5 ms·

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 GM

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.
- ScottBurson 12y ago
  The debate is ongoing. For example: http://www.nature.com/news/widely-used-herbicide-linked-to-cancer-1.17181 http://www.nature.com/news/widely-used-herbicide-linked-to-c... For the time being, I plan to do my best to avoid the stuff.
  - tptacek 12y ago
    Here's another source: http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-carcinogenicity-classification-of-five-pesticides-by-the-international-agency-for-research-on-cancer-iarc/ http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-carcino... A couple other important things to note: 1. The 2A classification is based on things like mouse models; epidemiological studies --- which have been done, on people with exceptional exposure to glyphosate --- don't support it. 2. There are a lot of 2A carcinogens that you're exposed to far more routinely. For instance, do you also avoid potatoes? Acrylamide for-sure causes human cancer. I guess my point with #2 here is that the IARC classifications give a misleading sense of the precision involved here: there is no direct causal link between human cancer and glyphosate, but many of the 2A carcinogens are simply known to be cancer-causers.
    - daeken 12y ago
      The biggest thing that focusing on the IARC classification misses is this: the dose makes the poison. I will gladly have a gram of a known carcinogen if I know that I'll need 10 tons of the substance to increase my risk of cancer substantially. We simply can't know anything about this without knowing 1) what we're exposed to (realistically), and 2) what the actual risks are. Given the observed results, it evidently can't be too terrible.
  - DanBC 12y ago
    They aren't talking about the glyphosate you eat when you eat food from a non-organic farm. They're talking about the glyphosate you breathe in, year after year, when you're a worker on that non-organic farm handling glyphosate without proper safety equipment.
  - deleted 12y ago
randomdata 12y ago
> 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. For what it is worth, I grow non-GMO soybeans and they still often get sprayed with glyphosate towards the end of the growing cycle in addition to a host of other chemicals earlier in the season. Not being roundup ready doesn't mean no roundup.
- ScottBurson 12y ago
  Fair enough, but my understanding is that the quantities of glyphosate sprayed on Roundup Ready crops tends to be much larger.
sb057 12y ago
Relating to Roundup Ready crops: http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/why-does-monsanto-sue-farmers-who-save-seeds.aspx http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/why-does-monsanto-su... Straight from Monsanto's mouth: they sue farmers who replant Monsanto seeds. If you buy Monsanto's seeds, you are not allowed to plant the seed from those crops. Otherwise Monsanto will sue. Why? As they explain, verbatim: 1) no business can survive without being paid for its product 2) the loss of this revenue would hinder our ability to invest in research and development to create new products to help farmers. We currently invest over $2.6 million per day to develop and bring new products to market. 3) it would be unfair to the farmers that honor their agreements to let others get away with getting it for free. Farming, like any other business, is competitive and farmers need a level playing field. I'll let you make your own conclusions, but... 1) Seed-sellers have survived hundreds of years without repayment each year. 2) Monsanto currently pulls in around $10 million dollars per day in profit, meaning that such an investment hit would not exactly hurt their bottom line. 3) This is dependent on the practice being a constructive one.
- lbenes 12y ago
  I don't think the issue with Monsanto is how they're paid, I think it's what modifications they make. If a company makes golden rice, insect resistant crops, or adds nitro-fixing genes, I have no issue with the being rewarded for their effort. The real problem with Monsanto is that the business is based on turning or farmland into a barren wasteland that can only grow their crops. Roundup is carcingenic to human[1], killing the monarch butterfly[2], and the monoculture practices it encourages is causing massive soil erosion in our nation's farm belt. [3] Without grasses or other groundcover, erosion is certain. [1] http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/roundup-ingredient-probably-carcinogenic-humans/ http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/roundup-ingredient-proba... [2] http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/01/monarch_butterfly_decline_monsanto_s_roundup_is_killing_milkweed.html http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/201... [3] http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2006/03/slow-insidious-soil-erosion-threatens-human-health-and-welfare http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2006/03/slow-insidious-s...
  - sampo 12y ago
archimedespi 12y ago
I agree with you emphatically, except for one point: > what could be dangerous about removing an enzyme? Tons of things - you don't necessarily know that there's not some other cell process that depends on it.
- ScottBurson 12y ago
  That's true, and I'm not saying we shouldn't still be careful and do some testing, but I certainly won't be surprised if it turns out there's no cause for concern with the non-browning apples.
thaumasiotes 12y ago
> what could be dangerous about removing an enzyme? You might stop being able to process some raw material in your diet into a more useful form, giving you a deficiency disease. The absence of the enzyme might mean that a toxic substance in the same food stays toxic, poisoning you. All kinds of different stuff. It's like asking "what harm could come from removing a line of code?"
wdr1 12y ago
> (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.) Why do there have to be laws? Kosher food isn't handled by federal inspectors. Why should GMO labeling? Listen, if a bunch of people want to get together, found an organization for a GMO-free labeling, and you can choose to only buy products that go through that inspection process, go nuts. I have no problem with that. But if you're saying you want to take my money, my tax dollars, to do something based on anti-science lunacy, excuse my french, but no fucking way.
- coldtea 12y ago
  >Kosher food isn't handled by federal inspectors. Why should GMO labeling? Because corporations would sell cyanide labeled as children food if it was allowed and they could make a profit out of it. In fact, even with laws, they frequently break them worldwide, lowering quality inspections below standards, etc. >to do something based on anti-science lunacy, excuse my french, but no fucking way. Well, if the majority asks for it, fucking way. Besides, with all the big tobacco sponsored research in the 50's to 70's, one could be led believe that "scientifically" smoke is good for you too. It's neither empirical nor scientific to believe that scientists don't lie, and facts can't be distorted to sell stuff to huge markets. It doesn't have to be some big conspiracy, after all scientists working in the field have an inherent bias to consider the stuff that gives them a paycheck as "safe". "Thalidomide? Sure, it's great, release it already".
  - wdr1 12y ago
    > Well, if the majority asks for it, fucking way. Besides, with all the big tobacco sponsored research in the 50's to 70's, one could be led believe that "scientifically" smoke is good for you too. > It's neither empirical nor scientific to believe that scientists don't lie, and facts can't be distorted to sell stuff to huge markets. It doesn't have to be some big conspiracy, after all scientists working in the field have an inherent bias to consider the stuff that gives them a paycheck as "safe". "Thalidomide? Sure, it's great, release it already". This is the same "you can't trust scientists" rhetoric from climate change deniers. Please show me peer reviewed evidence that GMO are dangers & we can talk. Until then, I'm simply point to the MOUNTAIN of peer review evidence saying they don't.

