Tag Archives: GMOs

Replacing the Top Banana

11 Thursday Jan 2018

Posted by in Agriculture, Biotechnology

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Almost all “dessert bananas” consumed in the U.S. are of one variety: the Cavendish. Dessert bananas are consumed raw, as opposed to “cooking bananas”, or plantains. This post by Steve Savage on his Applied Mythology blog provides some history of the commercial banana and the reasons why the market is dominated by a single banana cultivar. Many other cultivars exist across the globe, but there are sound economic reasons for the dominance of the Cavendish. For starters, people like them!

Incredibly, bananas became one of the early modern fruit staples, available at an affordable price at all times of the year, even in the dead of winter far from the hospitable growing conditions of the tropics. At that time, the dominant banana variety was the Gros Michel, but it fell victim to a fungus called Panama Wilt in the 1950s (still, populations of the Gros Michel survive today). The Cavendish proved to be an excellent replacement, though banana enthusiasts claim that it is inferior to the Gros Michel. Nevertheless, the Cavendish has reigned as the “top banana” in international commerce ever since. Now, however, the Cavendish is threatened by a relatively new strain of the same fungus that ravaged the Gros Michel. The impact so far has been felt mainly in Asia, but it is expected to spread.

This vulnerability has led to criticism of the industry’s reliance on the Cavendish as an example of “extreme monoculture”. Savage regards this as uninformed. He acknowledges the wide diversity of banana cultivars around the globe, but he asserts that the critics do not have a sound understanding of the highly-calibrated economics of growing, transporting, ripening and delivering bananas at the optimal point in the ripening process. The Cavendish meets the requirements of that process far better than the many other varieties, so its long-time dominance in export markets reflects rational decision-making:

“First of all, a banana for export has to be seedless. Many wild bananas have large, very hard black seeds – not something that has much consumer appeal. …“

By the way, seedless bananas (or rather, bananas with tiny, undeveloped seeds) are not GMOs, as the term is popularly understood. Domestication of the banana began several thousand years ago as early farmers selectively bred those plants producing the most desirable fruit for consumption: less seeds and more pulp. Savage goes on:

“Next, the banana needs to be productive in terms of overall yield per tree or acre. … The usable per-hectare yields of the Cavendish variety are quite high, and that is why it has been a both economically viable and environmentally sustainable choice for a long time. …

But probably the most limiting requirement for a banana variety to be commercially acceptable is that it has to be shippable. … Very few of the wonderful range of cultivated or wild banana types could ever do that, but because the Cavendish can be shipped this way, the energy and carbon footprint of its shipment is small. This crop has a very attractive ‘food-miles’ profile.“

In addition, Savage explains that the ripening process must be manageable and predictable. For all of these reasons, the Cavendish (and the Gros Michel in its time) has been an ideal choice in international commerce.

There are many potential solutions to the new challenge faced by the Cavendish, but they may or may not be able to provide a viable replacement before the new fungus presents a full-fledged crisis. You can learn about some of these alternatives at the Bananas.org forumoron other industry sites. For one thing, the Cavendish has shown to be protected from the fungus when grown in mixed plantations with papaya and coffee. In Taiwan, Cavendish bananas have been bred to resist the fungus. Other varieties are grown in central America and the Caribbean, including a surviving Gros Michel population, though it’s doubtful that it could survive the new fungus. There is also the so-called Apple Banana and the Berry Banana. While a greater variety of banana choices would be welcome to consumers, it is not clear how well these exotic bananas would meet the requirements of growers, shippers, grocers and consumers, and at a price that balances the interests of all parties.

There might also be a role for biotechnology in the effort to replace the Cavendish. Genetic engineering (GE) is a promising avenue through which disease-resistant varieties might be created, as it has with the papaya in Hawaii. It is also possible for GE to enhance the nutritional quality of crops. However, you can bet that food activists will condemn any attempt to leverage GE in banana farming.

