If you yawned your way through science class back in school, you're not alone. American students have lagged in the science department for years, with fourth and eighth graders recently placing eleventh among international peers. While this is often framed in terms of an inability to compete in the global marketplace, it has another insidious effect: ignorance when it comes to scientific issues that have great social and environmental impacts, leaving us vulnerable to questionable science. What if, while we were sleeping through class, a well-meaning but ethically compromised teacher received funding to conduct dangerous experiments in our presence, feed us the results, and dump the toxic byproducts in the river next to the school?
That's kind of the state of industrial agriculture, according to a new paper, "The Genetic Engineering of Food and the Failure of Science" (full text available for download here) published in this month's issue of The International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food, and our future food supply is on the line, not to mention our health. The sharp-witted Bonnie Powell of The Ethicurean blogged about the report yesterday.
Even Bonnie's post is a little dense for a lay person, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand the three terrifying "red flags" of GMO foods identified by Lotter's paper, which she breaks into digestible bullets and that I'll chew up a little more for you:
And in April 2008, as Lotter writes, 400 agricultural scientists and experts in 57 nations signed a United Nations-sponsored document known as the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development. The IAASTD's final report criticized the "Green Revolution" style of capital-intensive, high-environmental impact, technology- and yield-centered approach of agriculture and recommended that developing nations base their future food production around local and regionally derived sustainable and agro-ecological strategies. Not GMOs.
As we followed here with interest, Monsanto and Syngenta -- the two biotechnology-industry representatives in the IAASTD discussions, who were initially enthusiastic about convening a food production strategy agreement for developing countries -- took their balls and went home in January 2008, when it was clear that nobody at the IASSTD was interested in playing their game anymore. The United States, Canada, and Australia did not sign the agreement.
And yet, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack continues to push the biotech agenda abroad and in the U.S. Senate, with a proposed Global Food Security Bill that would mandate GMO research funds as part of foreign food aid. Such requirements could trap farmers in the Global South in a system of dependence on multinational corporations for seeds they might otherwise have saved, and force them to buy chemicals year after year that strip their soil of minerals and pollute their water.
The second half of Lotter's study, Academic Capitalism and the Loss of Scientific Integrity, chronicles the questionable circumstances under which GMO technology was given the green light. He details the effects of "the large-scale restructuring of university science programs in the past 25 years from a model based on non-proprietary science for the 'public good' to the 'academic capitalism' model." He goes on to describe how dependence on corporate dollars corrupted science to do its bidding with "deficient scientific protocols, bias, and possible fraud in industry-sponsored and industry-conducted research; increasing politically and commercially driven manipulation of science within federal regulatory bodies such as the FDA; and bias in the peer-review process, tolerance by the scientific community of biotechnology industry manipulation of the information environment, and of biased treatment and harassment of non-compliant scientists."
The fact that so many of our government agency employees have worked for the very corporations they are now supposed to regulate, in the areas they govern and that so many officials have received campaign donations from these same corporations could account for their tendency to rely on this dubious research, but perhaps the reason so many of them continue to ride this precarious bandwagon is that they're not so great at science, either. Genetic modification is hard to wrap your head around.
One would think, however, that the big-brained folks at the Gates Foundation would have no problem understanding the science behind biotech and the potential problems with it, but if the government and academics are on the bandwagon and Monsanto is behind the wheel, Gates is definitely pitching in for gas with grants to the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA). What gives? Lotter and Powell both allude, in terms of America's acceptance of this dubiously tested technology, to our belief, as a culture, in science and innovation, and who stands for innovation more than Gates?
But bearing in mind that we are talking about our ecology, our health and our global food supply -- not really the kind of stuff we want to leave to chance -- we would likely do well to follow the example of our European counterparts, who, as Powell points out, have "tended to operate according to the precautionary principle essentially expressed as 'better safe than sorry.'"
In the end, Lotter says that he's not exclusively anti-GMOs, and whether this stance is meant to temper the rocking of the academic boat (a doctor of agroecology, Lotter has taught for years within the system he's bucking, and is not on a tenure track) or a genuine desire to call back only the most grievously dangerous of these technologies, it makes sense not to throw out the baby with the proverbial bathwater. But I would encourage consumers (and Gates, and government agencies) to err on the side of caution as well, and to entertain the idea that real innovation in the food and agriculture world may not be the stuff of spliced genes, petrochemicals and intellectual property but rather a better understanding of the nature of soil and weather and time-tested methods of food production, like compost and worms.
Originally published on The Green Fork.
Follow Leslie Hatfield on Twitter: www.twitter.com/lesliehatfield
Timothy LaSalle: Organic Agriculture Beats Biotech at its Own Game
The organic community may eventually be open to biotech crops if long-term, independent studies show there are no ecological or human health impacts. Before then, why risk it?
Cities innovate faster as they grow bigger. They create enormous problems, but they also create solutions faster. Cities seem to know how to get out of their own way.
Richard Chin: New Momentum on Malaria
Synthetic biology is a brand new area of biotechnology. The goal is to use genetic engineering technology to build brand new biological machines and processes de novo. It's an area that has tremendous potential.
