Monsanto

[Henry Bannister]

I only made it 3 paragraphs in when I came across this piece a couple days ago. When the author of the piece made it seem as though the lead author of the study in question was neutral towards GMOs and just awww-shucks wound up with those results. Jack Heinemann is one of the most notorious anti-gmo professors in the world with previous anti-gmo junk papers and several very far out there claims. Seems on par with claiming that someone like Fred Singer is neutral on the climate change issue. And it is not like the author of the piece was not aware of this. He has previously been a go-to guy for other anti-gmo pieces of hers. In my view she should have at least had the decency to represent him accurately if she is trying to pass him off as an authority. If a journalist is being deceitful, I stop reading.

As for his paper....I took a look at it, and it seems like a pile of crap to me. Brainster already mentioned suspicion of the claims. Bottom line is for some bizarre reason he chose 1986 through 2010 for a comparison of gmo/non-gmo yield increases....which is pretty stupid as GMO corn was not in use until 1996. Or...actually, pretty smart as it got Heinemann the results he was looking for. If you actually compare the yield increases since 1996 the US comes out ahead of the EU (although it is not significant), while from 1961 until 1995 the EU comes out ahead in terms of average yearly yield increases.

Do you have references for him being a ‘notorious anti-gmo professor’ … rather than just a professor who is against gmo? I did a quick search and he seems to be a respected researcher published in a number of peer-review journals (Food Microbiology, Proceedings of The Royal Society, Food & Chemical Toxicology, … ) and well cited by other scientists.

h t t p://academic.research.microsoft.com/Author/23519088/jack-a-heinemann
h t t p://w w w.biomedexperts.com/Profile.bme/549320/Jack_A_Heinemann

Bottom line is for some bizarre reason he chose 1986 through 2010 for a comparison of gmo/non-gmo yield increases....which is pretty stupid as GMO corn was not in use until 1996. Or...actually, pretty smart as it got Heinemann the results he was looking for.

He was actually comparing several crops over that time, some GMO some not. (Incidentally, the post I originally queried was the Central Scrutinizer quoting a farmer asking "Why are people opposed to Monsanto? We get higher yields using a lot less fertilizer and pesticides than we did 30 years ago". So a choice of 1986 was not so bizarre perhaps. )

If you actually compare the yield increases since 1996 the US comes out ahead of the EU (although it is not significant

So far from Heinemann getting the results he was looking for, you seem to actually agree with him? His conclusion from that seems (rather than the ‘pile of crap’ you suggest) fair to me: “These results suggest that yield benefits (or limitations) over time are due to breeding and not GM, as reported by others (Gurian-Sherman 2009), because W. Europe has benefitted from the same, or marginally greater, yield increases without GM. “

If you didn’t read the article beyond the third paragraph there were some other concerning trends that he points out, for example on the genetic diversity of the crops in the US (and gives references to some of the dangers of that).

in 2005, farmers could choose from nearly 9,000 different varieties of corn. The majority (57 percent) were GE, but farmers still had over 3,000 non-GE varieties to pick from. … Within all of those thousands of corn varieties sold, one single variety, Reed Yellow Dent, makes up 47 percent of the gene pool used to create hybrid varieties. All in all, corn germplasm comes from just seven founding inbred lines. More than a third come from one of those seven, a line called B73.

With farmers in nearly every state planting such genetically similar corn, farmers experience booms and busts together. Farmers in Mexico, the birthplace of corn, plant a fantastic variety of corn. The plants differ in color, height, ear size, drought tolerance, maturity time, and more. If bad weather shows up late in the season, the early maturing varieties still provided a harvest. If it’s dry, the drought tolerant varieties survive. If a new disease shows up, some of the corn is bound to have some resistance to it whereas other varieties will be more susceptible to it. Biodiversity acts almost like an insurance system. “

And about the reduction in pesticide use:

“The US and US industry have been crowing about the reduction in chemical insecticide use with the introduction of Bt crops [GE crops that produce their own pesticide],” says Heinemann. “And at face value, that's true. They've gone to about 85 percent of the levels that they used in the pre-GE era. But what they don't tell you is that France went down to 12 percent of its previous levels. France is the fourth biggest exporter of corn in the world, one of the biggest exporters of wheat, and it's only 11 percent of the size of the U.S.

