GM food nightmare unfolding - critique?

[Tapio]

Hi!

I know this is a lot to ask for, and I completely understand if none of you find the interest and/or time to look this through. But as a former organic food/anti-GMO-fanatic I still find it deeply distressing when coming across such stuff as this:

GM FOOD NIGHTMARE UNFOLDING

Now, I really want to practice exercising critical thinking in all aspects of my life. However, as a layman, it's quite a frustrating task to try to find some form of valid critique against the claims made in this kind of publication.

So I was hoping that perhaps here I could find an expert in this field, or somebody/anybody capable of pointing out to me what (if any) are the problems, faults, biases etc. in this text and/or it's references. I've understood ISIS isn't the most reliable source of information, but this is not enough. I'd like to know why I shouldn't be alarmed by this stuff.

Huge thanks in advance to anybody offering valid insight on the subject!

 

[casebro]

I thought everybody knows that raw soy beans are poisonous. GM or not.

 

[EHocking]

Hi!

I know this is a lot to ask for, and I completely understand if none of you find the interest and/or time to look this through. But as a former organic food/anti-GMO-fanatic I still find it deeply distressing when coming across such stuff as this:

GM FOOD NIGHTMARE UNFOLDING

Now, I really want to practice exercising critical thinking in all aspects of my life. However, as a layman, it's quite a frustrating task to try to find some form of valid critique against the claims made in this kind of publication.

So I was hoping that perhaps here I could find an expert in this field, or somebody/anybody capable of pointing out to me what (if any) are the problems, faults, biases etc. in this text and/or it's references. I've understood ISIS isn't the most reliable source of information, but this is not enough. I'd like to know why I shouldn't be alarmed by this stuff.

Huge thanks in advance to anybody offering valid insight on the subject!

Biased editing seems to spring to mind. Here's a passage from the first paper they quote, with my bolding:

"The excessive stunting and deaths from GM soya are clear, even though the cause(s) remain unknown without extensive further investigations. One possibility is poisoning from glyphosate herbicides and residues used with RR soya. Glyphosate - and more so in the Roundup

formulation - is extremely lethal to many frog species (Roundup Kills Frogs, SiS 26), and is linked to late spontaneous abortions in humans, and toxic to human placental cells at one-tenth the recommended agricultural dosage (Glyphosate Toxic & Roundup Worse, SiS 26). There could be other causes general to the genetic modification process [17] (see most recent review, GM Food Animals Coming, SiS 32). These include toxicities and immunogenic reactions from the transgenes..."

So even though the causes are unknown, GM is to blame.

A not so critical presentation of the experimental results, me thinks.
I didn't bother with the rest of their self-referential sources.​

 

[ponderingturtle]

Biased editing seems to spring to mind. Here's a passage from the first paper they quote, with my bolding:

"The excessive stunting and deaths from GM soya are clear, even though the cause(s) remain unknown without extensive further investigations. One possibility is poisoning from glyphosate herbicides and residues used with RR soya. Glyphosate - and more so in the Roundup

formulation - is extremely lethal to many frog species (Roundup Kills Frogs, SiS 26), and is linked to late spontaneous abortions in humans, and toxic to human placental cells at one-tenth the recommended agricultural dosage (Glyphosate Toxic & Roundup Worse, SiS 26). There could be other causes general to the genetic modification process [17] (see most recent review, GM Food Animals Coming, SiS 32). These include toxicities and immunogenic reactions from the transgenes..."

So even though the causes are unknown, GM is to blame.

A not so critical presentation of the experimental results, me thinks.
I didn't bother with the rest of their self-referential sources.​

They also don't seem to have control groups.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Is it not logical that each GM product should stand on its own? If a modification is found to be detrimental to health through sound scientific testing, we get rid of it. If another modification produces desired results without harm, we have it for dinner. What's the problem? Genetic modification is what nature continually does anyway; a little man-made direction should be easy enough to handle.

 

[EHocking]

They also don't seem to have control groups.

They think they did. This from their newsheet, quoting the paper (PDF). Note, it is not the paper¹ itself, but a rewrite by the ISIS director, editor and art director.

