7 ms·

How I Got Converted to G.M.O. Food

75 points by mortenjorck 12y ago

thirsteh 12y ago
Chipotle's "No more GMO food" announcement was the worst "great news" I'd heard in a long time. It was clearly just for PR and nothing else. It's good to see some sanity--this obsession with "clean/pristine nature" which has no rational basis has to stop. Related TED talk: https://www.ted.com/talks/pamela_ronald_the_case_for_engineering_our_food?language=en https://www.ted.com/talks/pamela_ronald_the_case_for_enginee...
- gnud 12y ago
  It has a very rational basis - the 'clean nature' fad is a reaction to various food manufacturers deliberately producing cheap but bad food, for a long time. Now, that doesn't mean it's always the correct reaction. But it's a simpler proposition than 'you must thoughorly research each individual ingredient in everything you eat'.
jrkelly 12y ago
If you would like to get deeply into the weeds on most important facets of the debate on GMO crops, this is the best set of articles: http://grist.org/series/panic-free-gmos/ http://grist.org/series/panic-free-gmos/
- ScottBurson 12y ago
  Yes, let me second this. Nathanael Johnson does a great job in this series. I found it very informative.
- BurningFrog 12y ago
  It really is. Nathaniel Johnson also writes the most informed articles about the California Water mess. http://grist.org/author/nathanael-johnson/ http://grist.org/author/nathanael-johnson/
Meai 12y ago
The single issue is whether it is safe or not. Articles telling me how great it would be for poor, despserate farmers in third world countries as a last resort choice is really a fringe issue that is - I suspect - cloaking the point on purpose.
- sampo 12y ago
  > it is safe or not Most of the major scientific and medical organizations have issued a statement that GMO food is safe (in the sense of being as safe as non-GMO food). This is just an image, but in most cases you can verify the statements back to the organizations' websites by googling. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9gJwulXnO_o/Ue8hgkh4YkI/AAAAAAABCT8/1o4qQ40IjHQ/s1600/GMAuthoritiesnew1.jpg http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9gJwulXnO_o/Ue8hgkh4YkI/AAAAAAABCT... You can of course choose the same road as climate change deniers, and cry for global scientists' conspiracy.
  - UweSchmidt 12y ago
    Ah yes, science says it's safe and who wants to be a climate change denier? Case closed! Here in Germany rabbits are dying a gruesome death by overeating genetically modified rape. Supposedy the bitter taste that told them to "stop" was removed and now they eat until the die. http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-13522441.html http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-13522441.html (Article in German) So the food is of course "safe" as in you can eat it without any direct harm; examining complex biological interactions however is far beyond the scope of lobbyists and companies that want to bring products to the market. So now we already have fruits that look "fresh" even if they are already a bit old, tomatoes that are just huge bags of water without any taste (eating someone's homegrown variants are a huge revelation), stuff genererally optimized for size, looks, and a superficial taste. To me that is not progress at all.
    - icebraining 12y ago
      You posted a link to a 30-year-old event, and for which there was an hypothesis that it could be linked to the genetic modifications of a rapeseed. As far as counter-examples go, that doesn't seem particularly strong. EDIT: Actually, the "new" seed they are talking about is 00 rapeseed (AKA Canola), which is not a GMO, since it was bred naturally: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canola http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canola The GMO versions of Canola only appeared years after that event.
pbreit 12y ago
You wouldn't know it from the article but I thought the anti-GMO argument went something like: sorta different from natural breeding; long term effects unknown; moving anecdotes notwhitstanding, necessity is modest; crates some unappealing situations due to the scope and dynamics of food production.
- tptacek 12y ago
  Can you fill in some of the blanks on why the necessity of GMOs is modest? Apart from things like "supporting the Ugandan cassava crop that would otherwise be devastated by diseases cured by GMO", don't most GMO strategies also drastically reduce other harmful chemical inputs to farming? I'm not sure I understand the last argument. Just curious; I know you're just explaining the argument, not making it.
  - pbreit 12y ago
    Those anecdotes are powerful but I think they are mitigated by the fact that we can easily produce enough non-GMO food to feed the planet. The last point was a weak attempt to note the problems you hear of, for example, proprietary strains infesting non-customer farms. Not strictly a GMO problem, tho. I'm not reflexively anti-GMO but don't think the case is quite closed (for or against).
    - tptacek 12y ago
      This is a little like the nuclear-vs-coal debate. We can generate more than enough power for the country with coal, and because we've been using coal for centuries, we're blinded to the costs (for instance, the annual death toll) of coal. The same may be true of the environmental costs of large-scale farming of genetically inferior crops.
- DanBC 12y ago
  I thought some of the anti-GMO sentiment is because some agri-chemical companies are just evil.
  - 12y ago
ScottBurson 12y ago
The point I think needs making about GMOs is that they aren't really a category. That is, there aren't any true, important statements one can make about all GMOs, except for the obvious one that they are produced by genetic manipulation. But as far as their benefits and their dangers, they have to be evaluated individually. So on the one hand I'm very concerned about Roundup Ready crops, not specifically because they're GMOs, but because I'm concerned about long-term glyphosate toxicity. On the other, as far as I can tell from a small amount of reading, Bt corn, "golden rice" (rice that makes its own beta-carotene), the non-browning apple, and now this Bt eggplant are all probably okay. I think that failure to understand this point, that each GMO is sui generis and has to be approached individually, has two dangers. On the one hand, there is a tendency to oppose all of them indiscriminately, and of course we're already seeing this. But there's also a real possibility that once that blows over and GMOs get more accepted, we might get complacent and not check out new GMOs as carefully. I do think some safety testing is in order, though in many cases the modification certainly sounds safe. Beta-carotene is certainly a valuable nutrient, and AFAIK is hard to overdose on. The non-browning apple gets that way by having one of its enzymes (polyphenol oxidase) turned off -- what could be dangerous about removing an enzyme? The Bt mods deserve a little closer examination, as they are producing a new protein, and there seems to be the potential for allergic reactions in some small fraction of the population; but Bt is considered an acceptable pesticide for organic crops (it is a protein, after all, not some chlorinated petrochemical) so it could well be pretty safe. (All that said, I do still support GMO labelling laws. People should be able to know what they're eating, even if they overreact to that information.)
