Open Left

GMO and the left (0.00 / 0)

It's hard for me to get worked up about GMO criticism, particularly when it comes from lefty people.  I don't doubt that there are significant problems with GMOs, but I've seen so many shoddy arguments put forward...

I still see people claiming that Bt corn is responsible for killing Monarch butterflies, for example, even though the refutation of that preliminary report was extensive and is now more than a decade old.

There's also the fact (yes, fact) that every vegetable, grain and domesticated animal we eat with regularity is for all purposes a GMO.  A few thousand years ago, almost nothing in the produce department of your grocery store even existed, which is a blink in evolutionary time.

There are certainly problems with GMO.  Some relating to the primitive state of the technology (like modifying things so that we can directly apply huge amounts of insecticides), and many relating to legal/social issues such as terminator seeds, patents, lobbying, and so on.  We haven't yet seen the large growths in productivity that GMOs promise (and they certainly do promise that), and even some evidence that some current utilization of GMOs have resulted in decreased crop yield.  

But I just don't see it on the health side of things.  The "what if"s in this post, even, seem like wild grasps, especially when the health problems they attempt to appropriate are so handily explained by simple over-consumption and malnutrition.

By far the biggest contributor to my skepticism, though, is that of scientists.  I am a layperson, though I've done some study of biology generally.  So when I see a lot of criticism of something, and then a backlash from non-Monsanto-funded scientists, I know which side to choose.  I choose the side that gets it right concerning vaccinations, evolution, climate change and so on.

So, sorry.  But we've been eating GMOs since the first permanent settlements were created by nomadic humans.  Hasn't killed us, yet.

---

by: salmontarre @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 23:02:03 PM CDT

How quickly can we adapt? (4.00 / 2)

You talk about evolutionary changes in food that have taken place over hundreds, thousands of years. Humans, over the past 50,000 years have adapted when the changes weren't too abrupt. The main problem with genetic engineering of food is that it may create problems later we don't understand now. I guess you'd say that evolution's always been a crap shoot so why care now; evolution is meant to be a crap shoot and we can't change that, so why try?

Natasha's post already answers the question better than I can but when it comes to how important food is to survival, at the very least it'd be good to know why there's so little data on the possible consequences of long term mass consumption of these foods. Doing the research, on its own, can't be that controversial. It would be common sense for the FDA to do it. Why haven't they?

---

by: NealB2 @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 23:47:19 PM CDT

[ Parent | ]

Well (4.00 / 1)

I didn't say to not do the research into the health effects of GMO consumption.  All I said is that, on the face of it, it seems unlikely to me to result in anything.  

A lot of people on the left seem to react in a, well, reactionary way to the very concept of GMO, and I don't see why.  Directly manipulating the instructions that determine the yields, resistances, nutritional value and so on of a plant, and even of animals, is a field that obviously has such enormous potential for humanity, that it demands to be explored aggressively.

So by all means, do the research on various manifestations of current GMO crops, but until there is evidence to the contrary, I can think of no scientific reason that genetic modification ought to be any different than the slightly slower process of selective breeding.

---

by: salmontarre @ Sat Jun 06, 2009 at 16:41:20 PM CDT

[ Parent | ]

GE and Plant Breeding are very, very different (4.00 / 2)

salmontarre wrote:

"There's also the fact (yes, fact) that every vegetable, grain and domesticated animal we eat with regularity is for all purposes a GMO.  A few thousand years ago, almost nothing in the produce department of your grocery store even existed, which is a blink in evolutionary time."

Sorry, plant breeding and genetic engineering (GE) are not the same thing. When the term "Genetically Engineered" is used to describe a plant, then it is understood that
GE technology was used to engineer the plant not breeding.

Similarly, a conventional bomb could be described as a "weapon of mass destruction", but the term WMD actually refers to nuclear weapons (and much more recently it also refers to biological and chemical weapons).

"There are certainly problems with GMO.  Some relating to the primitive state of the technology (like modifying things so that we can directly apply huge amounts of insecticides), and many relating to legal/social issues such as terminator seeds, patents, lobbying, and so on.  We haven't yet seen the large growths in productivity that GMOs promise (and they certainly do promise that), and even some evidence that some current utilization of  GMOs have resulted in decreased crop yield."

Very true.

"But I just don't see it on the health side of things.  The "what if"s in this post, even, seem like wild grasps, especially when the health problems they attempt to appropriate are so handily explained by simple over-consumption and malnutrition."

Well, as the article pointed out, because of the government decision to view GE as 'substantial equivalence' there has been no testing to see if there are health effects from any of the GE crops.

http://www.biotech-info.net/cr...