“So here is a major agroecosystem growing the same things as the US, corn and wheat, and it's reduced chemical insecticide use to 12% of 1995 levels. This is what a modern agroecosystem can do. What the US has done is invented a way to use comparatively more insecticide.” Comparatively more than what? "More than it should be!” exclaims Heinemann. “It should be down to 12% too!”

Segnosaur: I’m not sure why he just gives data for France – it is apparently though the largest of the European corn-growing countries. Down to 12% insecticide use for a whole country without GMO, though – seven times the reduction of the US using GMO. Surely an interesting result.

 

[Henry Bannister]

I don't know if this means anything, but I will throw it out there for information purposes. When I googled Heinemann, I found his bio at the U of Canterbury (NZ), and this part jumped out at me:


Italics added for emphasis.

Now as it happens, I have come across mentions of prokaryotic and eukaryotic organisms in the last few years, specifically with regard to Lynn Margulis.

Margulis has some strong credentials, as noted in the Wikipedia entry:



She was also married for a time to Carl Sagan, which buys her some pop science credibility. But she's also a bit of a kook; she buys into the Gaia hypothesis, doesn't believe that HIV causes AIDS and is also a 9-11 Truther.

Again, not sure there is a connection, just throwing it out.

That is just atrocious. Because they both happen to study cell biology you’re “just throwing it out” that Heinemann might have believed that HIV causes AIDS and be a 9-11 truther? Is this standard of evidence common on JREF?

I see you’re a fan of PG Wodehouse (me too - I have all the BBC radio recordings and the Fry/Laurie versions are some of the best tv I’ve seen). How would you feel if someone said:

“I don’t know if this means anything, but I will throw it out for information purposes. Wodehouse has been accused of doing German propaganda to save himself from internment camps. Brainster likes Wodehouse (my italics). Again, not sure there is a connection, just throwing it out.”

I’d be more convinced if you concentrated on the data rather than smearing the researcher and the journal without (so far) any real evidence.

 

[!Kaggen]

Henry, welcome to jref.
Thanks for your input.
You should just realize now before you proceed to waste a lot of time that most of the commentators on this subject here on jref have no "skin in the game" and as such can be safely ignored.

 

[Skeletor]

That is just atrocious. Because they both happen to study cell biology you’re “just throwing it out” that Heinemann might have believed that HIV causes AIDS and be a 9-11 truther? Is this standard of evidence common on JREF?

Do you believe that HIV causes AIDS? Medical science has proven it. Misinformation about the HIV/AIDS connection killed millions in Africa alone. If a person who studies Cell Biology refuses to make the connection, there is something wrong.

As for someone being a 9/11 Truther...I wish you a lot of luck on this forum. Truthers post poorly edited YouTube videos, cherrypick quotes, and make a mockery of themselves on a regular basis.

If this scientist holds these views, then it is reasonable for us to completely disregard whatever else they say as 'woo.'

Henry, welcome to jref.
Thanks for your input.
You should just realize now before you proceed to waste a lot of time that most of the commentators on this subject here on jref have no "skin in the game" and as such can be safely ignored.

Really though...what "skin" do I need to play this "game" you speak of?

 

[Sceptic-PK]

Do you have references for him being a ‘notorious anti-gmo professor’ … rather than just a professor who is against gmo? I did a quick search and he seems to be a respected researcher published in a number of peer-review journals (Food Microbiology, Proceedings of The Royal Society, Food & Chemical Toxicology, … ) and well cited by other scientists.

Here at Biofortified we immediately saw what was wrong with this report. It was based on copious amounts of incorrect sequence data, and on sleight-of-hand with bioinformatics tools. I prepared a long technical post about the flaws in the claims of the Safe Food Foundation’s team of hired guns Jack Heinemann and Judy Carman, but as an obscure report that was so obviously wrong, we decided it wasn’t worth drawing any more attention to it.