Junk Science Malignancy

07 Thursday Apr 2016

Posted by in genetic engineering, Technology

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A retracted 2012 study purporting to show that genetically modified (GMO) corn causes cancer was not recently vindicated by French courts. A few publications lacking minimal journalistic standards have made that false claim. There was a favorable ruling in a libel suit brought by Gilles-Eric Séralini, author of the study, but it did not vindicate his sloppy research in any way. The court simply agreed that the defendant could not prove that Séralini had committed fraud. In the U.S., proof of malice by the defendant would have been required for a libel verdict, but not in France. In any case, the ruling did not address the scientific validity of  Séralini’s research, only that it was not willfully fraudulent. Courts do not serve as arbiters of scientific validity.

The study itself was awful. Details can be found here. Séralini used rats that were bred to develop cancer with an extremely high incidence (70% – 80% lifetime); he tested different groups of these rats with varying amounts of GMO corn and Roundup pesticide. The small samples he used meant that the tests had very low statistical power. There were suspicious aspects of the study that might or might not have been cleared up with sufficient disclosure, and there was even contradictory evidence within the study itself, as would be expected with so much statistical noise. Séralini’s efforts to publicize the paper didn’t help his reputation in the scientific community. He made some exaggerated claims, and though he might have believed them, he was clearly interested in making a big splash.

The paper received overwhelming criticism in the scientific community. It was retracted by the journal that originally published it, but later it was republished in a low-quality journal without peer review. This study was not the first piece of Séralini research to be harshly criticized by his peers. Here are comments from the blog of respected horticulturist Kevin Folta, who does not mince words:

“It boils down to this– if these data were significant, if the experiments were good, and the interpretations sound, this would not be buried in the depths of a crappy journal. If there was hard evidence that our food supply truly caused tumors, it would be on the New England Journal of Medicine, Science, Nature, or maybe Cell if he wanted to go slumming. But it’s not there. It is in a tiny, obscure journal that has quite a visible agenda, and that’s the only thing visible about it.

And that’s where it belongs. Let him have his day in the sun. History will not remember him for his science. It will remember him as a disgraceful hack that let personal agenda affect adoption of safe scientific technology. He’ll be the guy that fooled millions with low-quality data.

It is very sad, because I’d rather be writing blogs about exciting science and new findings. Instead we’re back to this nonsense. Luckily, it will slowly disappear into time, like Puzstai’s lectins, Huber’s mystery organism, and the rest of the alarmist junk never published or never reproduced.“

An issue that has been thorny for GMO advocates is the erroneous conflation of GMOs with glyphosate (Roundup is one brand). Séralini’s work focused on glyphosate-resistant GMOs, and his treatments involved the administration of glyphosate to rats in varying quantities, but publicity surrounding the study gave the impression that his “findings” applied more generally to GMOs. Glyphosate resistant plants were an early product of the GMO technology, but most GMO plants have nothing to do with glyphosate. Instead, they confer benefits such as nutritional superiority, drought resistance, pest resistance, disease resistance, and improved environmental consequences of agriculture. The variety of problems that can be addressed with GMOs is staggering.

The safety of GMOs is well established in the plant science literature. Use the box above to search Sacred Cow Chips for “GMO” or “genetic” to find earlier posts in which I have addressed GMO safety at greater length. A recent article from Andrew Porterfield of the Genetic Literacy Project addresses some aspects of this literature and on long-term animal feeding studies, which have demonstrated the safety of GMOs.

A petition in support of GMO technology signed by over 1,400 plant science experts is linked in this article in Science Daily. Three of the authors of the petition are affiliated with The Donald Danforth Plant Science Center in Creve Coeur, Missouri, not far from my home.  The petition vouches for the safety of GMOs and their promise in meeting the world’s demand for food.

Note: the infographic at the top of this post is from the Biology Fortified blog.

 

The Gains From Traits: GMOs Bring Welfare Gains

08 Friday Jan 2016

Posted by in Biotechnology

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

GMO-Right Genes
For about 30 years I have injected analog human insulin, produced by GMO E. coli bacteria, directly into my tissue. And I feel great, as do many other Type I diabetics who benefit from the advance this offers over earlier insulins made with pork and beef insulin crystals. Quite simply, I have the wrong genes. Those bad genes enabled my immune system to destroy the insulin-producing cells I needed to stay alive. At first, that necessitated the use of a faulty substitute, but later, an organism was created in a lab with the right gene to produce the powerful analog insulin I use now.