Remember, people were smoking cigarettes for decades before scientists discovered the negative health effects of smoking.

Even with conventional breeding, crop plants should be health tested if there has been any real changes in the plant. For example, there was the case of a program to breed celery that was would be more pest resistant (for organic farms). It was effectively bred, was not tested, and was grown for market. This celery had to be quickly taken off the
grocery shelves once grocery store workers started getting rashes on their hands after handling the celery.

There are tons of pest-resistant plants out there, unfortunately most of them are poisonous to humans. After all, from the plants' perspective, anything that eats them is a pest. That is why it is hard to find plants that are both pest-resistant and healthy and tasty for humans to eat. And that is one reason that farming is not that easy.

As for health and GE, there is also the issue of Bio-pharming:

"Bio-pharming is the production of pharmaceutical proteins in genetically engineered plants"

http://www.ext.colostate.edu/p...

"The plan, confirmed yesterday by the California biotechnology company leading the effort, calls for large-scale cultivation in Kansas of rice that produces human immune system proteins in its seeds."

"But critics are assailing the effort, saying gene-altered plants inevitably migrate out of their home plots. In this case, they said, that could result in pharmacologically active proteins showing up in the food of unsuspecting consumers."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

"In an April 11 statement, Jim Hoffmeister, Anheuser-Busch vice president for procurement, logistics and agricultural resources, said, "Anheuser-Busch is concerned that the introduction to Missouri of Ventria Bioscience's pharma rice poses a potential risk to the Missouri commercial rice crop. Given the potential for contamination of commercial rice production in this state, we will not purchase any rice produced or processed in Missouri if Ventria introduces its pharma rice here.""

http://deltafarmpress.com/news...

"So, sorry.  But we've been eating GMOs since the first permanent settlements were created by nomadic humans.  Hasn't killed us, yet."

Again, not true, GM and plant breeding are two very, very different things.

---

by: Katie @ Sat Jun 06, 2009 at 01:49:40 AM CDT

[ Parent | ]

. (0.00 / 0)

"Sorry, plant breeding and genetic engineering (GE) are not the same thing. When the term "Genetically Engineered" is used to describe a plant, then it is understood that GE technology was used to engineer the plant not breeding."

So?  That wasn't my argument.  My argument is that, on an evolutionary timescale, selective breeding is nearly equivalent to selective breeding.  GE is simply adding in some new genes to an existing organism.  It allows us to pick and choose new functions that we desire.  

There is only one significant way in which this differs from unnatural selection, and that is that we can use GE to circumvent waiting for fortuitous, novel mutations.  For example, I have no reason to exclude the possibility that, if we spent enough decades doing it, we could breed a tomato that doesn't die to a spring frost.  But with GE, we don't need to spend those decades.  We simply insert the appropriate genes necessary to produce the appropriate protein(s).

In short: Selective breeding is just as wholly unnatural as GE.  Carrots and broccoli are not products of any natural process.  They are a human creation.

"Remember, people were smoking cigarettes for decades before scientists discovered the negative health effects of smoking."

Yes, but my point is that with things such as smoking, there is a clear theory, if you are devoid of any actual statistical data regarding the health of smokers, that would lead you to suspect it may be a serious problem: You are inhaling combusted plant matter, as well as a panoply of synthetic chemicals, into your lungs.

There is no equivalent theoretical framework, that I am aware of, concerning GMOs.  And I think that Natasha's "what if" about obesity was something of a tacit admission that this is true.  It's an absurdly weak argument.  By what process would GMO corn and sugarbeets lead to obesity?

"After all, from the plants' perspective, anything that eats them is a pest. That is why it is hard to find plants that are both pest-resistant and healthy and tasty for humans to eat. And that is one reason that farming is not that easy."

That's not true.  Humans are the single biggest competitive advantage that tasty vegetables and fruits have.

Pests are organisms which hurt reproductive success.

"Even with conventional breeding, crop plants should be health tested if there has been any real changes in the plant."

As I responded to the other response to my OP, I never said otherwise.

On biopharming, I agree, but I think that this is an example of where the lines get fuzzed by GMO critics.  Biopharming may have serious consequences we need to assess before either allowing it to continue with some restrictions, or banning, but this is a completely different issue than GMOs which are designed for nutritional purposes.  The two should not be conflated.

I have serious problems with how companies which are working on GMO are acting.  Their actions have serious implications for agriculture, medicine, poverty, and so on.  I do see these problems not as GMO-related, though, but as problems relating to the interface of corporate entities and government, and the lack of scientific knowledge of pretty much our entire society from top to bottom.  GM is simply another area where corporate interests are displaying their domination of the political arena.

"Again, not true, GM and plant breeding are two very, very different things."

