Some pests are plants, and an herbicide is a kind of pesticide.
From what I can tell, the most crazy scattershot method of “normally” breeding plants is mutation breeding, where the plants are irradiated or chemically treated to induce mutations, and then the promising mutants are selected and bred further from there.
Compared to someone using CRISPR in a scientific, controlled and deliberate way to insert a specific gene into a plant to do a specific thing, irradiating plants to see what grows, and then keeping the “good” ones seems far more likely to have unforeseen effects.
And yet, you could grow those cultivars in an organic fashion, and nobody’d be the wiser.
Well, that isn’t what I said, so I’m fairly sure it’s not what I meant.
But who defines exactly what a GMO is? Sure, you and I can probably have a casual conversation about GMOs and have a basic understanding of what we mean by the term, but that’s not necessarily the same thing that would be used as a legal definition–which is subject to all those same evil food industry lobbyists.
Which has always been the kicker for me–you don’t trust the government to be able to tell you that the food is safe to eat, but you trust them to make coherent labeling laws?
I recall reading one article on GMOs–apparently Hawaii was passing some sort of anti-GMO legislation when they realized that the all the papayas grown in the state were GMO now as a result of some sort of crop failure a couple decades ago. So, since that’s a vital crop, they simply exempted the papaya.
How, exactly, is that helping anyone other than the woo artists?
There was an epidemic of papaya ringspot virus (PRSV) in Hawaii. The virus is transmitted by aphids, so you could the disease by spraying insecticides. Lots and lots of insecticides since those little buggers are hard to kill, and you only need a few insects to escape to infect new plants. Or you could develop a transgenic papaya, resistant to PRSV.
I have vehemently argued with climate change deniers because I understand the science and I know how overwhelming the evidence is for AGW, and the denials are always based on some combination of fudged data, irrelevant digressions or analogies, or just outright lies, depending on how sophisticated the target audience is presumed to be. I could probably write a rebuttal on every such article pointing out its falsehoods that is longer than the article itself.
It’s ridiculous to claim that there’s any sort of analogy here with the GMO issue and the desire for labeling requirements. Given that the world is full of idiots and lunatics, no doubt every movement has to suffer some number of them, but in the final analysis the question is always the same: what does the science say? And here what the science says is that it’s an extremely complex issue, so that even the term “GMO” needs careful definition and categorization before we even know what we’re talking about, but that in a broad sense GMO foods are very likely safe. But this is not the same as being able to claim that there is no possible risk, no sir, no way, not ever. And it’s arrogant and irresponsible to make such a claim, or to suggest that all proponents of labeling or precautionary policy are all practitioners of woo.
I am the furthest thing from an expert in this area. I frankly admit that, like most people, I know almost nothing about it. But as I often say in climate change discussions, even if you don’t understand the science, you should at least be able to distinguish reasonable sources of information from propagandizing drivel. A longstanding and respected source of guidance for consumers is the Consumers Union and their publication, Consumer Reports, which I would hardly categorize as woo. I present these quotes from a much longer article on the subject:
Those who support using GMOs point out that Americans have been eating foods containing them for more than 15 years and that there’s no credible evidence that people have been harmed. But saying there’s no evidence of harm isn’t the same as saying they’ve been proved safe. “The contention that GMOs pose no risks to human health can’t be supported by studies that have measured a time frame that is too short to determine the effects of exposure over a lifetime,” says Robert Gould, M.D., president of the board of Physicians for Social Responsibility.
A joint commission of the World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations has established a protocol for evaluating the safety of GMOs, which it says have the potential to introduce toxins and new allergens (or increase levels of existing ones), or cause nutritional changes in foods and other unexpected effects. Other developed nations have used those guidelines in their mandatory premarket safety assessments for genetically modified organisms. But the Food and Drug Administration doesn’t require any safety assessment of genetically engineered crops, though it invites companies to provide data for a voluntary safety review.
Animal studies—commonly used to help assess human health risks—have suggested that GMOs might cause damage to the immune system, liver, and kidneys. More studies are needed to determine long-term effects. And the ability of researchers to track potential health effects of GMOs in the human population is hampered by the absence of labeling. “Physicians need to know what their patients are eating,” Gould says. “If your patient has a problem with food allergies or other side effects that may be related to GMOs, it’s difficult to identify any links unless these foods are labeled.”