There are many other genetically-engineered pharmaceutical products on the market today, and more are coming. Julie Kelly discusses some of these developments in “The March of Genetic Food Progress” (if gated, Google “wsj Julie Kelly Genetic”). One in particular is an egg laid by a GM chicken that treats:

“… a rare and potentially fatal disorder called lysosomal acid lipase deficiency. The chicken… produces eggs with an enzyme that replaces a faulty human enzyme, addressing the underlying cause of the disease.“

She also writes of GM piglets that resist a viral respiratory disease. Her article mentions a few promising new GMOs foods in the pipeline. In a Sacred Cow Chips post in July 2015, “Nice Splice: New & Old GMO Varieties Blossom“, I quoted William Saletan on a large number of new GMOs, which I repeat here:

“… drought-tolerant corn, virus-resistant plums, non-browning apples, potatoes with fewer natural toxins [and fewer carcinogens when fried], and soybeans that produce less saturated fat. … virus-resistant beans, heat-tolerant sugarcane, salt-tolerant wheat, disease-resistant cassava, high-iron rice, and cotton that requires less nitrogen fertilizer. … high-calcium carrots, antioxidant tomatoes, nonallergenic nuts, bacteria-resistant oranges, water-conserving wheat, corn and cassava loaded with extra nutrients, and a flaxlike plant that produces the healthy oil formerly available only in fish.“

GMO foods enhance farm productivity, reduce waste, conserve land, improve the environment and provide better nutrition. They offer solutions to a variety of human problems that are otherwise out-of-reach.

Anti-GMO activists have smeared all of these GMO crops and even GM insulin as unsafe, but they base their claims on shoddy “research” or willful misinterpretation of research. To scare-monger people with diseases like diabetes is repugnant. Decades of experience have proven the safety of modern insulin products. Those negative claims about insulin arose from a paper reviewed here, which had a different research purpose and did not even mention GMO-produced insulin.

GMOs have been in the food supply to some extent for over 25 years. There is no shortage of high-quality, independent, peer-reviewed research proving the safety of GMOs in various contexts, including multi-generational studies for GMO animal feeds. Here is a review of GMO safety and environmental research funded by the EU. Another review of 10 years of safety research found that:

“The scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazards directly connected with the use of genetically engineered crops.”

An excellent post by Marc Brazeau on the Biology Fortified blog, “About Those Industry Funded GMO Studies“, covers a variety of research demonstrating GMO safety for humans, livestock, honey bees, and invertebrates. As the title suggests, Brazeau also probes the question of financial or professional conflict of interest, industry funding and their alleged impact on GMO research. Favorable GMO research is often condemned by activists on this basis. The “industry shill” argument is often invoked by activists to dismiss positive results regardless of the experimental rigor involved. Brazeau reviews some research on these questions, and notes the following:

“… where compositional studies are concerned … the company has already performed in-house studies. They are contracting independent scientists to confirm their findings. This is going to skew the results of the sample towards industry favorable study outcomes. This doesn’t mean the studies were suspect. They were just more likely to result in a favorable outcome to begin with. If the in-house study had an unfavorable outcome in compositional assessment or other tests, then that project would be stopped and it’s back to the drawing board for a new project. There is no need for follow up testing by outside independent researchers. That’s a big reason why so many studies … will produce favorable results.“

I highly recommend the GMO Skepti-Forum on Facebook as a site on which informed (and usually civil) debate takes place on GMOs. Many of the discussants are scientists actively involved in GMO research. It’s a go-to location for me when investigating on-line memes that reference GMO research.

Finally, Robert Wenzel posts some thoughts regarding “Libertarianism and GMOs“. His position on GMOs mirrors my own. He asserts that individuals have a choice about whether to consume GMOs; they are capable of finding alternatives without imposing restrictions the behavior of others who wish to avail themselves of the benefits or are unconcerned about alleged risks. In fact, the benefits often include affordability and safety. Wenzel argues that this position is consistent with the non-aggression principle, the philosophical anchor of Libertarianism.