"There were three feeding groups: the 'Control 1' given pellet food only, the 'Control 2' given non-GM soya in addition to pellet food, and the 'Experimental 1' group given GM soya in addition to pellet food."

[1]I say "paper", I can't actually find any peer reviewed papers by this person - only articles in anti-GM newsletters and conferences. Certainly nothing (I could find) at PubMed for instance.

ETA: The UK's Food Standards Association didn't think much of the "paper" either:

"The report lacks detail essential to meaningful assessment of the results. In particular, it does not provide key information concerning the composition and nutritional adequacy of the test diets. Also, the Committee notes that these are preliminary results; the study has not been quality-controlled through the normal peer review process preceding scientific publication."

More, including her response, can be found at these links.​

 

[Beerina]

Is it not logical that each GM product should stand on its own? If a modification is found to be detrimental to health through sound scientific testing, we get rid of it. If another modification produces desired results without harm, we have it for dinner. What's the problem? Genetic modification is what nature continually does anyway; a little man-made direction should be easy enough to handle.

Exactly, and that's the real "worst case scenario". GM -> organism that produces different chemicals -> digest differently -> different effects. At worst, it would be like drug development with testing.

And even that should be treated on a per-case basis. As usual, the boon to humanity greatly outweighs the downsides, so slapping tons of regulations could very well hurt people a lot more than the regulations help. The FDA suffers from this, which is why the've developed a "fast track" system. If you developed an AIDS drug that worked well, but took 10 years to fully test it to make sure it doesn't kill 1 of 10 people, then what? Net effect will be to have killed a hundred million people to save 10 million, at best, and saved none at worst.

 

[quarky]

GM foods are a bit 'pushy'.
Some of the profit motives may be a bit 'suspect' as well.

 

[Cuddles]

Exactly, and that's the real "worst case scenario". GM -> organism that produces different chemicals -> digest differently -> different effects. At worst, it would be like drug development with testing.

To be fair, there are two separate safety issues. From a consumption point of view you are entirely correct. However, from an ecological point of view things could be worse since if there is a problem, such as gene transfer to wild species, by the time we know about it it is already too late. This is still something that needs to be addressed on a case-by-case basis, but it's important to remember that it's not just a case of "if it turns out to be dangerous, don't eat it".

GM foods are a bit 'pushy'.

Most of the food I see in supermarkets is labeled "organic" or "free range" or "green" or "low fat" or "local" or any number of other things trying to claim to be the best thing since organic, free-range, low fat, locally sliced bread. There are plenty of adverts on TV, in magazines and so on promoting the same. I have yet to see a single product advertising itself as genetically modified. Who exactly is being pushy again?

Some of the profit motives may be a bit 'suspect' as well.

No, they may not. People selling products want to make money. There's nothing suspect about that. People selling organic products are no different from those selling GM products. It's exactly the same situation as with SCAM "medicine". They advertise themselves as natural, organic and so on and expound at length on the evils of "Big Pharma", but conveniently forget to mention that they are multi-billion dollar industries themselves. If you really think that GM companies are qualitatively different from any other food produces, you may be in for quite a shock.

 

[godless dave]

I don't foresee an ecological nightmare but an economic one. If farmers are pressured into growing GM crops based on patented modifications, they will find themselves even more at the mercy of the companies that own the patents. Instead of saving seeds year to year, they will be contractually obligated to buy new seeds every year.

 

[Pipirr]

I don't foresee an ecological nightmare but an economic one. If farmers are pressured into growing GM crops based on patented modifications, they will find themselves even more at the mercy of the companies that own the patents. Instead of saving seeds year to year, they will be contractually obligated to buy new seeds every year.

But pressurised how? By advertising? They do have a choice in the matter.

 

[Tiktaalik]

But pressurised how? By advertising? They do have a choice in the matter.

I think that in some cases the second-generation seeds are non-viable, thus the farmers would have to buy new ones rather than use seeds produced by their own crops. I think some regulation would take care of this, though.

 

[Pipirr]

I think that in some cases the second-generation seeds are non-viable, thus the farmers would have to buy new ones rather than use seeds produced by their own crops. I think some regulation would take care of this, though.