It recently resurrected, though, at an unusual spot. Orac at Respectful Insolence actually took it on: Oh, no! GMOs are going to kill your babies and permanently change your gene expression! He does a good job of framing the issue and explaining the technology. He astutely writes about this report:

Of course, the problem with Dr. Heinemann’s highly speculative analysis is that he didn’t know the actual siRNA sequences that were going to be used. Without that information his analysis was pretty pointless. At the very best, it was highly speculative. At the worst, it was ideologically and politically motivated.

http://www.biofortified.org/2013/05/gmo-wheat-and-shouting-fire-in-a-crowded-theater/

I cannot vouch for the quality of this particular site but I found the rest of this article reasonable and convincing on its own merits.

 

[Henry Bannister]

Henry, welcome to jref.
Thanks for your input.
You should just realize now before you proceed to waste a lot of time that most of the commentators on this subject here on jref have no "skin in the game" and as such can be safely ignored.

Thank you, you may have saved several unproductive weeks of my life.

And as if by magic ....

Do you believe that HIV causes AIDS? Medical science has proven it. Misinformation about the HIV/AIDS connection killed millions in Africa alone. If a person who studies Cell Biology refuses to make the connection, there is something wrong.

As for someone being a 9/11 Truther...I wish you a lot of luck on this forum. Truthers post poorly edited YouTube videos, cherrypick quotes, and make a mockery of themselves on a regular basis.

If this scientist holds these views, then it is reasonable for us to completely disregard whatever else they say as 'woo.'

Can I just check the logic here? Because cell biologist Heinemann is an AIDS denier and a 9/11 Truther we can’t believe what he says about genetics?








(
“Well we did do the nose ...”)

 

[Henry Bannister]

http://www.biofortified.org/2013/05/gmo-wheat-and-shouting-fire-in-a-crowded-theater/

I cannot vouch for the quality of this particular site but I found the rest of this article reasonable and convincing on its own merits.

No, I’m not a genetic engineer either. The article and the site looks a bit errm rabid though (it is written in very loaded language: sleight of hand, hired guns, usual suspects – a bit like the language the gmo supporters are using here), and all the articles I saw were pro gmo.

I saw an interesting blog which seems to put both sides (with an answer to some of the criticisms in the comments by Heinemann himself):

http://sciblogs.co.nz/southern-genes/2012/09/12/does-eating-transgenic-wheat-destroy-your-liver/

The blogger does criticize Heinemann for not having it blind peer reviewed (although Heinemann gives an answer to that) but also remarks that a problem is that the companies don’t release the information that researchers need to do proper research. He says in conclusion: “So two problems here; secrecy because of intellectual property, and lobbying, not engagement. We need light not heat!”

I’m not sure about the health arguments, my objections are more based on the social consequences of GMO.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Can I just check the logic here? Because cell biologist Heinemann is an AIDS denier and a 9/11 Truther we can’t believe what he says about genetics?

Why would we even waste time listening to a nut, when there are tens of thousands of other cell biologists in the world who aren't nuts?

 

[!Kaggen]

Why would we even waste time listening to a nut, when there are tens of thousands of other cell biologists in the world who aren't nuts?

Evidence?
Or is that one of your gazillion assumptions you live by?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Evidence?
Or is that one of your gazillion assumptions you live by?

Because science doesn't agree with your loony beliefs, doesn't mean scientists are nuts.

But that's another thread. Let's stick to Monsanto and all the great things they do for small farmers.

 

[Sceptic-PK]

Evidence?
Or is that one of your gazillion assumptions you live by?

No, he’s right. Why put so much emphasis on the opinion of one scientist above and beyond the overwhelming majority of researchers? Suggests to me that your opinions on the topic are ideological and not scientific in nature. If an overwhelming number of scientists were publishing that GMO foods were hazardous to our health, you would be trumpeting this “consensus”. Since you don’t have that you rely upon minority opinion on a topic you made your mind up about first, then went looking for validation.

 

[Henry Bannister]

Why would we even waste time listening to a nut, when there are tens of thousands of other cell biologists in the world who aren't nuts?

What evidence do you have that Heinemann is a 'nut'? You do realise that Brainster made up that slur about him being an AIDS denier and a 9/11 truther?