Some libertarians object to Wenzel’s defense of biotechnology based on the crony capitalism that undoubtedly benefits the biotech industry, as well as his opposition to GMO labelling. There are certainly ties between the large biotech firms and regulators, but that is no reason to condemn the technology. Labelling proponents start from the faulty premise that there is something inherently harmful about consuming GMOs. Their solution is to impose costs on others, while they are already free to purchase their food from purveyors who offer non-GMO assurances. Hence, the argument that forced labelling represents a form of aggression.

 

Haunted By Food Demons

03 Wednesday Jun 2015

Posted by in Biotechnology

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

dr-jekyll gmo Glyphosate herbicide usage (as in Roundup) in the U.S. has increased dramatically over the last two decades, replacing the use of far more toxic herbicides on many crops. That’s one of the major points in a post at The Credible Hulk blog entitled “About those more caustic herbicides that glyphosate helped replace“. The increased use of glyphosate corresponded to heavier reliance on glyphosate-tolerant strains of genetically-engineered crops. The author provides charts and other details on the changing use of a number of different herbicides both over time and across crop varieties.

“… the purpose of this [post] is to show that when opponents of GE technology and of glyphosate claim that GR crops are bad on the grounds that they increased glyphosate use, they are leaving out critical information that would be highly inconvenient for their narrative.“

The use of insect-resistant GE crops has also been associated with a declines in total pesticide use. [The links above are all given in The Credible Hulk post].

There is a great deal of distortion prompted by certain interest groups who oppose the use of synthetic herbicides and insecticides and GMOs. Irrational fears among consumers are inflamed by this sort of propaganda. This post and this post give farmers’ perspectives on some of the misinformation with respect to glyphosate. No, farmer’s do not “drench” their crops with glyphosate prior to harvest. That claim is pure hyperbole.

It’s also important to note that organic crops are not free of treatments. So-called organic pesticides are often just as toxic as synthetic pesticides, and they are often used in heavier quantities. Furthermore, organic foods carry undeniable health risks to consumers. A balanced view must acknowledge the benefits of crop treatments to consumers (whether the treatments are organic or nonorganic), that residues on produce in the U.S. are minimal, that safety still dictates that consumers wash their produce, and that consumers deserve a free choice between crops grown conventionally or organically.

Precaution Forbids Your Rewards

19 Thursday Feb 2015

Posted by in Regulation

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

health-and-safety-cartoon

The precautionary principle (PP) is often used to justify actions that radically infringe on liberty, but it is an unreliable guide to managing risk, both for society and for individuals. Warren Meyer makes this point forcefully in a recent post entitled “A Unified Theory of Poor Risk Management“. The whole post is worth reading, but PP is the focus of second section. Meyer offers the following definition of the PP from Wikipedia:

“The precautionary principle or precautionary approach to risk management states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is not harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking an action.”

He goes on to explain several problems with PP, the most important of which is its one-sided emphasis on the risks of an activity while dismissing prospective benefits of any kind. Enough said! That shortcoming immediately disqualifies PP as a guide to action. Rather, it justifies  compulsion to not act, which is usually the desired outcome when PP is invoked. We are told to stop burning fossil fuels because CO2 emissions might lead to catastrophic global warming. Yet burning fossil fuels brings enormous benefits to humanity, including real environmental benefits. We are told to stop the cultivation of GMOs because of perceived risks, yet the potential benefits of GMOs are routinely ignored, such as higher yields, improved nutrition, drought resistance and reduced environmental damage. Meyer asks whether there is an irony in ignoring these potential gains, as it entails an acceptance of certain risks. Forced energy shortages would bring widespread economic decline. Less-developed countries face risks of continuing poverty and malnutrition that could otherwise be mitigated.

The terrifying risks cited by PP adherents are generally not well-founded. For example, climate models based on CO2 forcings have extremely poor track records. And whether such hypothetical warming would be costly or beneficial, on balance, is open to debate. The supposed risks of GMOs are largely based on pseudoscience and ignore a vast body of evidence of their safety. As Meyer says:

“… the principle is inherently anti-progress. The proposition requires that folks who want to introduce new innovations must prove a negative, and it is very hard to prove a negative — how do I prove there are no invisible aliens in my closet who may come out and eat me someday, and how can I possibly get a scientific consensus to this fact? As a result, by merely expressing that one ‘suspects’ a risk (note there is no need listed for proof or justification of this suspicion), any advance may be stopped cold. Had we followed such a principle consistently, we would still all be subsistence farmers, vassals to our feudal lord.”

