Rehashing a Tired Argument

The New York Times failed again, publishing a less-than-scientific ball of bias that states genetically engineered crops fail to produce as expected.  Investigative reporter Danny Hakim's opinions contrast sharply with the scholarly literature, as well as the direct experiences of the people that understand the benefits and limitations of the technologies-- farmers that use it. 

As it has been said, it is easy to trash a farming technology when your plow is a pencil.

The author here returns to two well-refuted, ancient criticisms. First, that genetically engineered crops fail to yield, and next, that they don't cut "pesticides".  These are old and familiar discussions for those of us that have studied this subject for twenty years. 

We could spend a lot of time reviewing the data Hakim used to reach his conclusions.  But rather than point out the flaws in his highly selective, cherry-picking analysis (which Dr. Andrew Kniss did skillfully here), it makes more sense to provide the points you need to intelligently refute his shallow claims. 

1.  No genes for yield were ever installed.  The current suite of biotech traits were not meant to improve yields, they were made to ensure yields.  In other words, they help ag producers farm with lower costs, fewer insecticides, improved weed control and virus resistance in some cases.  Same yield at lower cost means better for farmers. 

2.  What are "pesticides"?  Hakim, like many that want to tell an anti-biotech story, use the term "pesticides" to make claims that farm inputs have increased.  They look at total amount applied in weight. 

But "pesticides" is a catch-all term for herbicides, insecticides and fungicides.  If you separate that into its components, you see the advantages of the technologies. 

GE crops cut insecticide use.  This is shown elegantly with great reference in the National Academies of Sciences extensive review of genetically engineered crops (see NAS review, figs 4-4 to 4-7). The technologies irrefutably cut insecticide use and help limit fungicide applications due to insect damage.  That's really important. 

However, the amount of herbicide used has increased in total.  That's because there are more acres of crops being grown, and in some cases there is more herbicide needed per acre (more than the 750 ml per acre normally used) needed to treat resistant weeds.   Yes, when you add up the total used it is increased relative to 1996. But in 1996, Roundup was used on farms sparingly, as well as in residential and municipal situations. 

When biotech crops showed their advantages in 1996 and were adopted on many farms because of their increased productivity, of course the amount of herbicide would increase.  

Using his words and logic, it is like saying cell phone case sales have "skyrocketed" since 1996.  

Like Benbrook (an economist paid by the anti-GM industries for salary and research, who wrote highly-criticized, low-impact articles that included estimated data), Hakim lumps all forms of chemistry together to create the outcome he wants-- more pounds of pesticides being used. 

He also ignores the simple fact that not all farm chemicals are the same. You can't just compare amounts. You need to consider relative toxicity. And the stuff farmers have switched to has a much lower impact on the environment compared to what it replaced.

3.  You can't make valid general statements about yield.   When you analyze the GE-traited crop against its non-GE counterpart in side-by-side comparisons, you see trends.  Equivalent yields can be affected by location, crop, pest pressure, weather, etc.  Mainly, the trait has no effect on yield.  Sometimes it is higher.  Occasionally it is lower.  Mostly, it is exactly the same. 

I was on a panel years ago with Dough Gurian-Sherman, the guy who wrote the piece "Failure to Yield".   I spoke of specifics of yields as reported from the peer-reviewed literature. He agreed with me on just about every case.

You have to consider the specifics.  For instance. The GE trait in papaya has demonstrated incredible effects on yield for papaya farmers.  Massive increases in yield saved an industry. 

4. Farmers are shrewd business men and women.  There is a certain arrogance in proclaiming a technology is a failure, when millions of people choose it because it works.  Farmers choose these technologies, and they cost more money, as Hakim correctly points out. 

Therein lies the implication that our ag producers somehow can't do the math.  To say that they are willing to pay more for less performance undermines the tight business acumen of our farmers. The one percent that feed the rest of us know about a bottom line. If any product fails to perform, producers change gears to find alternatives. 