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.

ScottBurson 12y ago
The debate is ongoing. For example: http://www.nature.com/news/widely-used-herbicide-linked-to-cancer-1.17181 http://www.nature.com/news/widely-used-herbicide-linked-to-c... For the time being, I plan to do my best to avoid the stuff.
- tptacek 12y ago
  Here's another source: http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-carcinogenicity-classification-of-five-pesticides-by-the-international-agency-for-research-on-cancer-iarc/ http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-carcino... A couple other important things to note: 1. The 2A classification is based on things like mouse models; epidemiological studies --- which have been done, on people with exceptional exposure to glyphosate --- don't support it. 2. There are a lot of 2A carcinogens that you're exposed to far more routinely. For instance, do you also avoid potatoes? Acrylamide for-sure causes human cancer. I guess my point with #2 here is that the IARC classifications give a misleading sense of the precision involved here: there is no direct causal link between human cancer and glyphosate, but many of the 2A carcinogens are simply known to be cancer-causers.
  - daeken 12y ago
    The biggest thing that focusing on the IARC classification misses is this: the dose makes the poison. I will gladly have a gram of a known carcinogen if I know that I'll need 10 tons of the substance to increase my risk of cancer substantially. We simply can't know anything about this without knowing 1) what we're exposed to (realistically), and 2) what the actual risks are. Given the observed results, it evidently can't be too terrible.
- DanBC 12y ago
  They aren't talking about the glyphosate you eat when you eat food from a non-organic farm. They're talking about the glyphosate you breathe in, year after year, when you're a worker on that non-organic farm handling glyphosate without proper safety equipment.
- deleted 12y ago

randomdata 12y ago

> 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. For what it is worth, I grow non-GMO soybeans and they still often get sprayed with glyphosate towards the end of the growing cycle in addition to a host of other chemicals earlier in the season. Not being roundup ready doesn't mean no roundup.