- tptacek 12y ago
  I have a generally very high opinion of the Science Based Medicine blog, and the SBM editors have a very low opinion of glyphosate alarmism: https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/glyphosate-the-new-bogeyman/ https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/glyphosate-the-new-boge... The short version of this post: there is a wealth of evidence to analyze from significant human exposure to glyphosate (from farmers, for instance) and none of it supports significant toxicity. Because glyphosate is so precisely targeted to the metabolism of plants and not animals, it is among the least toxic herbicides in use.
hyperion2010 12y ago
One of the most rage inducing wikipedia articles you will ever read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice. People who block this stuff are nothing less than murderers in my opinion.
- DanBC 12y ago
  That's a bit hyperbolic when there are some reasonable concerns about golden rice. From the article you link: > In 2008 WHO malnutrition expert Francesco Branca cited the lack of real-world studies and uncertainty about how many people will use golden rice, concluding "giving out supplements, fortifying existing foods with vitamin A, and teaching people to grow carrots or certain leafy vegetables are, for now, more promising ways to fight the problem" Branca isn't some hippy idiot opposed to GMO for some stupid non-reason. > In that respect, it is significant that vitamin A deficiency is rarely an isolated phenomenon, but usually coupled to a general lack of a balanced diet So these children still need additional micronutrient fortification? Where are they getting iron, zinc and iodine? http://whqlibdoc.who.int/bulletin/2000/Number%2010/78(10)news.pdf http://whqlibdoc.who.int/bulletin/2000/Number%2010/78(10)new... > Dr Jorgen Schlundt, Coordinator for the Food Safety Programme at the World Health Organization, commented: ‘‘Before genetically modified rice can be widely introduced, scientific evidence will need to be provided to assure that the rice is safe and nutritionally adequate, does not pose unacceptable risks to the environment, and will provide the human health benefits suggested.’’ He added: ‘‘WHO, along with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), and the jointly sponsored FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission are developing the methods and criteria to be used for the international assessment and management of genetically modified foods, including requirements for the labelling of such foods and their products. WHO is studying possible human health hazards from the release of genetically modified organisms into the environment and, as a first step, the WHO Regional Office for Europe has organized a seminar on this topic for September 2000.’’ At the time (fifteen years ago) this was a calm rational statement made in the face of over 30 companies holding over 70 patents who were campaigning heavily to be able to sell this product to the developing world. After being challenged by WHO some of the patent owners gave reassurances such as free licensing for farmers making less than $10,000; and the ability to save and resow grain.
song 12y ago
I blame monsanto for the G.M.O. hysteria, they gave G.M.Os a bad name and now people who call themselves environmentalists behave irrationally because they can't be bothered to look past the name and actually look at the facts... In a lot of cases G.M.Os are safe and are actually better for the environment because they can reduce the amount of pesticides used (or reduce deficiencies in the target populations). G.M.Os should be studied on a case by case basis. It's the same with nuclear power. Banning nuclear power and all research on nuclear power (e.g. Thorium) is short-sighted.
- rhino369 12y ago
  As far as I can tell Monstanto got a bad name because of GMO.
  - song 12y ago
    Well yes but it's also what they did that's a bit of an issue. The roundup ready crops are crops that are engineered to be resistant to the Roundup herbicide which is a bit more iffy than the example given in the article of a eggplant with a gene transferred from Bacillus thuringiensi which is allowed to use in organic farming. On Monsanto side, the controversy was originally about the use of Roundup (which the G.M.O. permitted) and the potential toxicity of glyphosate.
nodata 12y ago
Looking at the comments, the pro-GMOers are just as blindsided as the anti-GMOers. Shame on us all. One of the anti-GMO arguments is that you don't want to get a knock on your door (and a lawsuit) from Monsanto for accidentally having a field next to your Monsanto-loving neighbour.
- daeken 12y ago
  > One of the anti-GMO arguments is that you don't want to get a knock on your door from Monsanto for accidentally having a field next to your Monsanto-loving neighbour. Except that it's never happened, to my knowledge. Monsanto has sued farmers for using their seeds illegally, and in those cases it was shown that the farmers did so knowingly -- accidental cross-contamination has never been sued over. For instance, in one case a farmer claimed accidental cross-contamination while using Roundup on the same crops (which would've killed non-GM crops); in another, the field was found to be nearly 100% GM crops, a virtual impossibility unless seeds were explicitly and knowingly planted. Monsanto does many things that people can take issue with (e.g. patenting seeds, which isn't reserved for GM crops, mind you), but this is pure, unadulterated bullshit. Edit: C.f. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-five-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-fi...
  - nodata 12y ago
    > this is pure, unadulterated bullshit. You mean it's wrong, let's not exaggerate here. I'm just saying what I saw on a documentary featuring three farmers.
    - daeken 12y ago
      Wrong is me miscalculating some figures; bullshit is people spreading FUD that can be debunked with 2 minutes of Googling. This myth didn't start as a misconception or simple wrongness -- it was created to persuade people that Monsanto is a big bad company that's doing horrible things.
- sampo 12y ago
PythonicAlpha 12y ago
