Genetically Modified Organisms

[---]

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6152/1320.full

Standing Up for GMOs
Bruce Alberts, Roger Beachy, David Baulcombe, Gunter Blobel, Swapan Datta, Nina Fedoroff, Donald Kennedy, Gurdev S. Khush, Jim Peacock, Martin Rees, Phillip Sharp

On 8 August 2013, vandals destroyed a Philippine “Golden Rice” field trial. Officials and staff of the Philippine Department of Agriculture that conduct rice tests for the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) and the Philippine Rice Research Institute (PhilRice) had gathered for a peaceful dialogue. They were taken by surprise when protesters invaded the compound, overwhelmed police and village security, and trampled the rice. Billed as an uprising of farmers, the destruction was actually carried out by protesters trucked in overnight in a dozen jeepneys.

The global scientific community has condemned the wanton destruction of these field trials, gathering thousands of supporting signatures in a matter of days.* If ever there was a clear-cut cause for outrage, it is the concerted campaign by Greenpeace and other nongovernmental organizations, as well as by individuals, against Golden Rice. Golden Rice is a strain that is genetically modified by molecular techniques (and therefore labeled a genetically modified organism or GMO) to produce β-carotene, a precursor of vitamin A. Vitamin A is an essential component of the light-absorbing molecule rhodopsin in the eye. Severe vitamin A deficiency results in blindness, and half of the roughly half-million children who are blinded by it die within a year. Vitamin A deficiency also compromises immune system function, exacerbating many kinds of illnesses. It is a disease of poverty and poor diet, responsible for 1.9 to 2.8 million preventable deaths annually, mostly of children under 5 years old and women.†

Rice is the major dietary staple for almost half of humanity, but white rice grains lack vitamin A. Research scientists Ingo Potrykus and Peter Beyer and their teams developed a rice variety whose grains accumulate β-carotene. It took them, in collaboration with IRRI, 25 years to develop and test varieties that express sufficient quantities of the precursor that a few ounces of cooked rice can provide enough β-carotene to eliminate the morbidity and mortality of vitamin A deficiency.‡ It took time, as well, to obtain the right to distribute Golden Rice seeds, which contain patented molecular constructs, free of charge to resource-poor farmers.

The rice has been ready for farmers to use since the turn of the 21st century, yet it is still not available to them. Escalating requirements for testing have stalled its release for more than a decade. IRRI and PhilRice continue to patiently conduct the required field tests with Golden Rice, despite the fact that these tests are driven by fears of “potential” hazards, with no evidence of actual hazards. Introduced into commercial production over 17 years ago, GM crops have had an exemplary safety record. And precisely because they benefit farmers, the environment, and consumers, GM crops have been adopted faster than any other agricultural advance in the history of humanity.

New technologies often evoke rumors of hazard. These generally fade with time when, as in this case, no real hazards emerge. But the anti-GMO fever still burns brightly, fanned by electronic gossip and well-organized fear-mongering that profits some individuals and organizations. We, and the thousands of other scientists who have signed the statement of protest, stand together in staunch opposition to the violent destruction of required tests on valuable advances such as Golden Rice that have the potential to save millions of impoverished fellow humans from needless suffering and death.

[---]

Great article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/05/us/on ... wanted=all

[Green Habit]

Very well said. I have very little tolerance for the anti-GMO crowd when this technology has helped plenty already, and holds so much potential for even more help.

Penn and Teller absolutely nailed it when they declared Norman Borlaug to be the "greatest human being".

[---]

Very well said. I have very little tolerance for the anti-GMO crowd when this technology has helped plenty already, and holds so much potential for even more help.

Penn and Teller absolutely nailed it when they declared Norman Borlaug to be the "greatest human being".

Yeah, that's a great clip.

This was my favorite quote from the Times article:

Scientists, who have come to rely on liberals in political battles over stem-cell research, climate change and the teaching of evolution, have been dismayed to find themselves at odds with their traditional allies on this issue. Some compare the hostility to G.M.O.s to the rejection of climate-change science, except with liberal opponents instead of conservative ones.

Libs love to pretend to be unequivocally pro-science, but they're no different than conservatives in that they're only pro-science insofar as scientific conclusions comport with their political priors. Politics really is the worst.