The PP has obvious appeal to statists and fits comfortably into the philosophy of the regulatory state. But it’s a reasonable conjecture that widespread application of the PP exposes the world to greater natural and economic risks than without the PP. Under laissez-faire capitalism, human action is guided by the rational balancing of benefits against costs and risks, which has brought prosperity everywhere it’s been practiced.

The EU Opts For Agro-Federalism

14 Wednesday Jan 2015

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

MOHR-europe-law

An opinion piece by Matt Ridley in The Times (UK) alerted me to the European Union’s imminent decision to allow member states to adopt their own rules regarding the planting and cultivation of genetically modified crops. The measure was approved overwhelmingly by the EU Parliament today. The talking points released by the EU emphasize that a member country can ban a GM crop even if it has been approved by the EU’s food safety authority. And the rules state:

“While cultivation is recognised to be an issue with strong national or local dimensions, current EU legislation on GMOs offers limited possibilities to Member State to decide on GMO cultivation on their territory.”

It is likely that the additional flexibility for members to impose their own bans will lead to more flexibility in the process of authorizing new varieties at the centralized level. Contrary to much of the reporting offered by Greens, who would have us believe that GE crops are all but prohibited in Europe, there are many varieties of GE crops that are already authorized by the EU. If you don’t believe it, this database may convince you.

Ridley provides an interesting account of the politicking that led to the legislation. Among EU members, the UK and Spain are the most eager to expand cultivation of GE crops, while other nations supported the measure since it seems to enhance their own sovereignty on an important agricultural issue. Nevertheless, critics of the legislation complain that it is poorly worded. Greens are unhappy because they see it as an entry for GE crops through the “back-door.” One biotech group complained that the law allows members to ban GE crops on “non-scientific grounds.”

Ridley also emphasizes some changes in thinking among traditional opponents of GE in Europe. The Greens are aware that the use of pesticides might be curtailed by the use of GE varieties. The yield-challenged organic movement also has much to gain via adoption of GE crops, and Ridley points out the inherent fallacy at the root of their past opposition:

“Ironically, the organic movement happily uses crops whose genetic material has been modified in a much less careful way — by gamma rays or chemical mutagens — for these are categorised as ‘conventional’ crops and lightly regulated. Golden Promise barley, used by organic brewers, for example, was made in a nuclear reactor.”

Federalism is a good way to promote the union of sovereign entities with disparate views on a range of issues, such as agricultural practices. However, sustaining a federalist approach requires a determination to restrain central government bureaucrats and busy-bodies who cannot control their urges to control others. For the good of humanity, let’s hope the EU can succeed in this instance.

Down On The Organic Farm

24 Monday Nov 2014

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

spaghetti tree

Organic agriculture is a low-yield alternative to conventional agriculture, despite some claims to the contrary and counter to assertions that organic farming can “feed the world.” The inferiorities of organic techniques were described last week by Henry I. Miller and Richard Cornett:

“The low yields of organic agriculture–typically 20%-50% percent lower than conventional agriculture–impose various stresses on farmland and especially on water consumption. A British meta-analysis published in the Journal of Environmental Management (2012) addressed the question whether organic farming reduces environmental impacts. It identified some of the stresses that were higher in organic, as opposed to conventional, agriculture: ‘ammonia emissions, nitrogen leaching and nitrous oxide emissions per product unit were higher from organic systems,’ as were ‘land use, eutrophication potential and acidification potential per product unit.’”

Organic production is also more soil disruptive, which leads to greater erosion and run-off, to say nothing of the pathogens introduced by heavy application of composted animal and sometimes human waste (the video on sewage treatment at this link is very interesting). Also, as the article notes, we have known for a couple of years that organics are not necessarily more nutritious than produce grown conventionally.