There is one big reason, I oppose G.M.O. Food: They are "patented life". Big corporations take life forms and make them patent-able and this way they make that that once belonged to all their "intellectual property". And don't forget one thing: GMO might help to stop hunger in some regions, but in the current state of it, it does not. Many farmers in poor regions where lured into the GMO trap, just to find out one or two years later, that the proposed additional productivity of the crops did not make up for the additional costs of the fact that they had to buy the crops (and in case of Roundup, the glyphosate) from big corporations, which before they could take from their own harvest.
- BurningFrog 12y ago
  Patents and GMO are entirely separate issues, and far from all GMOs are patented. I agree that the patent system is seriously flawed, but that doesn't mean we should ban the internet because of software patents.
  - PythonicAlpha 12y ago
    In theory you are right, but in practice most of the GMOs are created by big corporations and they patent the stuff.
- zsombor 12y ago
  Seems a bit patronizing to assume that farmers will buy a product that does not work, then continue to do so after it had proven that it yields no advantage. If it were the case that the advantage lasts only two years, then nobody will buy the product on the fourth year. Lastly the "patented life" argument is incorrectly attributed to GMOs. First proponent of patents in this field was no other than Luther Burbank (1849-1926), a pioneer in agricultural science. He had spent the better part of his life arguing for a means to protect his achievements. Finally the Plant Patent Act was passed in 1930, some years before his death. As it stands now "life was patented" for 85 years already, while the first GMO appeared in 1994 only.
  - PythonicAlpha 12y ago
breatheoften 12y ago
the anti-gmo labeling advocates express the concern that requiring gmo labeling will undermine the market price for gmo products due to consumer fear and that this is bad because gmo products have $benefits. A commonly cited $benefit is that gmo crops can require fewer harmful pesticides. A good compromise: require food be labeled as gmo or not -- and also require that food be labelled with all pesticides used.
- jweir 12y ago
  Don't forget herbicides. A GMO plant might require no pesticide but use more herbicide. http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/agri_biotechnology/breeding_aims/146.herbicide_resistant_crops.html http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/agri_biotechnology/breeding_a...
selimthegrim 12y ago
I thought a good reason to oppose them was the monocultures that often result from their use, knocking out species like bees that depend on a diverse array of pollen sources (hence the almond industry's woes with bee pollination)
jcoffland 12y ago
I live in Sonoma County California and I'm so sick of all the people around me just assuming that GMOs are obviously bad. It seems people here, a lot of them farmers, are not at all interested in facts. They are attracted to the anti-science, anti-corporation, anti-establishment aspects of the anti-GMO movement. Facts take a backseat. Granted, these are also people who believe in Biodynamics and its horns full of crystals which channel cosimic power. Perhaps an expectation of basic reasioning is too much.
- mturmon 12y ago
  Regarding this irrationality, my pet theory is that the arena of "food" is an attractor for superstition. Maybe it has something to do with the mysterious process by which you are built from the stuff you eat. From fad diets, to religious diet restrictions, to diet-based "studies have shown" trends (antioxidants!), to made up allergies. It's no accident that most established religions have dietary rules. (Yes, I know some of these allergies are real. And some of the diets have merit.) Diet attracts all kinds of attention, and only a small part of it is based in reality. It's like a projector screen where other anxieties play out.
  - jcoffland 11y ago
    Wow, well said. I also feel that many people use their diet choices as a way to excercise control in their lives.
- KingMob 12y ago
  If you prefer a more scientific rationale to be cautious of GMOs, check out any of Nassim Nicholas Taleb's books on risk. The short version is, our standards for safety must match the potential dangers. E.g., you're dying of cancer? No need to worry about minor (or even major) side effects of medication, because you're facing death. There's a 1 in a million chance of producing a GMO with worldwide consequences? You have to be absolutely positive, nearly 100% certain they're harmless. A handful of studies is nowhere near sufficient (without even addressing the inherent conflict of interest in investigating your own GMO for safety). Even if you had a couple dozen studies on one GMO, could you ensure that level of caution for all?
widowlark 12y ago
To me, it seems that there are two sides to the GMO coin. On one, we have a technology and a science that can clearly benefit everyone, especially helping combat malnutrition and disease in developing countries. On the other, we have 3 or 4 major companies controlling the distribution, creation, and production of GMO's both physically and legally. If we want GMO's to be effective with their intended purpose, we have to figure out how to dethrone Monsanto and Syngenta. This whole system seems eerily analogous to Computer Software and Hardware monopolization in the early 70's. IIRC, we solved that monopolization with the Open Sourced movement...
- frostmatthew 12y ago
  > we solved that monopolization with the Open Sourced movement There is an Open Source Seed Initiative[1][2] [1] http://osseeds.org/ http://osseeds.org/ [2] http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/seed-monopoly-free-seeds-farm-monsanto-dupont http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/seed-monopol...
- BurningFrog 12y ago
  I'm glad we didn't address those problems by banning computers.
- sampo 12y ago
  > we have 3 or 4 major companies controlling the distribution, creation, and production of GMO's One reason for that is that the legislation and regulations on GMO's are so much heavier and more expensive that other crops, that only bigcorps can afford the legal process of trying to bring GMO varieties to market.
sickpig 12y ago
Strange nobody mentioned Nassim Taleb and his work on that matter: The Precautionary Principle - www.fooledbyrandomness.com/pp2.pdf Quoting the first paragraph of the paper: The precautionary principle (PP) states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing severe harm to the public domain (affecting general health or the environment globally), the action should not be taken in the absence of scientific near-certainty about its safety. Under these conditions, the burden of proof about absence of harm falls on those proposing an action, not those opposing it. PP is intended to deal with uncertainty and risk in cases where the absence of evidence and the incompleteness of scientific knowledge carries profound implications and in the presence of risks of "black swans", unforeseen and unforeseable events of extreme consequence.