[Green Habit]

This was my favorite quote from the Times article:

Scientists, who have come to rely on liberals in political battles over stem-cell research, climate change and the teaching of evolution, have been dismayed to find themselves at odds with their traditional allies on this issue. Some compare the hostility to G.M.O.s to the rejection of climate-change science, except with liberal opponents instead of conservative ones.

Libs love to pretend to be unequivocally pro-science, but they're no different than conservatives in that they're only pro-science insofar as scientific conclusions comport with their political priors. Politics really is the worst.

Yep. This is why I've come to strongly believe that scientific research alone is insufficient to form good public policy. For example, we could drastically improve many environmental measures by imposing strict limits on population, but it would result in laws that most would find morally dubious. Everyone needs to realize the tradeoffs involved, and understand that a democratic majority may not come on the side of the tradeoff that you are on.

[stip]

This was my favorite quote from the Times article:

Scientists, who have come to rely on liberals in political battles over stem-cell research, climate change and the teaching of evolution, have been dismayed to find themselves at odds with their traditional allies on this issue. Some compare the hostility to G.M.O.s to the rejection of climate-change science, except with liberal opponents instead of conservative ones.

Libs love to pretend to be unequivocally pro-science, but they're no different than conservatives in that they're only pro-science insofar as scientific conclusions comport with their political priors. Politics really is the worst.

Yep. This is why I've come to strongly believe that scientific research alone is insufficient to form good public policy. For example, we could drastically improve many environmental measures by imposing strict limits on population, but it would result in laws that most would find morally dubious. Everyone needs to realize the tradeoffs involved, and understand that a democratic majority may not come on the side of the tradeoff that you are on.

The 'liberal opposition' to GMOs (which I don't really share) should be understood as anti-corporate, not anti-science. It's an important distinction.

take a look at the website for the Center for American Progress, for instance, which is a pretty major liberal advocacy/think tank group. There isn't a single mention of GMO's as an issue. And their site dials down pretty deep (pay inequality in STEM jobs makes the cut). It's a niche issue, similar to the anti-nuclear crowd. Just a fairly well publicized one. Part of that is because so many food issues easily blur together.

http://www.americanprogress.org/


and yes, GH, scientific analysis is value neutral, and ALL policy decisions are normative. Science can answer questions. It cannot tell you if the answer is good or not.

[Man in Black]

This was my favorite quote from the Times article:

Scientists, who have come to rely on liberals in political battles over stem-cell research, climate change and the teaching of evolution, have been dismayed to find themselves at odds with their traditional allies on this issue. Some compare the hostility to G.M.O.s to the rejection of climate-change science, except with liberal opponents instead of conservative ones.

Libs love to pretend to be unequivocally pro-science, but they're no different than conservatives in that they're only pro-science insofar as scientific conclusions comport with their political priors. Politics really is the worst.

Yep. This is why I've come to strongly believe that scientific research alone is insufficient to form good public policy. For example, we could drastically improve many environmental measures by imposing strict limits on population, but it would result in laws that most would find morally dubious. Everyone needs to realize the tradeoffs involved, and understand that a democratic majority may not come on the side of the tradeoff that you are on.

The 'liberal opposition' to GMOs (which I don't really share) should be understood as anti-corporate, not anti-science. It's an important distinction.

take a look at the website for the Center for American Progress, for instance, which is a pretty major liberal advocacy/think tank group. There isn't a single mention of GMO's as an issue. And their site dials down pretty deep (pay inequality in STEM jobs makes the cut). It's a niche issue, similar to the anti-nuclear crowd. Just a fairly well publicized one. Part of that is because so many food issues easily blur together.

http://www.americanprogress.org/


and yes, GH, scientific analysis is value neutral, and ALL policy decisions are normative. Science can answer questions. It cannot tell you if the answer is good or not.

It was the nutty left that started the anti-vax movement also.

Stip, get your people in line.

[stip]

It says a lot about your cause when your chief spokespeople are Jenny McCarthy and Michelle bachman

[Green Habit]

The 'liberal opposition' to GMOs (which I don't really share) should be understood as anti-corporate, not anti-science. It's an important distinction.