I don't see how.  The difference between corn and the grain they came from is far, far more extensive than the difference between corn and Bt corn.

Breeding, over time, results in genetic engineering on a mass scale.  GM is simply a means of doing it faster. (In theory, anyways.  Nothing we've done with GM even approaches how drastically we've altered the biota through breeding.)

---

by: salmontarre @ Sat Jun 06, 2009 at 17:19:01 PM CDT

[ Parent | ]

GE crops don't breed true (4.00 / 1)

salmontarre wrote:

"So? That wasn't my argument.  My argument is that, on an evolutionary timescale, selective breeding is nearly equivalent to selective breeding.  GE is simply adding in some new genes to an existing organism.  It allows us to pick and choose new functions that we desire."

That is how the PR spin describes GE, but there are important differences.

For example, as Ms. Chart's article pointed out:

"Lotter describes the processes used to insert genes into crop DNA, explaining that researchers can neither control nor replicate where in the genome the new gene sequence ends up."

Which is why GE plants do not breed true. when 2 plants are bred together, the resulting
gene sequence placements are consistent. When GE is used to add a gene, it's placement is random. When GE researchers create wonderful new seeds for use in poor countries, then the poor farmers using those seeds are dependent on these same researchers giving them new seeds year after year. Why? Because if the farmer uses the seeds from the first year's crops to plant the next year's crops, they will not have the same characteristics of the first year's crops, and even less so the 3rd year's crops. In other words, the GE crops do not breed true.

salmontarre wrote:

"For example, I have no reason to exclude the possibility that, if we spent enough decades doing it, we could breed a tomato that doesn't die to a spring frost.  But with GE, we don't need to spend those decades.  We simply insert the appropriate genes necessary to produce the appropriate protein(s). In short: Selective breeding is just as wholly unnatural as GE.  Carrots and broccoli are not products of any natural process. They are a human creation."

My issue with GE crops isn't that they are somehow unnatural, after all as you point out, selective breeding is also unnatural.  My problem with GE crops is that the technology is so primitive that the results are crappy, unsafe and keep farmers at the mercy of whichever corporation or university provides the crappy GE seeds.

There is a new technology (at least newer than GE) called "Marker Assisted Selection" or MAS. MAS has much of the power of GE, such as the ability make large changes quickly, but with the added benefit of breeding true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...

The reason MAS hasn't taken over from GE yet is that so many billions have already been spent on GE creations (corporation don't want to just walk away) and GE seeds need to be continually replenished, thus providing a steady income stream to these corporations.

salmontarre wrote:

""Even with conventional breeding, crop plants should be health tested if there has been any real changes in the plant." As I responded to the other response to my OP, I never said otherwise."

New crops strains, whether developed through GE, traditional breeding or through MAS breeding all should be health tested. The fact that they are not, and the fact that pharma-crops are being allowed in open-air fields is why more and more people do not trust our food supply.

The only good thing that has come about from this cavalier and cowboyish attitude towards food safely is that more and more people are making a point of buying organic.

Note: the only way to ensure that one is not buying GE plants is to buy organic.

---

by: Katie @ Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 03:58:36 AM CDT

[ Parent | ]

er no (0.00 / 0)

"Lotter describes the processes used to insert genes into crop DNA, explaining that researchers can neither control nor replicate where in the genome the new gene sequence ends up."

Which is why GE plants do not breed true. when 2 plants are bred together, the resulting
gene sequence placements are consistent. When GE is used to add a gene, it's placement is random. When GE researchers create wonderful new seeds for use in poor countries, then the poor farmers using those seeds are dependent on these same researchers giving them new seeds year after year. Why? Because if the farmer uses the seeds from the first year's crops to plant the next year's crops, they will not have the same characteristics of the first year's crops, and even less so the 3rd year's crops. In other words, the GE crops do not breed true.

The reason that the second years crops don't match the first is that the first years crop is hybrid seed. Hybrid seed is the first generation grown from a cross between two different varaieties.  When you do this, you get greatly increased yield due to a phenomenon called heterosis or hybrid vigor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...

Unfortunately, this effect only lasts one generation, so to get these great yields, you always have to get seed from the crosses.  This is true whether you are dealing with GM crops or organic crops. It has nothing to do with the GM plants.  And I as I say below, the fact that you can't tell the gene exactly where to insert, or repeat that exact insertion is really irrelevant, because the insertion is just the first step. You do a lot of insertions and find the ones that works for you and then go forward with that one.

FWIW the companies are now spending billions on Marker assisted selection, and combining it with transgenics. At least in the US, they aren't competetive technologies.  

---

by: ibaxter @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 00:17:02 AM CDT

[ Parent | ]