… Consumers Union, the policy arm of Consumer Reports, favors labeling and premarket safety testing of GMO foods and supports state bills and measures to that end. We also strongly oppose the introduction of a food- and chemical-industry supported federal bill that would preempt all state GMO food-labeling laws and would allow the “natural” label to be used on GMO foods.
This might help explain why there are GMO regulations throughout the world, but they are oddly lacking in the one major country that has extraordinarily powerful commercial lobbyists.
You just made a claim about “what the science says”, so I’m sure you have some cites for us to read. How about you cough those up?
We do know what my fellow scientists say about that GM safety. Some of the only issues that we scientists agree on more than “climate change is caused by humans” are “humans have evolved over time” and “safe to eat GM food.”
I just summarized what the science says – do you disagree? I also provided a cite from a reputable source that supports exactly my position, and you just choose to ignore it. Instead, you apparently want me to “cough up” papers claiming GMO foods are dangerous as hell, when I just finished saying that they’re probably safe and no harms have yet been definitively documented.
Your own cite is unpersuasive. “Surveys of scientists” is the kind of gambit used by climate change deniers to show that some notable percentage of them don’t believe in AGW. The problem is twofold. First, the responses are highly sensitive to exactly how the question is asked – what does “GM foods ‘are safe’” mean, exactly? That the stuff isn’t going to kill you immediately? That there are no cumulative effects over decades? That it doesn’t have even minor or potential health effects at all? Secondly, most of those scientists are not working in the relevant discipline. A review I did of such a poll once revealed that the climate “skeptics” were (a) mostly working in completely unrelated fields, (b) had vested interests of their own, like being career oil company geologists, and/or (c) were simply crackpots with PhD degrees, of which there are many.
So a very high percentage of the responders believe GMO foods “are safe”. You know what? If they had asked me, I’d have said the same thing, based on a reasonable interpretation of what “safe” probably means to the questioner. But it doesn’t change what I’m saying here. Let me reiterate what I said about the science: in a broad sense GM foods are very likely safe, but it’s a very complex issue. I agree with the position of CU and Consumer Reports on a precautionary strategy and their position on labeling and testing that I quoted upthread. If the science was as simple and straightforward as you claim, a reputable organization like CU wouldn’t be taking that position.
Here, let me cough up the Journal of Toxicological Sciences. From the conclusions section of a pertinent paper – emphasis is mine:
The level of safety of current BD foods to consumers appears to be equivalent to that of traditional foods. Verified records of adverse health effects are absent, although the current passive reporting system would probably not detect minor or rare adverse effects, nor can it detect a moderate increase in common effects such as diarrhea. However, this is no guarantee that all future genetic modifications will have such apparently benign and predictable results …
… A significant limitation may occur in the future if transgenic technology results in more substantial and complex changes in a foodstuff. Methods have not yet been developed by which whole foods (as compared with single chemical components) can be fully evaluated for safety. Progress also needs to be made in developing definitive methods for the identification and characterization of protein allergens, and this is currently a major focus of research. Improved methods of profiling plant and microbial metabolites, proteins, and gene expression may be helpful in detecting unexpected changes in BD organisms and in establishing substantial equivalence.
That sure doesn’t sound to me like “absolutely no risk whatsoever, guaranteed, no need to worry your little head about anything”.
This weekend’s edition of USA Today has an editorial highlighting what’s at stake with GMO labeling.
*“Using science to make crops more resistant to drought or insects builds on the ancient practice of selectively breeding plants to produce better and tougher characteristics. Doing this in a lab at the genetic level makes it faster, more precise and vastly more effective. But it also makes the issue harder for non-scientists to grasp. That leaves a big opening for misinformation and fear-mongering, which critics of GMOs have exploited to make people afraid.”…
“The facts are reassuring. “The science is quite clear,” says the American Association for the Advancement of Science. “Crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe.” And after looking at more than 130 research projects over a quarter century, the European Union found that GMOs “are not per se more risky than … conventional plant breeding.” Perhaps the best evidence is that Americans have been eating GMOs for years — 75% to 80% of foods contain them — with no detectable ill effects.”
“These days…scientific evidence can easily fall victim to scary warnings based on emotion but devoid of fact. This helps explain why so many people believe that vaccines are dangerous, for example, despite exhaustive studies that prove otherwise. Or why people persist in believing that climate change is a hoax, despite overwhelming evidence that it’s real.”