- sampo 12y ago
  The act of publishing a book or an article (edit: or a cartoon), has occasionally led to far-reaching, sometimes violent, unforeseen and unpredictable systemic consequences, sometimes bringing down governments. Yet Taleb has published several, apparently with no concern whatsoever about his own precautionary principle.
  - sickpig 12y ago
    Bringing down a government does not belong to the same group of consequences the precautionary principle is applied to. PP is used when a system, in this case the humanity, is at risk of total failure, i.e. ruin.
  - KingMob 12y ago
    Not at all. The point of his book is to educate people and reframe how they think about risk, so he achieved exactly what he intended. If one of those is to bring a more risk-based understanding of GMOs, which in turns makes people more cautious from a scientific perspective, then mission accomplished. The fundamental problem with loosing GMOs into the environment is that there's no plan B for screwing up the earth or your health, so we have to be extra, extra conservative. Even if only 1 in a million GMOs turn out to have disastrous consequences, given enough development and use, eventually we will create something with unforeseen consequences that passes whatever standards for safety we have. But given the replicable nature of biology, it will be everyone's problem instead of a localized disaster. The people claiming we have sufficient scientific evidence for GMOs don't understand this key point: our usual standards for evidence of safety must be orders of magnitude higher to risk the planet.
russellspitzer 12y ago
I'm always amazed how many people who would balk at a single corporation controlling their operating systems are amazingly complacent when it comes to corporations copyrighting and controlling their food supply.
- georgemcbay 12y ago
  I don't think this piece does that...? The problem is there are two separate issues related to GMOs. One is that the companies who are behind them are mostly evil from a business practice/IP sense (yes, I am talking primarily of Monsanto). The other is that there are a lot of people who think GMOs are inherently "toxins" that are going to give us all cancer or whatever. It tends to be difficult to have a rational conversation with people on GMOs when you take the (IMO rational) views that yes, Monsanto is kinda evil, but no, GMO foods are not inherently evil or bad for you and are, in fact, the best way forward in feeding all these people we have. This NY Times piece is rightfully on the side of GMOs as a safe food source. All the terrible patent-related stuff is a wholly different issue.
  - sampo 12y ago
    There are also patented non-GMO varieties, so the patent argument is not really relevant in GMO discussion.
kerny 12y ago
Monsanto - the creator and producer of Agent Orange is responsible for suffering and deaths of millions of people. In China and Vietnam, hundreds of people are born with serious health issues even to these days. GMO are created with barbaric methods with unknown long term effects on human or environment. AFAIK, GMO are created by infecting DNA with a virus and mixing 'terminator' genes to be sure, that species won't have offspring. Now, please somebody tell me, why should I trust the very same company, that was manufacturing Agent Orange, with my food. Monsanto officially stated that: "reliable scientific evidence indicates that Agent Orange is not the cause of serious long-term health effects". Now, they are saying that GMO poses no risk to health or environment. Thanks, no but thanks.
- DanBC 12y ago
  Monsanto are evil. But even Monsanto are giving away licences to grow their yellow rice - it's free for farmers earning less than $10,000 per year. The rice doesn't have terminator genes and Monsanto have said that seed collection and re-sowing is allowed for free. And it's not just Monsanto calling the yellow rice safe. Plenty of other studies have shown it to be safe.
- coroutines 12y ago
  I'm very skeptical of Monsanto being the only reason "hundreds of people" are born with serious health issues in China and Vietnam. Anyway, the reason I don't take anti-GMO people very seriously is I get the same vibes from the anti-vaccination sort. Refusing to ingest GMO food is perfectly acceptable if you're worried about the health concerns, I would happily welcome more study - I just have trouble believing these crops pose a direct risks to humans. We don't worry about blood-borne diseases from plants. As I understand it, plant DNA is incompatible with our own. I'm not a scientist but I'm pretty sure what they modify can't modify us. I would worry about environmental impact - how these crops affect soil acidity or something else. I want to stand with the anti-GMO people but it just comes off as blind fear. I'll support study of long-term effects but not much else ~
memracom 12y ago
The problem with GMO is that growers want to keep it secret. They are not proud of what they are doing and do not want to label their products as GMO. They believe that we, the consumers, are stupid and need to be protected by big brother (Communist party central planning committee) because we are not capable of making our own decisions. But we do not want that. We believe in honesty, openness and freedom of choice. And if this means that it takes 10 generations to weed out the good parts of GMO from the bad, then so be it. Nobody has to guarantee anybody else obscene profits from some clever idea. Most clever ideas are not that beneficial to the market, and therefore they either fade away or they fill some obscure niche which is less lucrative and glamorous than the founders had expected. So be it! That is actually true capitalism and true market forces. Recently Elon Musk announced a home battery product that could actually cause the end of nuclear and the dominance of solar power generation. It came about, not through some central committee deciding what is good for us, but through pure capitalism and entrepreneurial spirit. And that is good. So put a prominent label on any products containing GMO, and explain what you have in there and why it is good. The people will decide because that is their right. The right to make informed decisions is more important than any other right, because there is no liberty when your decisions are manipulated or when the rich and powerful keep you in ignorance and confusion.
jqm 12y ago
Like many things, I suspect many people are against the idea of GMO food _in principal_. In practice, most of the people who are against in principal will have no problem eating a Twinkie that has GMO wheat in it so long as everyone else is eating one too.