 

[thaiboxerken]

C'mon.. Brainster always refers to fact.....

 

[Henry Bannister]

Because science doesn't agree with your loony beliefs, doesn't mean scientists are nuts.

But that's another thread. Let's stick to Monsanto and all the great things they do for small farmers.

But the scientist you want to smear as a 'nut' seems to show that two of the most important 'great things' they do for small farmers are illusory.

 

[Henry Bannister]

If an overwhelming number of scientists were publishing that GMO foods were hazardous to our health, you would be trumpeting this “consensus”. Since you don’t have that you rely upon minority opinion on a topic you made your mind up about first, then went looking for validation.

It isn't just about the health benefits for humans. There are the effects on the environment and social effects.

One of the other 'great things' they do for small farmers is stop them saving seed from their crop for the next year, for example, forcing them to buy seed every year from Monsanto. Do you not feel that could be damaging for third-world farmers for example, who will have to pay first-world prices for seed?

 

[psionl0]

One of the other 'great things' they do for small farmers is stop them saving seed from their crop for the next year, for example, forcing them to buy seed every year from Monsanto. Do you not feel that could be damaging for third-world farmers for example, who will have to pay first-world prices for seed?

That aspect of it is just a matter of pure economics.

If the increased yield or reduced growing costs exceed the cost of buying new seed then it is a worthwhile investment.

 

[GlennB]

It isn't just about the health benefits for humans. There are the effects on the environment and social effects.

One of the other 'great things' they do for small farmers is stop them saving seed from their crop for the next year, for example, forcing them to buy seed every year from Monsanto. Do you not feel that could be damaging for third-world farmers for example, who will have to pay first-world prices for seed?

Er, no. Nobody is "forced" to buy seed from Monsanto.

 

[Skeletor]

It isn't just about the health benefits for humans. There are the effects on the environment and social effects.

One of the other 'great things' they do for small farmers is stop them saving seed from their crop for the next year, for example, forcing them to buy seed every year from Monsanto. Do you not feel that could be damaging for third-world farmers for example, who will have to pay first-world prices for seed?

Here I'll be the third to quote this one...Third-world farmers will most certainly NOT be paying First-world prices for Monsanto seeds. Didn't we cover Bill Gates' efforts to buy Golden Rice for African farmers? I have no doubts that similar efforts are underway in Indonesia and elsewhere in SE Asia.

There's also the legality of Monsanto's agreement that farmers will not save seed for the next year...Once you're on a foreign soil, all bets are off. Monsanto has bigger fish to fry right here in the good ol' USA. And besides, what is the point of growing glyphosate resistant plants without the plants retaining that trait?

Has anyone done a price comparison on Monsanto seed versus the competition? And how much is glyphosate per liter?

 

[Henry Bannister]

That aspect of it is just a matter of pure economics.

Not the way things are going - seed supply is becoming concentrated into fewer and fewer companies:

http://www.gmeducation.org/latest-news/p207220-the monsanto monopoly.html

More than 80% of US corn and more than 90% of soybeans planted each year are attributable to Monsanto

If the increased yield or reduced growing costs exceed the cost of buying new seed then it is a worthwhile investment.

To an extent, yes:

http://peakoil.com/enviroment/u-s-farmers-may-stop-planting-gmos-after-horrific-crop-yields

"Some farmers across the United States may stop planting genetically modified crops after poor yields are increasing costs beyond what they can absorb.

According to Farmers Weekly, those farmers are considering returning to conventional seed after increased pest resistance and crop failures have meant smaller GM crop yields over non-GM counterparts.

Farmers in the U.S. pay about $100 more per acre for GM seed. "

That's fine while there are still a lot of companies selling seeds. If people buy into the idea that the gmo science is settled, and Monsanto and friends get a monopoly farmers will have nowhere else to go.

 

[psionl0]

That's fine while there are still a lot of companies selling seeds. If people buy into the idea that the gmo science is settled, and Monsanto and friends get a monopoly farmers will have nowhere else to go.

Do you really think that Monsanto can gain a monopoly if their seeds don't match their hype?