public discussion around GMO foods. So far most GMO crops are either modified in ways that help the farmer (e.g. roundup-ready crops) or have been publicity stunts to push GMOs (e.g. golden rice. Yeah, maybe someone is using it. I’ve never seen it for sale have you? In North America?) A round-up ready crop might be cheaper, or it might be indistinguishable from other crops, but it doesn’t have any features that consumers will think “I want that!” Rather, they leave the consumer vaguely suspicious that perhaps the farmer is trying to “get away with” something.

The arctic apples do directly appeal to consumers. Lots of people would prefer that apples not brown in fruit salad, or in their child’s lunch box. I expect they will sell at a premium. And the developers and promoters of the fruit aren’t making any effort to hide that it’s a GMO fruit.

This infographic doesn’t use the letters “GMO”, but it’s pretty explicit

As someone pointed out above, intentionally damaging a crop genome isn’t a brand-new idea. It’s not even new for apples – but was previously done by irradiating buds on trees, and growing them out to see what happened. The goal was to produce things like a more attractive, red Cortland apple. I would presume that carefully excising a known gene from the genome (the method used to produce arctic apples) is safer than the previous scatter-shot approach. And of course, that was viewed as just speeding up natural variation caused by cosmic rays hitting buds, and naturally creating “sports”. Those irradiated sports are common in the marketplace, and never seemed to raise any particular concern, fwiw. But they were introduced in a different era, and using a different technology from today’s GMO technologies.

(I once read about how apple buds were intentionally exposed to radioactive stuff in the hopes of developing improved sports quite explicitly in an old, browned document printed by the Cornell agricultural when they were advertising the newly released apple. That was from the dawn of the atomic era, when the technology sounded shiny and new, rather than scary. I can’t find a good citation now, but these two links, if they work, give a taste of the idea.

Horticultural Reviews, Volume 20 - Google Books )

73

I should have looked farther before posting:

The developers of the arctic apples speak directly to the importance of consumer acceptance of GMO foods, and they use those letters:

“Biotechnology is a complex science, but consumer research has repeatedly found that consumers are more likely to embrace GMOs that offer direct benefits they can experience firsthand.”

74

You’d think that the recently approved Innate potato would have even more consumer appeal, since it not only has a better appearance, but may be healthier as well:

"Simplot’s varieties of Ranger Russet, Russet Burbank and Atlantic potatoes are collectively known by the trade name “Innate” and are genetically engineered to reduce the formation of black spot bruises by lowering the levels of certain enzymes in the potatoes. In addition, they are engineered to produce less acrylamide by lowering the levels of an amino acid called asparagine and by lowering the levels of reducing-sugars. Acrylamide is a chemical that can form in some foods during high-temperature cooking, such as frying, and has been found to be carcinogenic in rodents."*

https://www.fda.gov/newsevents/newsroom/pressannouncements/ucm439121.htm

I’m looking forward to the day when GM vegetable and fruit varieties are made available to the home gardener. If (for example) someone developed an eggplant variety that was unappealing to flea beetles, I wouldn’t have to use a pyrethrin dust on the plants every 10-14 days during the growing season and be concerned about toxicity of the (organic) dust to beneficial insects.**

no, I am not a Simplot stockholder or on the company payroll. I get all my $hill Bucks from Merck. :smiley:
**good luck getting eggplant to bear in my area without controlling those &#! flea beetles.

75

Hm, maybe you could splice in some genes from something that tastes terrible. Like, eggplant, maybe.

And puzzlegal, why would you expect to see Golden Rice in North America? The whole point of it is to be a staple for impoverished parts of the world.

76

If golden rice was available in North America I’d at least try it.

Why not sell it to the (relatively) rich part of the world to help subsidize its distribution in the poor places of the world?

77

I don’t know that we need it in industrialized areas. We generally have enough food variety that we don’t really need rice fortified with vitamins. Our food supply is nutritious enough as is. You could probably sell it to the people that shop whole foods or something (except that they won’t eat GMOs), but it’s not going to go over all that well on grocery store aisles. I’ve never had it myself, but I would assume that it has a different flavor, and maybe even texture and cooking properties.

It is the poorer areas of the world where rice makes up nearly the entirety of a person’s diet that the added vitamins in golden rice is important.

Same with genetically engineered cassava root that is made to be more nutritious and resistant to the viruses that are wiping it out in africa. There is no need for it here in the US, but there is a great need for it there.

78

My point wasn’t “oh noes, they don’t sell golden rice in the US”, my point was that as best as I can tell, arctic apples are the first GMO crop that’s been designed to be attractive to first world consumers as a direct result of the genetic modification, and as such, it will be interesting to see how the public discussion goes.

Granny Smith and Golden Delicious are both decent apples. I look forward to trying them.

(And thanks, Jackmanii, for the info on innate potatoes. They have a lot of potential, too.)

79

Yeah, so far the insecticidal GMO crops have worked by making stuff in the plant that you can buy and spray on the plant. It’s a savings in your time and effort, but it can’t be any safer than spraying the stuff on the outside of the plants. So I see less potential, here.

80

I’ll have to disagree - the potential is enormous.

What if you could genetically engineer a crop that doesn’t contain a pesticide like Bt - but simply makes the plant unattractive to pests (through taste or other mechanism) without affecting its usefulness to humans or livestock?

Or if crossing GM plants with “conventional” hybrids greatly reduced or eliminated pest resistance to pesticides produced by the plants?

There are techniques in development for short-term pest shutdown through RNA sprays that don’t persist in the environment and are narrowly targeted to specific pest species.*

As this article notes, having Monsanto as one of the companies doing this research is likely to spark automatic opposition. And given illogical fears of human genome alteration** that we’ve already seen with GM foods, it’s doubtful RNA sprays will be greeted with any less suspicion.
**not so strangely, this meme is also popular among antivaxers.