GM Rice is more healthful

[CBL4]

Better health for the farmer and less pesticides in the environment.

WHILE rich countries squirm, poor ones are acting. The fastidiousness with which people in many wealthy nations (though not, as yet, America) have reacted to genetically modified (GM) crops is in sharp contrast to the way they have been embraced in poorer parts of the world. And a paper in this week's Science shows why. Huang Jikun, of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, in Beijing, and his colleagues, have been studying trials of two strains of GM rice that the Chinese government is hoping to commercialise. Their results show that in the hands of the small farmers who dominate the countryside these strains produce higher yields, consume less pesticide, and are better for the health of those farmers than non-GM strains.
...
The farmers' normal practice is to examine their crop frequently and apply insecticide when they think it necessary, rather than sticking to a pre-arranged schedule, so the amount of insecticide used is a reliable reflection of the crop's natural insect resistance. Here, the results were unequivocal. Unmodified rice required eight to ten times as much insecticide as modified rice—costing farmers an extra 200 yuan ($25) a hectare. Yields were also up to 9% better, at least with the Bt-based strain. And as a bonus, no full adopters reported being adversely affected by pesticide during the course of the trial, whereas up to 11% of non-adopters did.

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=3909508

 

[Beleth]

The subject line is not a conclusion supported by the evidence in the article. Just because a crop uses less pesticide doesn't mean that it is healthier. The GM crop might contain a poison itself, or lack a certain vitamin, or be more susceptible to future infections or damage from pesticide-resistant insects.

 

[CBL4]

If 11% of the farmers of non-GM plants show health effects from pesticides and none of the farmers with GM plants do, clearly it is better for the health of the farmers. This was my claim.

If you are complaining that my subject line was a tease, you are correct.

But, I could make a strong argument for the accuracy of the headline. If the consumers' health is unaffected by GM plants (as all legitimate studies have shown), the consumers get more food because GM plants are cheaper, the farmers are healthier and the enviroment has less pesticides, the net effect is better health.

CBL

 

[CaveDave]

Re: Re: GM Rice is more healthful

The subject line is not a conclusion supported by the evidence in the article. Just because a crop uses less pesticide doesn't mean that it is healthier. The GM crop might contain a poison itself, or lack a certain vitamin, or be more susceptible to future infections or damage from pesticide-resistant insects.

Or a house could fall on you if you get too close to Sylvia "Nails" Browne's yard. I read the quote as saying that the farmers had less chemical exposure, does that not count?

These hyperlinks to subscription-only sites sure are aggravating!

Dave

 

[CBL4]

These hyperlinks to subscription-only sites sure are aggravating!

I do not like it either but The Economist is a great source of a wide range of news. I try to give enough information to be informative without quoting the entire article which would be questionable from both an ethical and legal POV.

Sorry,

CBL

 

[CaveDave]

I do not like it either but The Economist is a great source of a wide range of news. I try to give enough information to be informative without quoting the entire article which would be questionable from both an ethical and legal POV.

I only meant it was somewhat disappointing to follow a link and wait for it to load (not everyone has high-speed) only to find nothing there unless you pay/register/give up information.

You did fine with your quote (well... I can't prove that. ). I think you are ethically right.

Dave

 

[RichardR]

BBC article. (doesn't require subscription.)

Also, I wrote about it here. Note the predictable anti-GM comments.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Very interesting.

Pesticides in China are cheap and widely used, but poison an estimated 50,000 farmers a year, up to 500 fatally.

NO WAY!

Whoa, I had no idea it was that bad.

 

[Jorghnassen]

Very interesting.


NO WAY!

Whoa, I had no idea it was that bad.

Well, they don't have the same safety/environmental standards over there as we do here...

 

[CaveDave]

BBC article. (doesn't require subscription.)

Also, I wrote about it here. Note the predictable anti-GM comments.

Thanks for that. I think what really cheeses the greenies is that science/technology was involved and that someone made a profit.

Dave

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Well, they don't have the same safety/environmental standards over there as we do here...

Yes. I then find it ironic that anti-GM people aren't whining about that. Instead they try to prevent a solution to the problem.

 

[RichardR]

Thanks for that. I think what really cheeses the greenies is that science/technology was involved and that someone made a profit.