75 points by mortenjorck 12y ago

Chipotle's "No more GMO food" announcement was the worst "great news" I'd heard in a long time. It was clearly just for PR and nothing else. It's good to see some sanity--this obsession with "clean/pristine nature" which has no rational basis has to stop. Related TED talk: https://www.ted.com/talks/pamela_ronald_the_case_for_engineering_our_food?language=en https://www.ted.com/talks/pamela_ronald_the_case_for_enginee...

gnud 12y ago
It has a very rational basis - the 'clean nature' fad is a reaction to various food manufacturers deliberately producing cheap but bad food, for a long time. Now, that doesn't mean it's always the correct reaction. But it's a simpler proposition than 'you must thoughorly research each individual ingredient in everything you eat'.

jrkelly 12y ago

If you would like to get deeply into the weeds on most important facets of the debate on GMO crops, this is the best set of articles: http://grist.org/series/panic-free-gmos/ http://grist.org/series/panic-free-gmos/

ScottBurson 12y ago
Yes, let me second this. Nathanael Johnson does a great job in this series. I found it very informative.
BurningFrog 12y ago
It really is. Nathaniel Johnson also writes the most informed articles about the California Water mess. http://grist.org/author/nathanael-johnson/ http://grist.org/author/nathanael-johnson/

Meai 12y ago

The single issue is whether it is safe or not. Articles telling me how great it would be for poor, despserate farmers in third world countries as a last resort choice is really a fringe issue that is - I suspect - cloaking the point on purpose.

sampo 12y ago
> it is safe or not Most of the major scientific and medical organizations have issued a statement that GMO food is safe (in the sense of being as safe as non-GMO food). This is just an image, but in most cases you can verify the statements back to the organizations' websites by googling. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9gJwulXnO_o/Ue8hgkh4YkI/AAAAAAABCT8/1o4qQ40IjHQ/s1600/GMAuthoritiesnew1.jpg http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9gJwulXnO_o/Ue8hgkh4YkI/AAAAAAABCT... You can of course choose the same road as climate change deniers, and cry for global scientists' conspiracy.
- UweSchmidt 12y ago
  Ah yes, science says it's safe and who wants to be a climate change denier? Case closed! Here in Germany rabbits are dying a gruesome death by overeating genetically modified rape. Supposedy the bitter taste that told them to "stop" was removed and now they eat until the die. http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-13522441.html http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-13522441.html (Article in German) So the food is of course "safe" as in you can eat it without any direct harm; examining complex biological interactions however is far beyond the scope of lobbyists and companies that want to bring products to the market. So now we already have fruits that look "fresh" even if they are already a bit old, tomatoes that are just huge bags of water without any taste (eating someone's homegrown variants are a huge revelation), stuff genererally optimized for size, looks, and a superficial taste. To me that is not progress at all.
  - icebraining 12y ago
    You posted a link to a 30-year-old event, and for which there was an hypothesis that it could be linked to the genetic modifications of a rapeseed. As far as counter-examples go, that doesn't seem particularly strong. EDIT: Actually, the "new" seed they are talking about is 00 rapeseed (AKA Canola), which is not a GMO, since it was bred naturally: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canola http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canola The GMO versions of Canola only appeared years after that event.

pbreit 12y ago

You wouldn't know it from the article but I thought the anti-GMO argument went something like: sorta different from natural breeding; long term effects unknown; moving anecdotes notwhitstanding, necessity is modest; crates some unappealing situations due to the scope and dynamics of food production.

tptacek 12y ago
Can you fill in some of the blanks on why the necessity of GMOs is modest? Apart from things like "supporting the Ugandan cassava crop that would otherwise be devastated by diseases cured by GMO", don't most GMO strategies also drastically reduce other harmful chemical inputs to farming? I'm not sure I understand the last argument. Just curious; I know you're just explaining the argument, not making it.
- pbreit 12y ago
  Those anecdotes are powerful but I think they are mitigated by the fact that we can easily produce enough non-GMO food to feed the planet. The last point was a weak attempt to note the problems you hear of, for example, proprietary strains infesting non-customer farms. Not strictly a GMO problem, tho. I'm not reflexively anti-GMO but don't think the case is quite closed (for or against).
  - tptacek 12y ago
    This is a little like the nuclear-vs-coal debate. We can generate more than enough power for the country with coal, and because we've been using coal for centuries, we're blinded to the costs (for instance, the annual death toll) of coal. The same may be true of the environmental costs of large-scale farming of genetically inferior crops.
DanBC 12y ago
I thought some of the anti-GMO sentiment is because some agri-chemical companies are just evil.
- 12y ago

ScottBurson 12y ago

The point I think needs making about GMOs is that they aren't really a category. That is, there aren't any true, important statements one can make about all GMOs, except for the obvious one that they are produced by genetic manipulation. But as far as their benefits and their dangers, they have to be evaluated individually. So on the one hand I'm very concerned about Roundup Ready crops, not specifically because they're GMOs, but because I'm concerned about long-term glyphosate toxicity. On the other, as far as I can tell from a small amount of reading, Bt corn, "golden rice" (rice that makes its own beta-carotene), the non-browning apple, and now this Bt eggplant are all probably okay. I think that failure to understand this point, that each GMO is sui generis and has to be approached individually, has two dangers. On the one hand, there is a tendency to oppose all of them indiscriminately, and of course we're already seeing this. But there's also a real possibility that once that blows over and GMOs get more accepted, we might get complacent and not check out new GMOs as carefully. I do think some safety testing is in order, though in many cases the modification certainly sounds safe. Beta-carotene is certainly a valuable nutrient, and AFAIK is hard to overdose on. The non-browning apple gets that way by having one of its enzymes (polyphenol oxidase) turned off -- what could be dangerous about removing an enzyme? The Bt mods deserve a little closer examination, as they are producing a new protein, and there seems to be the potential for allergic reactions in some small fraction of the population; but Bt is considered an acceptable pesticide for organic crops (it is a protein, after all, not some chlorinated petrochemical) so it could well be pretty safe. (All that said, I do still support GMO labelling laws. People should be able to know what they're eating, even if they overreact to that information.)