Great to see the ag community adding their informed viewpoints. 

To conclude:  For decades people have tried to suggest that genetic engineering technologies are dangerous or environmentally deleterious.  We certainly know the realistic risks, but none of the dire predictions have ever emerged. 

Critics then retreat to "failed" rhetoric.   It is amazingly sad that a venue like the New York Times would publish such a report.  Time will show that it was another poor-quality report that cherry-picked data and presented biased analysis that supported the hypothesis the author wanted to support, not the conclusion proven my millions of farmers that choose the technology. 

Rehashing a Tired Argument

The New York Times failed again, publishing a less-than-scientific ball of bias that states genetically engineered crops fail to produce as expected.  Investigative reporter Danny Hakim's opinions contrast sharply with the scholarly literature, as well as the direct experiences of the people that understand the benefits and limitations of the technologies-- the farmers that use it. 

As it has been said, it is easy to trash a farming technology when your plow is a pencil.

The author here returns to two well-refuted, ancient criticisms. First, that genetically engineered crops fail to yield, and next, that they don't cut "pesticides".  These are old and familiar discussions for those of us that have studied this subject for their whole careers. 

We could spend a lot of time reviewing the data Hakim used to reach his conclusions.  But rather than point out the flaws in his highly selective, cherry-picked analysis (which Dr. Andrew Kniss did skillfully here), it makes more sense to provide the points you need to intelligently refute his shallow claims. 

1.  No genes for yield were ever installed.  The current suite of biotech traits were not meant to improve yields, they were made to ensure yields.  In other words, they help ag producers farm with lower costs, fewer insecticides, improved weed control and virus resistance in some cases.  The same yield at a lower cost is better for farmers. 

2.  What are "pesticides"?  Hakim, like many that want to tell an anti-biotech story, use the term "pesticides" to make claims that farm inputs have increased.  They look at total amount applied in weight. 

But "pesticides" is a catch-all term for the combination of herbicides, insecticides and fungicides.  If you separate that into its components, you see the advantages of the technologies. 

GE crops cut insecticide use.  This is shown elegantly with great reference in the National Academies of Sciences extensive review of genetically engineered crops (see NAS review, figs 4-4 to 4-7). The technologies irrefutably cut insecticide use and help limit fungicide applications due to insect damage.  That's really important. 

However, the amount of herbicide used has increased in total.  That's because there are more acres of crops being grown, and in some cases there is more herbicide needed per acre (more than the 750 ml per acre normally used) needed to treat resistant weeds.   Yes, when you add up the total used it has increased since 1996. But in 1996, Roundup was only sparingly used on farms, as well as in residential and municipal situations. 

When herbicide-resistant crops showed their advantages in 1996 and were adopted on many farms because of their increased productivity, of course the amount of herbicide would increase.  

Using his words and logic, it is like saying the number of cell phone cases have "skyrocketed" since 1996.  

It also is important to note that the number of pounds of glyphosate also reflects its increased use in farms for non-GMO uses. It is used to kill the vegetation on land left fallow and along fence lines.  It is used in tree-crop production to remove weeds from rows and under trees.   

Like Benbrook (the economist whose salary and research were 100% paid by the anti-GM industries as he wrote highly-criticized, low-impact articles that included estimated data), Hakim lumps all forms of chemistry together to create the outcome he wants-- more pounds of pesticides being used. 

He also ignores the simple fact that not all farm chemicals are the same. You can't just compare amounts. You need to consider relative toxicity. And the products farmers have switched to have much lower environmental impact relative to what they replaced.

3.  You can't make valid general statements about yield.   When you analyze the GE-traited crop against its non-GE counterpart in side-by-side comparisons, you see trends.  Equivalent yields can be affected by location, crop, pest pressure, weather, etc.  Mainly, the trait has no effect on yield.  Sometimes it is higher.  Occasionally it is lower.  Mostly, it is exactly the same. 