And the profit motive means there can be no benefit, by definition. Corporations are evil too, remember. If that fails, just repeat "frankenfoods".

 

[JAK]

And the profit motive means there can be no benefit, by definition. Corporations are evil too, remember. If that fails, just repeat "frankenfoods".

I agree. Many "pro-biotech" folks are just as gullible as religious flocks. Only the dogma differs.

From the "greenie" side comes "Seeds of Deception":

"This is a brilliant book which combines shrewd dissection of the true nature of GM technology, a devastating critique of the health and environmental hazards of GM crops, and scarifying examples of the manipulation of both science and the media by the biotech industry... " - quoted from www.seedsofdeception.com

How long has the Chinese GM study been going on? Why should we believe any dangers could be found in that time frame? What other factors are pertinent? What side-effects are left un-said? Who was the watchdog - the fox?

 

[CBL4]

How long has the Chinese GM study been going on? Why should we believe any dangers could be found in that time frame? What other factors are pertinent? What side-effects are left un-said? Who was the watchdog - the fox?

Granted, this is a small study and one of the first of its kind but it is very suggestive. Pesticides are clearly problem for Chinese farmers and perhaps consumers as well.

GM rice will solve the pesticide problem for the farmers. Thousands (millions?) of people will benefit if it is widely used. There is absolutely no evidence to believe that this type of genetic modification is harmful to humans. People who care about farmers and the environment should rush to advance this type of agriculture. Perhaps they should run their own test to see about the reduction of pesticides. Instead Greenpeace representative said: (BBC link)

We should not be risking long-term health and environmental impacts, as well as international consumer rejection of Chinese rice when we don't need [genetic engineering] in the first place.

This ignores the fact that all the evidence gathered so far indicates the this GM improves the environment (less pesticides) and the health of the farmers.

Willful ignorance may be bliss for healthy, weathly westerners but it means death and disease for the Chinese farmers.

CBL

 

[Beleth]

This ignores the fact that all the evidence gathered so far indicates the this GM improves the environment (less pesticides) and the health of the farmers.

And this assumes that the only way to improve the environment and the health of the farmers is by using GM crops.

How about using other (non-pesticide, non-GM) methods of pest control? Like, say, predatory insects that feed on the "bad bugs" and then die off when the bad bugs are all dead?

Willful ignorance may be bliss for healthy, weathly westerners but it means death and disease for the Chinese farmers.

That's exactly how I feel about GM crops. Westerners sell GM crops to the Chinese farmers without any knowledge of the long-term effects of doing so, and make a ton of money doing it. Meanwhile, if something unexpectedly bad happens to the GM crops, it's the Chinese farmers (and the population in general) who will pay the price for it.

 

[CBL4]

And this assumes that the only way to improve the environment and the health of the farmers is by using GM crops.
... predatory insects that feed on the "bad bugs" and then die off when the bad bugs are all dead?

Chinese farmers are dirt poor. You are suggesting that each season they buy a bunch of good bugs (which don't really exist but that is another story.) Or are you and Green Peace going pay for the bugs? Or are the "good bugs" going to stick around munching on indistriminately causing havoc.

Please suggest an economically effective alternative for third world farmers. It would also be nice if there was actually some evidence that it worked. Remember, if they are given GM rice once, they can save seeds for the following year.

Westerners sell GM crops to the Chinese farmers without any knowledge of the long-term effects of doing so, and make a ton of money doing it.

There is lots of knowledge of the effect and it all points to the same conclusion - harmless. It was Chinese scientist who created these strains of GM rice.

If something unexpectedly bad happens to the GM crops, it's the Chinese farmers (and the population in general) who will pay the price for it.

If a meteor hits a farmer, he will have to pay for it too. In the meantime, something very bad is happening to all the Chinese farmers and the Chinese environment - pesticide poisoning.

CBL

 

[Soapy Sam]

Is there a quantitative S.I. unit of "Health"?

What is it called and how is it derived?

In this case, would it refer to the health of the rice or to the health of the people who ate it?

 

[RichardR]

From the "greenie" side comes "Seeds of Deception":

And what evidence does this present that GM crops are bad?

How long has the Chinese GM study been going on? Why should we believe any dangers could be found in that time frame? What other factors are pertinent? What side-effects are left un-said? Who was the watchdog - the fox?

