Biotech FAIL: Bad Science, Worse Faith and Superweeds
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:
- the introduction of "novel proteins created by accident in transgenic foods" (leading to food allergies and toxicity, and nearly impossible for consumers to guard against because GM foods aren't labeled in this country)
- "the horizontal transfer of transgenes to other organisms" (the animal equivilant of cross-pollination of GM seeds, which Powell points out has not been studied in the long term)
- environmental side effects including breeding insects and other organisms with greater resistance to pesticides, new superweeds, and contaminated soil and water
So what's the benefit? Monsanto, by far the world's leading proponent of GMOs, is currently spending millions to convince consumers that they are the only way to feed the world's growing population. The company repeatedly returns to its holy grail, the so-called Green Revolution, which supposedly solved hunger in India. But in fact, just last year, the farce of the Green Revolution was severely criticized by scientists and experts from 57 other countries. More from Bonnie:
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.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Now that his thread has come to a grinding halt, I would like to finish by saying that I am greatly disappointed about the people attacking GMO research and business practice. They have not been able to make their case. This is VERY distressing as there are very good reasons to be worried about GMO and to lobby government for a strict regulatory framework. Sadly, the showing of the anti-GMO lobby here was merely one of fear and loathing, not one of scientifically informed opinion and success guided political activism.
I happen to believe that this is a very important subject, and that there is much more to say about it than can be discussed in a short blog. However...
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.
Kill the Messenger says:
"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
My comment was meant in connection with GMO biofuels. I don't believe in any of this stuff. Ordinary silicon is three times as efficient as the theoretical limit of photosynthesis. No need for biological Rube Goldberg machines of any kind. We already know how to make useful energy from photons BETTER than nature.
GM Frankenfoods will solve the world hunger problem over the next few generations, but not in the way you would expect. As a research scientist and author of several books on health, it is apparent to me and others that the current human population far exceeds the planet’s carrying capacity by at least double. Feeding the population is only part of the problem. There is no safe place left to dump the toxic wastes we generate, and we are beginning to drown in our own effluent. From the research on the effects of GM foods on animals (illness and failure to reproduce) , it is just a matter of time until humans will feel the same effects of eating this junk- susceptibility to illnesses (such as pandemics) for which there are no cures (already happening), low sperm count in men and infertility in women (already happening). The resulting increase in death rate and decrease in birth rate will speed up the process used by nature to deal with other species that exceed their environment – a path toward extinction. No, Virginia, technology will not come to the rescue this time. We have pushed Nature too far to fix it. If you would like to increase your chances of being one of those still standing, I suggest following Nature’s eating plan now (no, it is not vegetarianism, which is totally unsustainable). Read my book “The Original Diet – The Omnivore’s Solution” .
Roy Mankovitz, Director
www.Montec
Roy,
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 carrying capacity, read any of the books by Prof. Garrett Hardin or Prof. Albert Bartlett. Here is a teaser website: http://www
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
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.
I don't think there are to many people, but the power elite do, and thats why they are pushing this poison. Do you think they eat this junk? of course not, its just for the slave of the planet, the useless eaters. If you think there are too many people, then why don't you go ahead and commit suicide? I didn't think so. How about letting some of the free energy technology out, so we stop poisoning the planet with toxic, outdated technology?
NEW LINK FOR GM FOODS PAPER BELOW
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.donlot
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://vid
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".
The attack on our food supply is insidious. At this moment the use of petroleum to create corn, with which we poison our beef and ourselves (read the Omnivore's Dilemma) is the single biggest risk. But GMO is poised to cause much more serious problems, not the least of which is that the seeds are "intellectual property" and don't reproduce. So on top of all the other issues, you have the risk of one company (Monsanto - not exactly a warm fuzzy company) controlling the feedstock for humanity.
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
That seed don't reproduce is already the case with modern conventional varieties. You don't need genetics for that. Moreover..
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.
It appears you completely miss the point. If the governments of the world consider that GMOs don't violate food safety (and don't even allow labeling, like the US), then our food supply will be contaminated and we will have few options other than to grow all of our own food.
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
Thousands of people die every day because of hunger. If put into any other context, we'd look at hunger as a holocaust. We should all be outraged.
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.
See Paula Crossfield's Profile
I'm afraid, dsheon, that you are mistaken in your assumption.
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.
What is run-off from biotech crops? I know about run-off from farms. Makes sense. I know about run-off from farms that produce biotech crops. Makes sense. What I do not know is how I get run-off from these crops themselves.
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.
Science and technology have a place in sustainable agriculture, too. There's a lot more to it than worms and compost. Check out the Rodale Institute's revolutionary no-till roller/crimper machine http://www
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.
"We won't solve world hunger with the western diet that's killing us in droves"
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.
Errr... we have already plowed two and a half continents under for the sake of our agriculture and are in the middle of finishing the rest of the world the same way. No need for biotech. Tractors and ordinary farming techniques will do nicely.
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.
Take a look at this month's National Geographic if you'd like to read something thoughtful and informed about our food supply and the role GMOs can play. Or read Common Wealth by Jeffrey Sachs, a Clinton economist. If you're so convinced that GMOs don't hold any promise for feeding the world's growing population, show us your data on how we're going to do it.
See Leslie Hatfield's Profile
I guess we do it the way we've always done it. And there is data out there on how organic agriculture can feed the world -- look to Cambridge here http://jou
Also, this report by the UN Conference on Trade and Development, referenced in this Rodale article http://www
.
There are also many studies that debunk the myth that GMO technology creates greater yield. See the Union of Concerned Scientists' report http://www
Also, Monsanto is a funder of Jeffrey Sach's nonprofit.
"I guess we do it the way we've always done it."
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
The second source does not contain enough detail to tell if there is a catch (and there usually is a catch...). I would like to see more details and primary research.
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 insecticid
I understand where you are going, but there is just not enough substance there to actually get there.
I work with many in the biotech field.
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.
Hmmm. Leslie, I like you and I like your generally objective coverage of environmental issues---generally. But I read through Lotter's so-called "paper" and it seems largely speculative and, frankly, poorly written. Is he any more credible than the data from the corporate/
Hi I'm Don Lotter, the author of the paper under discussion. I must say right off that Mr. "HonestAble"'s post has all the markings of a spin doctor. Dismissing a work by using terminology like "so-called 'paper'" "poorly written" and "speculative" is one of those markings.
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.
Look at the plu code if it starts with an 8 it's genetically modified don't buy it.
Rubbish. Prove it!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