Even so, farmers have a choice in growing GM in the first instance. That's the part I have a problem with; the idea that farmers can be pressurised into growing these crops. If they choose to grow them, and thereby accept the licensing restrictions, well, it was their choice. There are still plenty of other non-GM varieties on the market and they do have options.

Seed saving is far from a universal practice anyway. Hybrid seed won't breed true to type, but has very good yields, so a lot of farmers have been buying quality hybrid seed each year, rather than saving and breeding from the seeds. It isn't as though GM licensing restrictions have dramatically changed farming practices for these farmers.

 

[soylent]

Instead of saving seeds year to year, they will be contractually obligated to buy new seeds every year.

GM or not, farmers buy new seeds every year in the west. Seed crop is grown under tightly controlled conditions and inspected thoroughly for plant pests and diseases in a manner that regular crops are not. It also has a more consistent germination rate allowing you to better predict the correct planting density.

 

[quarky]

To be fair, there are two separate safety issues. From a consumption point of view you are entirely correct. However, from an ecological point of view things could be worse since if there is a problem, such as gene transfer to wild species, by the time we know about it it is already too late. This is still something that needs to be addressed on a case-by-case basis, but it's important to remember that it's not just a case of "if it turns out to be dangerous, don't eat it".



Most of the food I see in supermarkets is labeled "organic" or "free range" or "green" or "low fat" or "local" or any number of other things trying to claim to be the best thing since organic, free-range, low fat, locally sliced bread. There are plenty of adverts on TV, in magazines and so on promoting the same. I have yet to see a single product advertising itself as genetically modified. Who exactly is being pushy again?



No, they may not. People selling products want to make money. There's nothing suspect about that. People selling organic products are no different from those selling GM products. It's exactly the same situation as with SCAM "medicine". They advertise themselves as natural, organic and so on and expound at length on the evils of "Big Pharma", but conveniently forget to mention that they are multi-billion dollar industries themselves. If you really think that GM companies are qualitatively different from any other food produces, you may be in for quite a shock.

Why would Gm food producers want to alert their customers with advertising?
Its more like something they hope the consumer doesn't notice.
A grocery store is hardly going to bring attention to the fact that most of their products contain corn by products. The corn, and the technology that produces it, is slipped in, without our knowledge or approval.

I wrote 'pushy' because of the co-commitment technologies that go with GM foods, such as the pesticides. Its a package deal for the farmer, who becomes an employee of a corporate boss. The other pushiness is the potential for GM plants to effect non-GM plants.

You seem to have gone off a bit, as if I was defending 'organic' food...or as if there are no sane alternatives to GM foods.

 

[shadron]

GM or not, farmers buy new seeds every year in the west. Seed crop is grown under tightly controlled conditions and inspected thoroughly for plant pests and diseases in a manner that regular crops are not. It also has a more consistent germination rate allowing you to better predict the correct planting density.

And besides that, the farmer has to buy fertilizer, pump electricity for irrigation, fuel for the equipment, custom harvesting, etc. Buying seed every year is just one more expense that has to be planned for. As to whether it is right to force a farmer not to use seed from the previous year's harvest is a question for the state/federal legislatures, where it will presumably be properly handled. The farmers are represented, are they not? Soylent points out the advantages.

 

[Tomblvd]

I'll engage in a bit of argument from authority because this guy is my personal all-time hero, and I don't get much of a chance to bring him up. He is Norman Borlaug, a brilliant scientist, and the man who is possibly responsible for saving more lives in the 20th century than anyone else (certainly top three or so). So estimates have it as high as a billion people.

On GM foods:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5pA32cD1DM

 

[Pipirr]

I'll engage in a bit of argument from authority because this guy is my personal all-time hero, and I don't get much of a chance to bring him up. He is Norman Borlaug, a brilliant scientist, and the man who is possibly responsible for saving more lives in the 20th century than anyone else (certainly top three or so). So estimates have it as high as a billion people.

On GM foods:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5pA32cD1DM

And it's his birthday today

 

[Tomblvd]

And it's his birthday today

I did not know that!

Happy Birthday Dr. Borlaug. You are truely the greatest personification of what Julian Simon called "The Ultimate Resource", humans and human ingenuity.