tptacek 12y ago
I have a generally very high opinion of the Science Based Medicine blog, and the SBM editors have a very low opinion of glyphosate alarmism: https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/glyphosate-the-new-bogeyman/ https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/glyphosate-the-new-boge... The short version of this post: there is a wealth of evidence to analyze from significant human exposure to glyphosate (from farmers, for instance) and none of it supports significant toxicity. Because glyphosate is so precisely targeted to the metabolism of plants and not animals, it is among the least toxic herbicides in use.

hyperion2010 12y ago

One of the most rage inducing wikipedia articles you will ever read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice. People who block this stuff are nothing less than murderers in my opinion.

DanBC 12y ago
That's a bit hyperbolic when there are some reasonable concerns about golden rice. From the article you link: > In 2008 WHO malnutrition expert Francesco Branca cited the lack of real-world studies and uncertainty about how many people will use golden rice, concluding "giving out supplements, fortifying existing foods with vitamin A, and teaching people to grow carrots or certain leafy vegetables are, for now, more promising ways to fight the problem" Branca isn't some hippy idiot opposed to GMO for some stupid non-reason. > In that respect, it is significant that vitamin A deficiency is rarely an isolated phenomenon, but usually coupled to a general lack of a balanced diet So these children still need additional micronutrient fortification? Where are they getting iron, zinc and iodine? http://whqlibdoc.who.int/bulletin/2000/Number%2010/78(10)news.pdf http://whqlibdoc.who.int/bulletin/2000/Number%2010/78(10)new... > Dr Jorgen Schlundt, Coordinator for the Food Safety Programme at the World Health Organization, commented: ‘‘Before genetically modified rice can be widely introduced, scientific evidence will need to be provided to assure that the rice is safe and nutritionally adequate, does not pose unacceptable risks to the environment, and will provide the human health benefits suggested.’’ He added: ‘‘WHO, along with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), and the jointly sponsored FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission are developing the methods and criteria to be used for the international assessment and management of genetically modified foods, including requirements for the labelling of such foods and their products. WHO is studying possible human health hazards from the release of genetically modified organisms into the environment and, as a first step, the WHO Regional Office for Europe has organized a seminar on this topic for September 2000.’’ At the time (fifteen years ago) this was a calm rational statement made in the face of over 30 companies holding over 70 patents who were campaigning heavily to be able to sell this product to the developing world. After being challenged by WHO some of the patent owners gave reassurances such as free licensing for farmers making less than $10,000; and the ability to save and resow grain.

song 12y ago

I blame monsanto for the G.M.O. hysteria, they gave G.M.Os a bad name and now people who call themselves environmentalists behave irrationally because they can't be bothered to look past the name and actually look at the facts... In a lot of cases G.M.Os are safe and are actually better for the environment because they can reduce the amount of pesticides used (or reduce deficiencies in the target populations). G.M.Os should be studied on a case by case basis. It's the same with nuclear power. Banning nuclear power and all research on nuclear power (e.g. Thorium) is short-sighted.

rhino369 12y ago
As far as I can tell Monstanto got a bad name because of GMO.
- song 12y ago
  Well yes but it's also what they did that's a bit of an issue. The roundup ready crops are crops that are engineered to be resistant to the Roundup herbicide which is a bit more iffy than the example given in the article of a eggplant with a gene transferred from Bacillus thuringiensi which is allowed to use in organic farming. On Monsanto side, the controversy was originally about the use of Roundup (which the G.M.O. permitted) and the potential toxicity of glyphosate.

nodata 12y ago

Looking at the comments, the pro-GMOers are just as blindsided as the anti-GMOers. Shame on us all. One of the anti-GMO arguments is that you don't want to get a knock on your door (and a lawsuit) from Monsanto for accidentally having a field next to your Monsanto-loving neighbour.

daeken 12y ago
> One of the anti-GMO arguments is that you don't want to get a knock on your door from Monsanto for accidentally having a field next to your Monsanto-loving neighbour. Except that it's never happened, to my knowledge. Monsanto has sued farmers for using their seeds illegally, and in those cases it was shown that the farmers did so knowingly -- accidental cross-contamination has never been sued over. For instance, in one case a farmer claimed accidental cross-contamination while using Roundup on the same crops (which would've killed non-GM crops); in another, the field was found to be nearly 100% GM crops, a virtual impossibility unless seeds were explicitly and knowingly planted. Monsanto does many things that people can take issue with (e.g. patenting seeds, which isn't reserved for GM crops, mind you), but this is pure, unadulterated bullshit. Edit: C.f. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-five-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-fi...
- nodata 12y ago
  > this is pure, unadulterated bullshit. You mean it's wrong, let's not exaggerate here. I'm just saying what I saw on a documentary featuring three farmers.
  - daeken 12y ago
    Wrong is me miscalculating some figures; bullshit is people spreading FUD that can be debunked with 2 minutes of Googling. This myth didn't start as a misconception or simple wrongness -- it was created to persuade people that Monsanto is a big bad company that's doing horrible things.
sampo 12y ago

PythonicAlpha 12y ago

There is one big reason, I oppose G.M.O. Food: They are "patented life". Big corporations take life forms and make them patent-able and this way they make that that once belonged to all their "intellectual property". And don't forget one thing: GMO might help to stop hunger in some regions, but in the current state of it, it does not. Many farmers in poor regions where lured into the GMO trap, just to find out one or two years later, that the proposed additional productivity of the crops did not make up for the additional costs of the fact that they had to buy the crops (and in case of Roundup, the glyphosate) from big corporations, which before they could take from their own harvest.