“The scare-mongering over GMOs has been just as effective. A Pew study showed that while 88% of scientists believe GMOs are safe, only 37% of Americans do. GMO critics prey on this doubt; the idea that GMO foods should be labeled reinforces the idea that there’s something wrong with them and that consumers should steer clear…”
“The risk from mandatory labeling is the same as any action that ignores science and plays to unfounded fear. If consumers shun GMOs, the food industry will have to respond by producing less of them. That could have a particularly harsh impact in poorer parts of the world, where food is already scarcer and more expensive, and where GMOs can make an enormous difference.”
"Consumers who want to avoid GMOs already have ways to do that. They can look for voluntary labels that certify products “100% organic” or “GMO free.”*
Yes, I disagree. You cited an article from Consumer Reports which makes the claim that “Animal studies—commonly used to help assess human health risks—have suggested that GMOs might cause damage to the immune system, liver, and kidneys”.
I’ve been reading stuff like this in CR for quite awhile now, and have never seen them cite an actual paper despite requests to do so (perhaps they are embarrassed to admit that their sources are discredited animal researchers like Seralini). Their “science” board contains a couple of anti-GMO activists who apparently value political goals over science.
Do we need to remind you yet again that anti-GMOers employ the same tactics embraced by climate change deniers, antivaxers and other pseudoscience advocates? Let’s look at your characterization of pro-biotechnology advocates: “there is no possible risk, no sir, no way, not ever.”
This is a massive strawman - no one is saying this. Instead we have patiently noted the great body of evidence validating GMO food safety over recent decades, the precision of gene modification techniques compared to the uncharted movement of thousands of genes via conventional breeding, and the lengthy study before new GM crops are released (compared to the lack of research on new conventional varieties). No one has said there is zero chance of any negative health effect from any GM crop (I just yesterday said it wouldn’t surprise me if someday somewhere this happened - while noting that a handful of conventionally-bred varieties have already manifested the ability to cause illness, but no one is demanding all veggies be labeled "BRED BY ARTIFICIAL HYBRIDIZATION).
Antivaxers employ the same kind of strawman wolfpup just did - claiming pro-vaccine advocates say “Vaccines are perfectly safe, and there’s no chance of side effects!”
If you don’t like being compared to such folk, stop sharing their dishonest tactics.
I do have one fbook “friend” who has bemoaned the evils of hybrids.
I’m not sure what she actually eats.
So now you’re going to dismiss Consumer Reports as a bunch of dishonest sleazebags! Are you also going to dismiss the Journal of Toxicological Sciences that I quoted up here? (As you undoubtedly know, “BD” in that quote stands for “biotechnology derived”.)
The Genetic Literacy Project (GLP) that you linked to strikes me as basically a Washington-based pro-GMO lobby group. Looking at the background of Jon Entine, the founder, yields some interesting insights. From Wikipedia:
Although the GLP espouses that positions on GMO should be science-based it generally shows no original data supporting its positions on the advantages of GMO technologies. [Its founder Jon] Entine has no formal scientific training and no formal schooling in the subjects the GLP typically addresses.
Entine has faced criticism for his alleged links to various corporate interests. He denies that they impacted his writing.
Entine joined the conservative American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research as an adjunct scholar in 2002, and is now a visiting scholar.
All of those things are red flags but that last one is a doozy. The AEI is staunchly pro-industry and anti-regulation and has been in the front lines of climate change denial. They’ve been condemned for their dishonesty by Media Matters and many others.
Funny how that takes us full circle back to climate change, and really quite ironic that you keep trying to suggest that I’m on the same anti-science bandwagon as the climate denialists, because it seems that pro-GMO advocacy, climate change denial, and general anti-government anti-regulatory ranting all comes from the same ideology.
This has all the hallmarks of AGW denial and (to a lesser degree) anti-vax. What does the science say? “It’s complex.” They are likely safe but" there could, possibly, maybe be a problem and to say otherwise is arrogant".
And even if maybe, possibly, a GMO product could be a problem how does that compare to the undeniable benefits of GMO? Even vaccines, which are a huge boon to medicine, on rare occasions cause adverse reactions. We still recommend them.
Which makes me suggest the next trend in foods using “original,” pre-hybrid stocks and minimal processing. This would be the small-head corn of a few hundred years ago, some cattle from the pre-domesticated era, raw milk only, unimproved rice, etc.
The big problem with this idea is it would be expensive to produce and buy these kinds of foods, as the yield would be low. Still, I imagine there’s a market for it, especially if it is hyped loudly enough.