Organic food should always remain a viable choice for consumers should they insist on organic standards and are willing to pay the cost. However, the conceit that the world can be fed using organic agricultural techniques (like the trope that only organic farming is “sustainable”) is nothing less than cruel naivete. Given the low yields typical of organic farming, such an effort would imply a massive increase in land use, require major investment in the development of water supplies in many regions, and increase food costs to consumers. And it would fail to take advantage of biotechnology technology that can help crops withstand drought, reduce blight, reduce pesticide use, and bring important nutritional advantages. As the great Norman Borlaug would have insisted, to feed the world’s 9 billion mouths, organic farming cannot hope to compete with high-yield agriculture.

Taleb’s Crock Pot: Whip Statistical Theory and Rhetoric To a Fine Agitprop

29 Wednesday Oct 2014

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

scary-crockpot

Nassim Taleb, a well-known statistical theorist, and two coauthors (a physicist and a philosopher) have written a working paper in which they purport to show that GMO’s should be banned worldwide lest we flirt with complete ruination, quite possibly the end of humanity. The paper may come to represent sacred writ to anti-GMO activists, as it seems to imply that their position is supported by statistical theory. Ultimately, the paper merely uses statistical theory in the service of rhetoric. It relies on a series of ill-defined dichotomies that the authors use to classify genetic plant engineering into the most “ruinous” category of processes. Among other things, GE is categorized by the authors as a “top-down” technology, it creates global risks and systemic risks, it involves interconnected factors, it is irreversible, its outcomes can be characterized by a probability distribution with “fat tails,” its true risks are “unknowable,” and (worst of all?) it is “human-made,” as opposed to a natural process devoid of human intervention. Perhaps the last condition is meant only to classify processes into the so-called “precautionary approach” to policy assessment, rather than “standard risk management,” but it may reveal something significant about the predisposition of the authors toward human technological endeavors.

The statistical theory presented by the authors is fine, as far as it goes. I have admired some of Taleb’s earlier work, such as Fooled By Randomness, which sought to demonstrate the irrationality of assigning likelihood or even meaning to chance events. Taleb achieved real stardom following the publication of The Black Swan, which warned of severe “outlier” events so rare that they cannot be predicted or even assigned probabilities by humans. The true risks are “unknowable.” Applied work involving “fat-tailed” distributions of possible outcomes, which characterize a wide range of phenomena, is typically supported by prior experience or data, but that is not possible with “ruinous” black swans. Perhaps “extremely long- and fat-tailed” is more descriptive of distributions giving rise to black swans, but of course the extreme outcomes might not be observable ex post.

Taleb, et al, contend that development and cultivation of GMOs carry risks of a black swan ecocide. “Significant” risks? Wait, that involves statistical precision… and data! “Excessive” risks? That implies measurability of one sort or another, not to mention a coherent tradeoff of some kind. “Any” risk of a certain qualitative nature (as defined by the “precautionary approach,” with possible ruin on any time scale)? Of course, the authors are not biologists, agronomists, or geneticists (neither am I), but they claim to have sufficient knowledge to make this judgment:

“Ecologically, in addition to intentional cultivation, GMOs have the propensity to spread uncontrollably, and thus their risks cannot be localized. The cross-breeding of wild-type plants with genetically modified ones prevents their disentangling, leading to irreversible system-wide effects with unknown downsides.” [emphasis added]

The article contains a comparison of GMOs to nuclear energy risks, which seems intended to defuse criticism that the authors are simply Luddites. They express guarded optimism that nuclear power-generating risks are “local” in nature, and that problems associated with long-term storage of nuclear wastes are manageable. Clearly, however, those risks are just as “unknowable” as those associated with GMOs. We might add to the list of dangerous human endeavors all research and development of artificial intelligence. After all, a complete ban on AI research would prevent the coming singularity, when we’ll otherwise be lorded over by ruthless, self-serving machines! On a less sarcastic note, I do not discount the possibility of a singularity, but we have the luxury of some time to develop AI in a cautious way, just as we have time to minimize risks in the continuing development and application of GE.