BurningFrog 12y ago
Patents and GMO are entirely separate issues, and far from all GMOs are patented. I agree that the patent system is seriously flawed, but that doesn't mean we should ban the internet because of software patents.
- PythonicAlpha 12y ago
  In theory you are right, but in practice most of the GMOs are created by big corporations and they patent the stuff.
zsombor 12y ago
Seems a bit patronizing to assume that farmers will buy a product that does not work, then continue to do so after it had proven that it yields no advantage. If it were the case that the advantage lasts only two years, then nobody will buy the product on the fourth year. Lastly the "patented life" argument is incorrectly attributed to GMOs. First proponent of patents in this field was no other than Luther Burbank (1849-1926), a pioneer in agricultural science. He had spent the better part of his life arguing for a means to protect his achievements. Finally the Plant Patent Act was passed in 1930, some years before his death. As it stands now "life was patented" for 85 years already, while the first GMO appeared in 1994 only.
- PythonicAlpha 12y ago

breatheoften 12y ago

the anti-gmo labeling advocates express the concern that requiring gmo labeling will undermine the market price for gmo products due to consumer fear and that this is bad because gmo products have $benefits. A commonly cited $benefit is that gmo crops can require fewer harmful pesticides. A good compromise: require food be labeled as gmo or not -- and also require that food be labelled with all pesticides used.

jweir 12y ago
Don't forget herbicides. A GMO plant might require no pesticide but use more herbicide. http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/agri_biotechnology/breeding_aims/146.herbicide_resistant_crops.html http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/agri_biotechnology/breeding_a...

selimthegrim 12y ago

I thought a good reason to oppose them was the monocultures that often result from their use, knocking out species like bees that depend on a diverse array of pollen sources (hence the almond industry's woes with bee pollination)

jcoffland 12y ago

I live in Sonoma County California and I'm so sick of all the people around me just assuming that GMOs are obviously bad. It seems people here, a lot of them farmers, are not at all interested in facts. They are attracted to the anti-science, anti-corporation, anti-establishment aspects of the anti-GMO movement. Facts take a backseat. Granted, these are also people who believe in Biodynamics and its horns full of crystals which channel cosimic power. Perhaps an expectation of basic reasioning is too much.

mturmon 12y ago
Regarding this irrationality, my pet theory is that the arena of "food" is an attractor for superstition. Maybe it has something to do with the mysterious process by which you are built from the stuff you eat. From fad diets, to religious diet restrictions, to diet-based "studies have shown" trends (antioxidants!), to made up allergies. It's no accident that most established religions have dietary rules. (Yes, I know some of these allergies are real. And some of the diets have merit.) Diet attracts all kinds of attention, and only a small part of it is based in reality. It's like a projector screen where other anxieties play out.
- jcoffland 11y ago
  Wow, well said. I also feel that many people use their diet choices as a way to excercise control in their lives.
KingMob 12y ago
If you prefer a more scientific rationale to be cautious of GMOs, check out any of Nassim Nicholas Taleb's books on risk. The short version is, our standards for safety must match the potential dangers. E.g., you're dying of cancer? No need to worry about minor (or even major) side effects of medication, because you're facing death. There's a 1 in a million chance of producing a GMO with worldwide consequences? You have to be absolutely positive, nearly 100% certain they're harmless. A handful of studies is nowhere near sufficient (without even addressing the inherent conflict of interest in investigating your own GMO for safety). Even if you had a couple dozen studies on one GMO, could you ensure that level of caution for all?

widowlark 12y ago

To me, it seems that there are two sides to the GMO coin. On one, we have a technology and a science that can clearly benefit everyone, especially helping combat malnutrition and disease in developing countries. On the other, we have 3 or 4 major companies controlling the distribution, creation, and production of GMO's both physically and legally. If we want GMO's to be effective with their intended purpose, we have to figure out how to dethrone Monsanto and Syngenta. This whole system seems eerily analogous to Computer Software and Hardware monopolization in the early 70's. IIRC, we solved that monopolization with the Open Sourced movement...

frostmatthew 12y ago
> we solved that monopolization with the Open Sourced movement There is an Open Source Seed Initiative[1][2] [1] http://osseeds.org/ http://osseeds.org/ [2] http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/seed-monopoly-free-seeds-farm-monsanto-dupont http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/seed-monopol...
BurningFrog 12y ago
I'm glad we didn't address those problems by banning computers.
sampo 12y ago
> we have 3 or 4 major companies controlling the distribution, creation, and production of GMO's One reason for that is that the legislation and regulations on GMO's are so much heavier and more expensive that other crops, that only bigcorps can afford the legal process of trying to bring GMO varieties to market.

sickpig 12y ago

Strange nobody mentioned Nassim Taleb and his work on that matter: The Precautionary Principle - www.fooledbyrandomness.com/pp2.pdf Quoting the first paragraph of the paper: The precautionary principle (PP) states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing severe harm to the public domain (affecting general health or the environment globally), the action should not be taken in the absence of scientific near-certainty about its safety. Under these conditions, the burden of proof about absence of harm falls on those proposing an action, not those opposing it. PP is intended to deal with uncertainty and risk in cases where the absence of evidence and the incompleteness of scientific knowledge carries profound implications and in the presence of risks of "black swans", unforeseen and unforeseable events of extreme consequence.