ScottBurson 12y ago
Fair enough, but my understanding is that the quantities of glyphosate sprayed on Roundup Ready crops tends to be much larger.

sb057 12y ago

Relating to Roundup Ready crops: http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/why-does-monsanto-sue-farmers-who-save-seeds.aspx http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/why-does-monsanto-su... Straight from Monsanto's mouth: they sue farmers who replant Monsanto seeds. If you buy Monsanto's seeds, you are not allowed to plant the seed from those crops. Otherwise Monsanto will sue. Why? As they explain, verbatim: 1) no business can survive without being paid for its product 2) the loss of this revenue would hinder our ability to invest in research and development to create new products to help farmers. We currently invest over $2.6 million per day to develop and bring new products to market. 3) it would be unfair to the farmers that honor their agreements to let others get away with getting it for free. Farming, like any other business, is competitive and farmers need a level playing field. I'll let you make your own conclusions, but... 1) Seed-sellers have survived hundreds of years without repayment each year. 2) Monsanto currently pulls in around $10 million dollars per day in profit, meaning that such an investment hit would not exactly hurt their bottom line. 3) This is dependent on the practice being a constructive one.

lbenes 12y ago
I don't think the issue with Monsanto is how they're paid, I think it's what modifications they make. If a company makes golden rice, insect resistant crops, or adds nitro-fixing genes, I have no issue with the being rewarded for their effort. The real problem with Monsanto is that the business is based on turning or farmland into a barren wasteland that can only grow their crops. Roundup is carcingenic to human[1], killing the monarch butterfly[2], and the monoculture practices it encourages is causing massive soil erosion in our nation's farm belt. [3] Without grasses or other groundcover, erosion is certain. [1] http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/roundup-ingredient-probably-carcinogenic-humans/ http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/roundup-ingredient-proba... [2] http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/01/monarch_butterfly_decline_monsanto_s_roundup_is_killing_milkweed.html http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/201... [3] http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2006/03/slow-insidious-soil-erosion-threatens-human-health-and-welfare http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2006/03/slow-insidious-s...
- sampo 12y ago

archimedespi 12y ago

I agree with you emphatically, except for one point: > what could be dangerous about removing an enzyme? Tons of things - you don't necessarily know that there's not some other cell process that depends on it.

ScottBurson 12y ago
That's true, and I'm not saying we shouldn't still be careful and do some testing, but I certainly won't be surprised if it turns out there's no cause for concern with the non-browning apples.

thaumasiotes 12y ago

> what could be dangerous about removing an enzyme? You might stop being able to process some raw material in your diet into a more useful form, giving you a deficiency disease. The absence of the enzyme might mean that a toxic substance in the same food stays toxic, poisoning you. All kinds of different stuff. It's like asking "what harm could come from removing a line of code?"

wdr1 12y ago

> (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.) Why do there have to be laws? Kosher food isn't handled by federal inspectors. Why should GMO labeling? Listen, if a bunch of people want to get together, found an organization for a GMO-free labeling, and you can choose to only buy products that go through that inspection process, go nuts. I have no problem with that. But if you're saying you want to take my money, my tax dollars, to do something based on anti-science lunacy, excuse my french, but no fucking way.

coldtea 12y ago
>Kosher food isn't handled by federal inspectors. Why should GMO labeling? Because corporations would sell cyanide labeled as children food if it was allowed and they could make a profit out of it. In fact, even with laws, they frequently break them worldwide, lowering quality inspections below standards, etc. >to do something based on anti-science lunacy, excuse my french, but no fucking way. Well, if the majority asks for it, fucking way. Besides, with all the big tobacco sponsored research in the 50's to 70's, one could be led believe that "scientifically" smoke is good for you too. It's neither empirical nor scientific to believe that scientists don't lie, and facts can't be distorted to sell stuff to huge markets. It doesn't have to be some big conspiracy, after all scientists working in the field have an inherent bias to consider the stuff that gives them a paycheck as "safe". "Thalidomide? Sure, it's great, release it already".
- wdr1 12y ago
  > Well, if the majority asks for it, fucking way. Besides, with all the big tobacco sponsored research in the 50's to 70's, one could be led believe that "scientifically" smoke is good for you too. > It's neither empirical nor scientific to believe that scientists don't lie, and facts can't be distorted to sell stuff to huge markets. It doesn't have to be some big conspiracy, after all scientists working in the field have an inherent bias to consider the stuff that gives them a paycheck as "safe". "Thalidomide? Sure, it's great, release it already". This is the same "you can't trust scientists" rhetoric from climate change deniers. Please show me peer reviewed evidence that GMO are dangers & we can talk. Until then, I'm simply point to the MOUNTAIN of peer review evidence saying they don't.