It's not really an important distinction to me. I don't care if it's Monsanto that develops the advances as long as it gets developed.

take a look at the website for the Center for American Progress, for instance, which is a pretty major liberal advocacy/think tank group. There isn't a single mention of GMO's as an issue. And their site dials down pretty deep (pay inequality in STEM jobs makes the cut). It's a niche issue, similar to the anti-nuclear crowd. Just a fairly well publicized one. Part of that is because so many food issues easily blur together.

http://www.americanprogress.org/

Yeah, in fairness this isn't yet a plank for any major political party. It has, however, popped up as an issue through misguided initiatives due to the high publicity. California voted down one in 2012, and Oregon did in 2002 while I was in college there (it was interesting being a gadfly in that debate that year).

[stip]

I'm sure for some the opposition is aesthetic, but the fact that Monsanto is developing the technology is significant for many/most of the opposition. There's a belief that test results are rigged, that risks are minimized by the gov't due to political influence, a concern about a corporation (esp one with their history both in terms of business practices and obfuscating risk) being able to create patents on life and control the food supply. The fact that this is happening in a climate with things like ag-gag bills and so much corporate opposition to environmental initiatives (separate issues but it's easy to see how one colors the other) only enhances the suspicion.

[Green Habit]

I'm sure for some the opposition is aesthetic, but the fact that Monsanto is developing the technology is significant for many/most of the opposition. There's a belief that test results are rigged, that risks are minimized by the gov't due to political influence, a concern about a corporation (esp one with their history both in terms of business practices and obfuscating risk) being able to create patents on life and control the food supply. The fact that this is happening in a climate with things like ag-gag bills and so much corporate opposition to environmental initiatives (separate issues but it's easy to see how one colors the other) only enhances the suspicion.

The patent issue is a concern of mine, but not really any more or less than any other excessive patent of copyright regime that's out there. What sticks in my craw the most, however, is that there's an inherent sense of danger in GMOs when I've yet to see any credible results to back that up.

[malice]

I read an incredibly bad novel about GMOs a few weeks ago. the preface included a rather paranoid warning about the dangers of GMOs and how they've already been working their way into the food we eat...
I should have stopped reading there

[stip]

I'm sure for some the opposition is aesthetic, but the fact that Monsanto is developing the technology is significant for many/most of the opposition. There's a belief that test results are rigged, that risks are minimized by the gov't due to political influence, a concern about a corporation (esp one with their history both in terms of business practices and obfuscating risk) being able to create patents on life and control the food supply. The fact that this is happening in a climate with things like ag-gag bills and so much corporate opposition to environmental initiatives (separate issues but it's easy to see how one colors the other) only enhances the suspicion.

The patent issue is a concern of mine, but not really any more or less than any other excessive patent of copyright regime that's out there. What sticks in my craw the most, however, is that there's an inherent sense of danger in GMOs when I've yet to see any credible results to back that up.

the next time I read something I'll post it here if there are any links to data. I tend to skip those articles when I come over them in my travels but I'll keep an eye out.

To be clear, you are separating this from things like injecting animals with growth hormones, correct?

[Green Habit]

To be clear, you are separating this from things like injecting animals with growth hormones, correct?

Yes.

[broken iris]

To be fair, Golden Rice is not exactly the same kinda GMO as "Round-Up Ready" crops.

[stip]

To be fair, Golden Rice is not exactly the same kinda GMO as "Round-Up Ready" crops.

No, but it is easy to sweep them all up in the same net, and if you're suspicious of the parent organization/corporation sponsoring the work it isn't surprising your guard would be up

[broken iris]

To be fair, Golden Rice is not exactly the same kinda GMO as "Round-Up Ready" crops.

No, but it is easy to sweep them all up in the same net, and if you're suspicious of the parent organization/corporation sponsoring the work it isn't surprising your guard would be up

No question. Especially if that company (allegedly) were the private investors that recently purchased mercenary contractor Blackwater.

[NaiveAndTrue]

I haven't seen anyone offer a solution for feeding 7 billion people without GM crops. How would you sustain our population on just small local organic farms? Ever by organic food? It's moldy before it makes it home. . .

[Green Habit]

I haven't seen anyone offer a solution for feeding 7 billion people without GM crops. How would you sustain our population on just small local organic farms? Ever by organic food? It's moldy before it makes it home. . .

Borlaug makes the same argument in that video. He says that the planet could only sustain 4 billion.

[stip]

I bet there is a very high correlation between support for bike paths and opposition to GMOs.