I was on a panel years ago with Dough Gurian-Sherman, the guy who wrote the piece "Failure to Yield".   I spoke of specifics of yields as reported from the peer-reviewed literature. He agreed with me on just about every case.

You have to consider the specifics.  For instance. The GE trait in papaya has demonstrated incredible effects on yield for papaya farmers.  Massive increases in yield saved an industry. 

4. Farmers are shrewd business men and women.  There is a certain arrogance in proclaiming a technology is a failure, when millions of professionals choose it because it works.  Farmers choose these technologies even though they cost more money, as Hakim correctly points out. 

Therein lies the implication that our ag producers somehow can't do the math.  To say that they are willing to pay more for less performance undermines the tight business acumen of our farmers. The one percent that feed the rest of us know about a bottom line. If any product fails to perform, producers change gears to find alternatives. 

Great to see the ag community adding their informed viewpoints. 

To conclude:  For decades people have tried to suggest that genetic engineering technologies are dangerous or environmentally deleterious.  We certainly know the realistic risks, but none of the dire predictions have ever emerged. 

Critics then retreat to "failed" rhetoric.   It is amazingly sad that a venue like the New York Times would publish such a report.  Time will show that it was another poor-quality report that cherry-picked data and presented biased analysis that supported the hypothesis the author wanted to support, not the conclusion proven my millions of farmers that choose the technology-- because it works.  

The Tragic Loss of Dr. Sharon Gray

When you ask people what a postdoctoral researcher does, few people have a realistic answer.  These are professional scientists with Ph.D. degrees that seek additional training to hone their skills and build a scientific portfolio. They are overworked, underappreciated, and underpaid. They frequently have little to no voice in departmental or university decisions, ironic, because they drive the front edge of the discovery. They are frequently the engines of our laboratories.

They do it because jobs are few and can only be realistically approached with the training, exposure and career development that a good postdoctoral research experience can provide. 

This long introduction sets the stage for a tragic tale of Sharon Gray.  I never met Sharon.  But as an advisor of postdocs and a supporter of developing scientists in our field, I'm shocked by the story of her horrifying and untimely demise.

She was a young professional developing her art, and in the course of expanding her collaborations, horizons and potential, her life was tragically ended. 

Tragedy.  Sharon Gray killed by protesters in Ethiopia while she was attending a project meeting. 

Dr. Gray worked as a postdoc in Plant Biology at UC-Davis. Days ago she was killed by protesters that stoned the vehicle she was riding in during a time of civil unrest outside the city of Addis Ababa. She was heading to a project meeting that involved collaborators from The Netherlands.  Details are sketchy and really don't matter. It is simply a paralyzing tragedy for her, her family, her lab, and those she touched with her time and her science. 

She was likely still riding high from the publication of her last work, an eight-year study that showed the relationship between increasing carbon dioxide, drought, and soybean growth. The work was just published in Nature Plants.  Those are true milestones that define a postdoctoral career. 

My heart goes out to those at UC Davis, especially her husband (also a postdoc) and Dr. Siobhan Brady, her advisor, as well as the lab mates that daily shared time and space with Sharon. 

As researchers, we form tight-knit families when we constantly bump elbows, share techniques, and spend late nights and weekends unraveling important questions in biology. The years focused on common scientific quests build great bonds between researchers. These bonds are appreciated, understood, and honored by those of us that have been there. 

Across the plant science community we understand, and share in the grief of this tragic loss. 

The university posted a memorial page along with photos. A memorial fund has been established that will go to enhance opportunities for women in science.   

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article106319327.html#storylink=cpy

Fake Debates, Bogus Tribunals-- Hallmarks of a Lost Argument

In poking through my Twitter feed I find a curious post. It is being circulated that I agreed to do a debate, but then backed out. 

What?  

As a guy that studied rhetoric, loves a debate, and coached debaters for a long time, I relish the opportunity to debate, especially scientific topics.  I've debated evolution, climate and genetic engineering issues over the last decade. 