Here is a subset of the many assertions made by Taleb, et al in support of their view:

  • GMOs have the propensity to spread uncontrollably.
  • Healthwise, the modification of crops “impacts” everyone.
  • GMO risks are associated with “fragility” (essentially increasing costs).
  • GMOs imply monocultures.
  • GMOs are qualitatively dissimilar to selectively-bred crop varieties.
  • Selective breeding does not remove crops from their evolutionary context.
  • GMOs remove crops from their evolutionary context.
  • The ecological implications of releasing modified organisms into the wild are not tested empirically before release.
  • The health effects of GMOs have not been tested sufficiently.
  • Incremental varieties of GMOs cause the risk of ecocide to increase.

All of these points are debatable to one extent or another. For example, the common assertion that GMOs promote monocultures reflects a common confusion over GMOs versus adequate crop rotation in mechanized farming. The authors exploit this confusion by linking monocultures and GMOs to reduced genetic diversity (apparently within single crops) and assert that this makes crops more vulnerable to blight, though it is hard to see why this is a foregone conclusion regarding the effects of introducing desirable traits.

More fundamentally, Taleb, et al give short shrift to the idea that there is a risk-reward tradeoff in the use of GMOs, that there are potential benefits and risks of GMO alternatives, and the fact that GMOs do not, in fact, suspend evolutionary processes. If a mutation embodied in a GMO also confers an evolutionary advantage, chances are the mutation will be propagated. If not, the mutation will tend to vanish. This is a safety mechanism provided by nature. Of course, anti-GMO activists seek to conjure images of mad geneticists whipping up monster “Audrey” GMOs with evolutionary advantages, but that is not the character of biotechnology.

Taleb, et al, also wish to equate GMOs with Monsanto. The fact that they are so eager to invoke the company’s name in a negative context within an ostensibly academic paper is a giveaway that the paper is agenda-driven. Monsanto and GMOs are not synonymous, and it is highly misleading to conflate the technology with a single company.

The authors attempt to upstage critics with the choice of the adjective “non-naive” to describe their use of the precautionary principle to guide their policy prescription:

“… it is essential to distinguish the PP so that it is neither used naively to justify any act of caution, nor dismissed by those who wish to court risks for themselves or others. The PP is intended to make decisions that ensure survival when statistical evidence is limited—because it has not had time to show up —by focusing on the adverse effects of ‘absence of evidence.’”

So, they excuse themselves from bringing anything empirical to bear on the issue of GMO risks because, they contend, “unknowability” is the very nature of the risk/ruin problem, despite the fact that evidence supporting GMO safety does exist, in scads!

Here are a few other sources who have commented on the article:

This post on the NeuroLogica blog questions Taleb’s understanding of biology and genetic engineering. The author, Steven Novella, also notes that Taleb, et al, do not assess the risk of alternatives:

“Growing enough food for 7 billion people has consequences, in terms of land use, fertilizer, pesticides, and displacing natural ecosystems. GMO as a technology can potentially add to our efficiency. Banning GMO means relying more heavily on other technologies that may have even more risks.”

In addition, Novella says:

“… Taleb’s arguments to still come down to hyping the risk of unforeseen consequences due to the inherent limits of scientific knowledge. I don’t agree, however, that GMOs have the potential for global ruin. This is still largely based on a naive belief that transgenes are inherently risky, when there is no scientific reason to believe that they are. …  He failed to make a compelling argument that his principle of zero risk should apply to GMO.”

The Motley Fool, generally an admirer of Taleb’s previous work, also believes that he is off-base in the case of GMOs.

David Tribe at the GMO Pundit refutes a couple of assertions made by Taleb, et al. about natural variation and the “track record” of nature as an evaluator of risk.

And at DebunkingDenialism, Emil Karlsson is particularly galled, as he should be, by the comparison the paper makes of the risks of Russian Roulette to GMOs. He writes that Taleb and his coauthors fail to understand basic biology:

“In the end, the authors have clearly demonstrated that they do not care about biology, medicine or rational risk analysis. They have negligible knowledge of molecular biology, plant breeding and genetic engineering. It does not matter how much knowledge they have of statistics. If your model is based on flawed premises, then the application and conclusion of that model is going to be flawed. Garage in, garbage out.”

Taleb, et al have adorned their paper with statistical theory, and they are certainly correct that “unknowable” risks may be ruinous. But their case against GMOs ignores the substantial body of known evidence on GMO safety. They bring absolutely no evidence to bear to the contrary. Their arguments mislead by relying on false premises and arbitrary classifications. Unfortunately, that won’t stop reverent anti-GE crusaders from heralding Taleb’s “proof” that GMOs are ruinous and must be banned.