The answers are out there – you only have to look:

This study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Chinese Academy of Science.
Research participants, in addition to Pray, included Jikun Huang and Ruifa Hu, both of the Center for Chinese Agricultural Policy of the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing, and Scott Rozelle of the University of California, Davis.

So I’d say not the fox.

 

[Shane Costello]

Beleth wrote:
The GM crop might contain a poison itself, or lack a certain vitamin, or be more susceptible to future infections or damage from pesticide-resistant insects.

Indeed it might, but then the same principle of potential negative effects apply to conventionally bred crops. If anything the potential is greater with conventional crop strains, since the techniques used in the development of "conventional" crops were/are imprecise, often involving the transfer of whole genomes. OTOH modern biotechnology uses much more precise techniques in the development of improved crops, and is more regulated to boot.

And this assumes that the only way to improve the environment and the health of the farmers is by using GM crops.

And this is typical of the strawman nonsense used by anti-GM types. While GM crops have enormous potential in terms of positive environmental and health impact, no one is seriously suggesting that of themselves they will transform the developing world. Economic reforms will have a major role to play. Chinese farmers might double crop yields by planting GM cotton, but if a trade war with the US or Europe gathers a head of steam then increased yields might not count for anything if the rest of the world slaps a 20% tariff on Chinese cotton.

How about using other (non-pesticide, non-GM) methods of pest control? Like, say, predatory insects that feed on the "bad bugs" and then die off when the bad bugs are all dead?

Naturalistic fallacy. Predatory insects are natural, therefore they are preferable to pesticides and GM, which are synthetic and unnatural.

Know you of such a wonder insect, that will eat only the "bad" bugs and then conveniently expire? Would you feel comfortable selling this wonder bug to ignorant Chinese peasants, who it appears need to be protected from Western shysters? God only knows what sort of havoc the bugs might cause. Might it not make more sense to identify the exact biochemical processes by which the wonder bug consumes it's malevolent peers, with a view to perhaps using GM to replicate this process within the crops themselves, possibly saving our dimwitted Chinese friends time, money and bother?

 

[JAK]

And what evidence does this present that GM crops are bad?
...

Seeds of Deception (Jeffrey M. Smith, 2003, ISBN#0-9729665-8-7) and Eating in the Dark (Kathleen Hart, 2003, ISBN#0-375-42070-3) present a variety of information regarding the FDA/biotech industry links and conflicts of interests. It further uncovers how "whistle blowers" were silenced, and how tumors appeared in test animals after consuming GM foods. Most damaging was the report of research scientists, Arpod and Susan Pusztai.

In April of 1998, ministers from throughout Europe were gathered in Brussels to vote regarding the regulation of GM foods. Just hours beforehand, the Putszais were given a stack of research papers to evaluate and advise the committee representing Great Britain. After perusing them, Arpod was aghast: "'This was the first time I realized what flimsy evidence was being presented to the committee. There was missing data, poor research design, and very superficial tests indeed. Theirs was a very unconvincing case. And some of the work was really very poorly done.'" (Seeds of Deception, pg. 9) Arpod phoned one of the committee ministers and advised him to be "'... extremely cautious and not accept it.'"

As it turned out, GM foods had already been sold to the unknowing British public for almost two years. "'The approvals had been done under the cloak of secrecy.'"

And for those who are confident in the robustness of various government agencies to protect the public, can you say, "thalidomide"? or "VIOXX"? and any number of other gaffs from rushed deliveries of unsafe products? In the 1950s, x-ray treatments were given to cure severe acne. Years later, the victims of these treatments suffered thyroid and other forms of cancer. (Go a-Googlin' with "x-ray treatment acne cancer".)

The money is behind big labs, not the greenies. Historically, big money has touted the benefits of marketable products and rushed them to market. Opposition to such money splashes, historically, has been "grassroots," poorly organized, and poorly funded. This is grossly reminiscent of the situation with snake oil "medicine men" in the U.S. "american west" of the late-19th century.

IMO, it is much too early to genetically re-engineer the planet. Dabble and test, if you will, but conservative constraints should be adhered to. The "greenies," and their habitat, should be protected as a "control group" - a term any reputable research scientist should fully understand, and hopefully, respect.