sampo 12y ago
The act of publishing a book or an article (edit: or a cartoon), has occasionally led to far-reaching, sometimes violent, unforeseen and unpredictable systemic consequences, sometimes bringing down governments. Yet Taleb has published several, apparently with no concern whatsoever about his own precautionary principle.
- sickpig 12y ago
  Bringing down a government does not belong to the same group of consequences the precautionary principle is applied to. PP is used when a system, in this case the humanity, is at risk of total failure, i.e. ruin.
- KingMob 12y ago
  Not at all. The point of his book is to educate people and reframe how they think about risk, so he achieved exactly what he intended. If one of those is to bring a more risk-based understanding of GMOs, which in turns makes people more cautious from a scientific perspective, then mission accomplished. The fundamental problem with loosing GMOs into the environment is that there's no plan B for screwing up the earth or your health, so we have to be extra, extra conservative. Even if only 1 in a million GMOs turn out to have disastrous consequences, given enough development and use, eventually we will create something with unforeseen consequences that passes whatever standards for safety we have. But given the replicable nature of biology, it will be everyone's problem instead of a localized disaster. The people claiming we have sufficient scientific evidence for GMOs don't understand this key point: our usual standards for evidence of safety must be orders of magnitude higher to risk the planet.

russellspitzer 12y ago

I'm always amazed how many people who would balk at a single corporation controlling their operating systems are amazingly complacent when it comes to corporations copyrighting and controlling their food supply.

georgemcbay 12y ago
I don't think this piece does that...? The problem is there are two separate issues related to GMOs. One is that the companies who are behind them are mostly evil from a business practice/IP sense (yes, I am talking primarily of Monsanto). The other is that there are a lot of people who think GMOs are inherently "toxins" that are going to give us all cancer or whatever. It tends to be difficult to have a rational conversation with people on GMOs when you take the (IMO rational) views that yes, Monsanto is kinda evil, but no, GMO foods are not inherently evil or bad for you and are, in fact, the best way forward in feeding all these people we have. This NY Times piece is rightfully on the side of GMOs as a safe food source. All the terrible patent-related stuff is a wholly different issue.
- sampo 12y ago
  There are also patented non-GMO varieties, so the patent argument is not really relevant in GMO discussion.

kerny 12y ago

Monsanto - the creator and producer of Agent Orange is responsible for suffering and deaths of millions of people. In China and Vietnam, hundreds of people are born with serious health issues even to these days. GMO are created with barbaric methods with unknown long term effects on human or environment. AFAIK, GMO are created by infecting DNA with a virus and mixing 'terminator' genes to be sure, that species won't have offspring. Now, please somebody tell me, why should I trust the very same company, that was manufacturing Agent Orange, with my food. Monsanto officially stated that: "reliable scientific evidence indicates that Agent Orange is not the cause of serious long-term health effects". Now, they are saying that GMO poses no risk to health or environment. Thanks, no but thanks.

DanBC 12y ago
Monsanto are evil. But even Monsanto are giving away licences to grow their yellow rice - it's free for farmers earning less than $10,000 per year. The rice doesn't have terminator genes and Monsanto have said that seed collection and re-sowing is allowed for free. And it's not just Monsanto calling the yellow rice safe. Plenty of other studies have shown it to be safe.
coroutines 12y ago
I'm very skeptical of Monsanto being the only reason "hundreds of people" are born with serious health issues in China and Vietnam. Anyway, the reason I don't take anti-GMO people very seriously is I get the same vibes from the anti-vaccination sort. Refusing to ingest GMO food is perfectly acceptable if you're worried about the health concerns, I would happily welcome more study - I just have trouble believing these crops pose a direct risks to humans. We don't worry about blood-borne diseases from plants. As I understand it, plant DNA is incompatible with our own. I'm not a scientist but I'm pretty sure what they modify can't modify us. I would worry about environmental impact - how these crops affect soil acidity or something else. I want to stand with the anti-GMO people but it just comes off as blind fear. I'll support study of long-term effects but not much else ~

memracom 12y ago

The problem with GMO is that growers want to keep it secret. They are not proud of what they are doing and do not want to label their products as GMO. They believe that we, the consumers, are stupid and need to be protected by big brother (Communist party central planning committee) because we are not capable of making our own decisions. But we do not want that. We believe in honesty, openness and freedom of choice. And if this means that it takes 10 generations to weed out the good parts of GMO from the bad, then so be it. Nobody has to guarantee anybody else obscene profits from some clever idea. Most clever ideas are not that beneficial to the market, and therefore they either fade away or they fill some obscure niche which is less lucrative and glamorous than the founders had expected. So be it! That is actually true capitalism and true market forces. Recently Elon Musk announced a home battery product that could actually cause the end of nuclear and the dominance of solar power generation. It came about, not through some central committee deciding what is good for us, but through pure capitalism and entrepreneurial spirit. And that is good. So put a prominent label on any products containing GMO, and explain what you have in there and why it is good. The people will decide because that is their right. The right to make informed decisions is more important than any other right, because there is no liberty when your decisions are manipulated or when the rich and powerful keep you in ignorance and confusion.

jqm 12y ago

Like many things, I suspect many people are against the idea of GMO food _in principal_. In practice, most of the people who are against in principal will have no problem eating a Twinkie that has GMO wheat in it so long as everyone else is eating one too.