One question I have about GMO labeling is on sugar. 60% of US sugar consumption is sugar beet derived and something like 99.9% of sugar beets grown today are GMO. Do that mean that all Hershey bars need to be labeled as GMO? One further step down the chain is someone like me who takes that sugar and then ferments it. So my original source is GMO but even that has been eaten by another organism and reprocessed do I need to label my rum as GMO?
I have no problem telling my customers that my rum is GMO based and I actually have the conversation about once per month but I wonder how true it is and how fears of evil modified genes are hurting my sales.
And wolfpup recycles perhaps the granddaddy of all dishonest pseudoscience tactics - the shill gambit.
The Genetic Literacy Project article I linked to regarding Consumer Reports (which was written by Andrew Porterfield) cites specific reasons and research to demonstrate how Consumer Reports makes false and misleading claims about biotechnology. Try addressing and refuting that evidence, instead of going on about what “strikes” you as “basically a Washington-based pro-GMO lobby group” (ooh la la - based in Washington D.C. - that’s practically Ground Zero for the entire Illuminati!).
The Genetic Literacy Project has a wide range of authors (including scientists) and links to a good deal of well-conducted research (of the kind you’ve consistently ignored here). As for Jon Entine - his career has been as a journalist, so it’s bizarre that you’re cherry-picking that Wikipedia gripe about his not having formal training in science. He also is cited as being *“co-director of the 1972 presidential primary campaign for Senator George McGovern in Sullivan County, New Hampshire. After graduation, he became the assistant director for the re-election campaign of Robert Drinan, a Democratic Congressman from suburban Boston…”
“Entine has won 19 journalism awards, including Emmy Awards for television specials on the reform movements in China and the Soviet Union and a National Press Club award in consumer journalism…In 1975, Entine was hired to write for the ABC News program AM America, which was renamed Good Morning America the following year. Entine worked for ABC News as a writer, assignment desk editor, and producer in New York City and Chicago from 1975-1983 for programs including the ABC Evening News, 20/20 and Nightline. He took a leave of absence from ABC News in 1981-1982 to study at the University of Michigan under a National Endowment for the Humanities fellowship in journalism.”
“Entine joined NBC News in New York in 1984 as a special segment producer for NBC Nightly News with Tom Brokaw, where he worked until 1990. From 1989–1990, Entine served as executive in charge of documentaries at NBC News. He rejoined ABC News in 1991 as an investigative producer for Primetime (TV series)…
Entine’s writings on the “socially responsible” business movement focused on what he called “reality rather than rhetoric” of ethical business. He is often credited for coining the term “green washing”,[14][15] which refers to the deceptive marketing exploits of self-professed “green” companies.”
“Entine is the founding director of the Genetic Literacy Project (GLP), which operates as part of the non-profit organization the Statistical Assessment Service at George Mason University.”*
Hmmm. Involved politically in electing Democrats…(who are often based in Washington D.C.!). Extensive background in mainstream media (and we know about them). Worst, now heads a nonprofit organization that is part of George Mason University (campus eggheads!). Those in the know will recognize all these Red Flags and can only conclude that Entine and the Genetic Literacy Project are really a front for our Corporate Overlords (and quite likely shape-shifting aliens!).
Hopefully wolfpup will have more revelatory revelations in the pages to come.
You’re making it sound like I want to ban GMOs. I’m advocating nothing more radical than what the EU is already doing.
This AGW and anti-vax analogy is getting tedious. The toxicology journal article I cited says essentially the same thing about potential risks that I’m saying, only with greater scientific precision. And while I have no doubt a lot of the pro-GMO advocates are well informed and well-intentioned, there’s also no doubt that some of it is associated with a pro-industry anti-regulation lobby and is thus aligned with the climate denialists. I see nothing either wrong or inconsistent with a position that is both scientifically informed and supportive of prudent caution, including innocuous measures like labeling.
I only eat raw organic free-range teosinte.
No, I’ll just wait for your rebuttal to the Journal of Toxicological Sciences article.
The potential risks are non-zero, and vary greatly with the type of biotechnological manipulation being done. That is all.
Roundup isn’t free. They will use the least possible to achieve the desired result. Why would they use more than that?
Glyphosate is a relatively benign chemical in humans. If you have any evidence that glyphosate is more dangerous to humans than other herbicides that it replaced, please cite it. Otherwise, you might consider whether you are engaging in anti-science hysteria.
“Glyphosate is an active ingredient of the most widely used herbicide and it is believed to be less toxic than other pesticides.”
YOu might want to check yourself and see if youa re engaging in anti-science fearmongering hysteria.