I write this blog to try to add a sobering scientific overlay to topics of frequent discussion. Most attacks on science and scientists are shrugged off because good science always wins. However, by gently addressing dissenting opinions against science, maybe we can accelerate the process.
Today on Facebook I read a post from a friend about the horrors of GM foods. The post was in regard to the fact that Whole Foods Markets and other retailers have dropped hard opposition to the USDA's decision to deregulate transgenic alfalfa. The links provided directed me to an online article by Ronnie Cummings regarding this situation.
The organic foods community is not happy with Whole Foods and their ilk because they have stated that there needs to be coexistence with biotech crops. My guess is that they see that they are losing important credibility. If you are trying to make the claim that your foods are healthier and more sustainable (which they may or may not be), your claims are vacant if you fail to accept science in other issues. It is like the trainer that tells you that you need to exercise daily for fitness, but smoking is good for you too.
Of course, the anti-science madness of the anti-GM folks tears Whole Foods a new one. Cummings article is quite the rant. The second paragraph is quite telling and ironically fun. The first sentence starts out with, "In a cleverly worded, but profoundly misleading email sent to its customers last week" and then goes on to use clever words to profoundly mislead. Let's look at a few examples.
Beyond the regulatory euphemism of "conditional deregulation," this means that WFM and their colleagues are willing to go along with the massive planting of a chemical and energy-intensive GE perennial crop, alfalfa;
Ok, first point. The GE alfalfa is no more chemical and/or energy intensive than the conventional crop. Many independent studies from all over the world show that transgenic crops lead to profoundly less use of insecticides and herbicides (see Tomorrow's Table, Pam Ronald for good citations and clear explanation). We continue,
guaranteed to spread its mutant genes and seeds across the nation;
That's quite a guarantee! First of all, these are not mutants. Mutation provides the basis of all of the genetic variation we see and benefit from. Even those organic crops are loaded with mutations, they have to be. Furthermore, they are the products of human intervention in the breeding process, where man has deliberately crossed plants to capitalize on those mutations.
guaranteed to contaminate the alfalfa fed to organic animals
So? Is there any evidence that this is harmful? Nope.
guaranteed to lead to massive poisoning of farm workers
Again, quite a guarantee. And study after study reflect the low toxicity of glyphosate, especially compared to other conventional herbicides. PubMed that one on your own.
and destruction of the essential soil food web ...
and it continues. Cummings also states:
In exchange for a new assault on farmworkers and rural communities (a recent large-scale Swedish study found that spraying Roundup doubles farm workers' and rural residents' risk of getting cancer)
I wasted 30 minutes of my life that I will never get back trying to find this recent Swedish study. I wish these folks would cite their references better. All I found was one report from 1999 from Hardell and Erikson in the journal Cancer that showed a correlation between glyphosate and non-Hodgkins Lymphoma. That study was the last of the kind, and no follow-ups were presented. Twelve years later the stuff seems to be getting safer?
Could the anti-science types be distorting facts? Yep. I guess one lone 1999 study is "recent" in geological time.
One of the other ways you know that the anti-GMO interests are scientifically bankrupt and simply parroting a party line comes if you google large chunks of their rhetoric. Try this one from Cummings' article...
Roundup devastates essential soil microorganisms that provide plant nutrition and sequester climate-destabilizing greenhouse gases
How many hits? 1400. 1400 verbatim cut-and-pastes from one thoughtless anti-GMO rant to the next. Seems like this is a lifted phrase that pops up again and again as one lemming plagiarizes the previous one. It also was in the Facebook post. Where does it come from?
Most of the anti-GMO pieces citing this alleged factoid say it was a "recent study". So, once again I go to PubMed and put in "glyphosate" and "climate". I tried "Roundup" and "climate". I could not find a single report, even in obscure low-impact journals, that presented any data regarding this claim.
Could the anti-GMO folks be lying again? Maybe. I certainly may have missed something here, but I don't think so.
The most clear problem with the anti-GMO argument is that they want to have it both ways, and Cummings' work is a perfect example. Here he expounds gloriously on the hazards of transgenic crops and their attendant herbicides. He tells how dangerous they are, how "recent" studies clearly demonstrate their dangers. He also "guarantees' they will "contaminate" everything, based on his knowledge of corn, soy and cotton that are almost 100% transgenic in acreage.
If this stuff is so dangerous and deadly, and if it is everywhere, why doesn't everyone drop dead from it?
Exactly.
If anything, the calories afforded because of transgenic breakthroughs and higher production are leading to obesity and other issues associated with over-nutrition. I think the evidence says that it works too well as intended.
The bottom line. The rhetoric of the anti-GMO contingent is anti-intellectual and anti-scientific at best, and boldface lies at the worst. We don't know if the authors are uninformed, poor critical thinkers, or really solid geniuses with an agenda that want to distort information for their cause. I like to think that it is the former, which is why I try to educate and comment in this arena.
0 comments:
Post a Comment