Jeffrey Smith: Lyme/Autism Group Blasts Genetically Modified Foods as Dangerous
Stop eating dangerous genetically modified foods! That's the upshot of the Lyme Induced Autism (LIA) Foundation's position paper released today.
it seems to me that what we have been doing with our technology, from increased agricultural output to better preventive medicines for children, is to increase the baseline of the world population. Every time we come up with a way to seemingly improve the lot of mankind, the Earth's population increases to the point that the new technology is used to allow more billions of people to live at the level of bare subsistence. It seems to me until we stabilise the total population on this planet, new technologies end up increasing the total number of humans, rather than increasing the standard of living per individual.
One very interesting article in Scientific American magazine on the invention of the process for fixing nitrogen for use as a fertiliser, in the early 20th century, stated that before that same invention, global agricultural production was incapable of supporting more than 2 billion people on this planet. That one invention by a German Jewish scientist about 90 years ago was one of the things that made possible the continued explosion in population during the last century. If the population had not exploded, there would be no problem providing all the food that everyone could possibly desire.
"Advanced technology belongs in the alternative fuel arena."
Why? Because you think that if you burn this stuff it never gets into the environment? That's not even compatible with the arguments you made yourself. It for sure does not pass muster if you apply trivial energetics arguments which almost completely eliminate the usefulness of biofuels.
Who said anything about biofuels? Solar, wind, - yes. MAYBE algae, The point is it is OK to feed strange things to machines, but I would rather not conduct experiments (ie GMOs) on the entire human race.
Tom
Roy Mankovitz, Director
www.MontecitoWellness.com
I am wondering where the idea comes from that we are exceeding the "carrying capacity" of the planet. How do you define "carrying capacity"? How many planets did you study to arrive at empirical conclusions? May I assume that you only have studied one and that this one is carrying the human race quite nicely, so far? So if that's the case, how does one arrive at your conclusion by applying the scientific method?
What motivates you to say that we have no ways to avoid dumping toxic substances completely? It's certainly not chemistry. Where we do release toxins it's not because we have to but because we want to, usually because it is cheaper not to clean up.
The claim that feedlot animals can stand in as clinical trial subjects for humans is ridiculous, certainly to those who know how clinical trials are being conducted in reality.
Please specify which pandemics we are looking at that supposedly will wipe out humanity. As of now we are growing strong and it's unlikely that we will stop growing until 2100, by which time there will be about 11-12 billion of us. It will take at least another century to shrink the number of humans significantly. By which time it is the year 2200... and one wonders how many of the predictions made in 1800 about the early 21st century have come true...
Regarding toxins, if you are not aware of the studies showing the huge worldwide buildup of human-made environmental toxins in the human body, use Google scholar to pull up the studies.
Regarding the health effects on animals and humans from GM foods, see Genetic Roulette by Jeffrey Smith and http://www.seedsofdeception.com .
Regarding future pandemics, take the swine flu as a recent example, and mutate it a few times. Repeat as necessary to get the desired result.
If you think this planet is carrying the human race quite nicely, we clearly do not share the same view of reality.
Hi I'm Don Lotter, the author of the GMO food paper(s) under discussion. Re: the link to the paper. The publisher just reorganized its web site and changed the links (bad timing). The papers are linked on my web site www.donlotter.net
The paper is actually two papers: Genetically Engineered Food and the Failure of Science:
Part 1: The Development of a Flawed Enterprise;
Part 2: Academic Capitalism and the Loss of Scientific Integrity
If you want an easier overview, watch my Google Video talk at
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2991479474331181055&ei=eDzzSazKMp3YqAPu-uH9Ag&q=lotter+genetically+engineered
or do a search on Google Video for "lotter genetically engineered"
I am posting more comments elsewhere on this page, re: comments that the paper is "speculative" and "poorly written".
We would be much better served by following true organic practices (not government approved, warped "organic" practises) wherein all the systems are inter-related and inter-dependant (kind of like the real world). Some commentators claim the author is crying wolf, it is more likely she is understating the issues, and focused on the more innocuous problems that a Monsanto controlled food supply will bring.
Tom
You can, by the way, follow any practice you like as long as it does not violate food safety. Worst case you are not allowed to sell your produce. That does not mean you can't eat it yourself.
Advanced technology belongs in the alternative fuel arena. Not in my dinner. Our first efforts have been disastrous failures (CAFOs, the plagues of obesity and high blood pressure). The first results from GMOs look worse. Organic, integrated farming is the only proven method for a sustainable, reliable food supply. So that should be the direction we move things.
It just seems an unwise area to be mucking around in. Kind of like fouling your only planet with CO2 and methane. Oh, wait, we are doing that. Darn.
Tom
I support biotech (and work in the field), because I believe that science and technology are our best hope to make major inroads on serious global problems like hunger. Though scientific advances take time, and we need to be patient and not paint with such a broad brush. I'm all for worms and compost, but I'm just not sure we can fight this holocaust with that alone.