Precautionary Genocide

22 Wednesday Oct 2014

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

LifeCoachCartoon

The claims of radical food purists, promoters of natural healing, medical skeptics and conspiracy theorists carry a high cost. For an articulate delineation of some major varieties of this sort of hogwash, take a look at “‘What’s The Harm’: The Body Count of Pseudoscience” at The Skeptical Libertarian blog:

“The answer is that the cost of misinformation is too large to ignore. It is real. It is devastating. It is counted in billions of dollars wasted on junk cures, in billions spent on treating preventable diseases. It is measured in lifetimes shortened, bodies crippled, eyes blinded, and children lost.

The costs of medical conspiracy theories and baseless fear-mongering are immense and ghastly. Millions upon millions of people are hurt and killed because [of] them every year. It is a veritable holocaust of ignorance. But it is a holocaust that is still happening, year after year, extinguishing countless of lives that could have been saved by good science, free markets, and sound policy.”

The bogus scientific claims are often simply examples of the precautionary principle gone berserk. Medical and biotechnology that has been proven safe and effective is rejected at the urging of activists whose goals are political, or snake oil salesmen whose goals are pecuniary, while innocents are put at risk. The author(s) of the post linked above cover several areas of pseudoscience worthy of condemnation. Read the whole thing, as they say.

One special topic mentioned in the post is scaremongering related to GMOs, which have demonstrated potential to enhance agricultural productivity and nutrition. That such anti-GMO nonsense can gain any traction with the public and policymakers is a tribute to effective promotion of bad science disguised as legitimate research. The Farmer’s Daughter USA blog has a couple of recent posts on GMO safety worth reading: “Just Ignore Those 2,000+ Studies Showing GMOs are Safe!” and “1 Trillion Meals Later: The GMO Safety Debate Is Over“. From the latter:

“Anti-GMO activists always refer to “scientific” studies done on animals eating genetically modified food with horrid results as proof that biotech isn’t safe. Yet, we have never encountered similar side effects or results in animal agriculture. Unlike the claims of tumors in rats, inflamed pig stomachs, or infertile sheep, animal agriculture has not encountered these problems while feeding their animals GMO feed.

Never.“

Don’t Mind Eating GMOs, But Sure Love Injecting Them

04 Saturday Oct 2014

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

panic_and_hysteria

I have relied upon injections of genetically modified insulin hormone to keep me alive for many years. The benefits of biotechnology for mankind are supported by decades of hard experience and volumes of careful research, and there is no evidence of harm. But that can’t dissuade neo-Luddites in their efforts to foment panicked opposition to genetic modification of crops.

Another GMO horror story has been circulating about an experiment said to have been conducted at a Chinese university in which students were fed Bt rice. The claim is that an outbreak of acute leukemia ensued. This report bears all the all the earmarks of a fraud, right down to the fact that no one on campus seems to have heard about it!

Anti-GMO activists disparage critics for calling attention to the “fringe” character of the outlets promoting their views, or by diminishing opposing claims as “corporate,” when in fact the real problems are that those activists rely on badly designed and executed research and superstitions about technology. Articles about the alleged Chinese GMO experiment make false claims about prior research findings of a link between GMOs and leukemia. In fact, while the authors of that earlier research don’t admit it, their work casts more doubt on the safety of organic Bt pesticides than on GM crops expressing the Bt toxin. In other words, it’s lousy research. See here for further confirmation. This is reminiscent of other flimsy research promoted by the anti-GMO lobby, such as the notoriously bad Serelini study that used, as subjects, rats that had been bred to develop tumors.

Oddly, hysteria over GM crops does not extend to the genetically modified antibodies created to cure diseases like ebola. Synthetic human insulin is made via genetic modification too! Why no opposition? Perhaps because the activists recognize the impressive benefits of the biotechnology in this  context. The potential benefits of GM crops are no less impressive. And despite the best efforts of the anti-GMO lobby, there is no persuasive evidence that GM foods are harmful.