Hunger is not caused by the fact that there isn't enough food in the world. It stems from creating a market around food, meaning only those with money have access to this fundamental human need. And if there weren't enough food, biotech would not be the answer to feeding more people as our population grows. This is simple: If what they were growing was edible, and not just the fodder for cheap marbled meat, ethanol and corn syrup, it still hasn't proven to yield any better in trials compared to organic.
Besides all this, it lends itself to environmental destruction, as run-off from biotech crops create dead zones in our waterways, and pest resistance causes more pesticides to be used. You see, the issue is far more complicated than it seems on the surface, and than these biotech companies want you to understand.
Why would pest-resistance cause the use of MORE pesticides? Pest resistant crop needs less, ideally no pesticides. Do you mean resistance of pests against pesticides? Well, that's one of the reasons why genetically modified crops are being developed to begin with... on the face of it your argument seems to be the wrong way around. But maybe I just don't understand.
I agree with you that we are eating too much meat, we make too much corn syrup and, yes, we would have enough food for everyone, we just don't share it. But none of that has to do with GMO crop. All of it existed decades before we even had control over genes.
We won't solve world hunger with the western diet that's killing us in droves and degrading our environment--it's not a problem of production but of distribution, and misallocation of resources. If The Gates Foundation and Jeffrey Sachs were truly forward thinking they'd be throwing their weight behind non-profits like Rodale instead of Monsanto and Syngenta. As Leslie rightly notes, the Green Revolution was a sham. What we need, to quote Slow Food USA's president Josh Viertel, is a "leafy green revolution," i.e. the kind of agriculture that encourages biodiversity and the production of fruits and vegetables, not fodder for fast food. The kind of biotech commodity crops advocated by Monsanto, Sachs, et. al. are a problem, not a solution. Thanks to Bonnie, Leslie, Paula and all the others who are working to get the word out about this.
No, we won't. It's still better to die from having too much bacon than from not having any. That's an empirical fact. So much so that one has to ask if those who are doubting it had to go hungry even once in their life.
While I understand your fear of the new (and that's mostly what reflects in your choice of language which lacks science content but is full with rhetorical devices that are trying to intimidate), the main damage is being done by perfectly conventional methods of farming. I know, I know, that's not exciting to write about. And yet, it's the soybean for our pigs that makes the Amazon disappear, not the genetic modification of some crops.
Also, this report by the UN Conference on Trade and Development, referenced in this Rodale article http://www.rodale.com/organic-farming-and-food-security
.
There are also many studies that debunk the myth that GMO technology creates greater yield. See the Union of Concerned Scientists' report http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/science/failure-to-yield.html
Also, Monsanto is a funder of Jeffrey Sach's nonprofit.
The way it's been done in the vast majority of the past required four farmers to keep a non-farmer alive. In good times. In bad times it took ten for one. Since we have left those historic times behind, agriculture has never, not even for one generation, been done the same way.
The abstract of the first article says nothing about the use of modern crop... or modern tilling methods. It says nothing about water... and it's not even clear to me that it says anything about GM crops. What is says is that we might be able to get away from the synthetic nitrogen fertilizer... More importantly, it seems to compare "organic versus conventional or low-intensive food production". The key word here is "low intensity", meaning that they are not looking at the high intensity production methods which we use to satisfy our demand for meat... The authors only claim that we could, potentially "sustain" the current or a slightly larger world population at the current level of consumption. The truth is that the world population will still increase by 50% AND most people will demand higher consumption levels, which would go far beyond the findings of this article if I interpret the language these scientists use correctly.
Now about GMO and yield... the way I understand GMO, it's not even about yield. It's about using less water, less fertilizer, less fertile land, less herbicides, less fungicides and less insecticides... so are we talking about a strawman here?
I understand where you are going, but there is just not enough substance there to actually get there.
I suggest folks read Robert Paarlberg's book Starved for Science. He, along with Nobel Laureate Norman Borlaug and former President Jimmy Carter give a very convincing case for agriculture biotechnology, particularly for those in the developing world. I wouldn't classify these folks as extreme. Indeed, it would be good to hear more about this from farmers.
My papers (it is actually two papers, see my recent posting) have over 100 references each, most of them from scientific journals, that document the enormous flaws in the transgenic foods process and products.
Which of those scientific works to you think is "speculative" Mr. Able? (I can't bring myself to write the "Honest" part of your name.) Is it UK scientist Latham's paper in the Journal of Biomedicine and Biotechnology in which he reviews the quite stunning evidence that the process of genetic engineering of plants causes mutations all over the plant genome, resulting in novel proteins being produced which have never been in the mammalian digestive system?
Or how about Dr. Arpaud Pusztai's paper in the the Lancet, considered the top medical journal in the world, documenting the serious health problems in test rats fed transgenic potatoes (precancerous cell growth in the digestive tract; inhibited development of the brain, liver, and testicles; the development partial atrophy of the liver, enlarged pancreas and intestines).
Which specific parts of the papers are "fallacies"?
I rewrote each of those papers over 20 times and I would challenge anyone to call them poorly written. Nearly all reviewers have said they are very well-written.