So to read online that I was invited to a debate and then backed out was quite surprising. 

Turns out that it starts from that guy in Ithaca that is obsessed with legitimizing his anti-GMO crusade.  He has been harassing people on Facebook for some time. 

Apparently he and Jonathan Latham* (another anti-GMO, anti-science zealot) organized a debate, only didn't bother to actually extend real invitations to me, Jon Entine or Karl Haro von Mogel, of course, saying that they did, and that we won't show. 

In social media they are taking a victory lap, claiming that we are afraid to debate them and of course, the message is being amplified by the throngs of blind followers that put platitudes and lies ahead of actual information. 

Funny that they are declaring such victory in a debate they never formally invited anyone to. "Biosciences Resource" is Latham's broken effort. Why would anyone trust anyone that engages such dishonest tactics?

Karl, Jon and I all asked for any evidence that we accepted an invitation.  Crickets.  Still they celebrate their victory!

First, if you want me to come to any event that requires travel, good luck.  I'm booked solid for 6 months and you simply can't organize something next week and then say I backed out.

Second, if there's no way to compensate me for travel, I can't do it unless I pay personally. I don't have funds for such things.

Third, if you want me to attend a debate, you need to let me know first.  USRTK and others have made sure that my email address, phone number and address are plastered all over the web, so don't say you can't find me! 

Pick up a phone, send an email, even send a letter through snail mail.  Our fax machine works too, maybe.  You have to let me know that I have been invited to a debate, before you can say I accepted and backed out of a debate. 

Turns out, today Jonathan Latham (who stood outside a Cornell event I was speaking at last year and handed out libelous flyers about me) put an "invitation", stashed deeply in the comments section of a September 2, 2016 blog post on September 26, 2016.  

The invitation is placed in the comments section of an old blog, nine days before the event.  Tremendously weak move.

Between answering 200 emails a day, writing grants, running a leading department, running a huge lab and getting sixty minutes a day for food and gym, I don't usually parse the comments sections of old blogs.  Weak move guys. 

In pre-internet days Latham was probably one of these guys that wanted to go to a party with the cool kids, but they spray painted an invitation under an overpass 100 miles from where he lived.  When he complained about not being invited, they said, "We invited you... you didn't see it?"

Latham and the other guy's full-time job is to trash technology and erode trust in public scientists.  This is their mission, to harm those that teach science. This is just another desperate stunt of a dying movement, and a weak attempt to discredit the people that actually have the credit. 

To claim that I was ever actually invited is a lie, and to say that I backed out is an even bigger one. I think it is wonderful, as this is the kind of stuff that turns off the people we need to influence most. 

This is the trend.  The anti-GMO movement can't discuss evidence.  They have attacked the scientists and look horrible in the public eye for what they have done, while we look better for enduring the slander.  

All they have left is to create fake events, like this "debate" or the upcoming Monsanto Tribunal.  They can control the information, so they make the event seem legitimate to a handful of internet worshipers, and take another poke at public scientists that actually contribute to teaching and research. 

If you are opposed to biotechnology, you need to think about this very hard. This is the best your movement has.  These are the people representing your cause.  These are the underhanded tactics that you stand behind? 

It is really sad because this topic needs honest debate and discussion. Karl, Jon and I (or a handful of others) would always be willing to take part in such events, provided there was an actual invitation and there was reasonable advanced notice. 

Unfortunately an honest conversation is not what Latham and that other guy actually want. Their goal is to try to pump oxygen into the corpse of a failed ideological movement that harms the poor, the farmer, and the environment.  Such efforts must involve further deception, as they could never win the discussion through legitimate scientific discourse. 

* Latham was handing out defamatory flyers at an event in Ithaca, and when I approached him he changed the subject and scurried like a ship rat.  He didn't have the guts to back up the fifth he as presenting about me, and continues to propagate defamation to this day.  This is his modus operandi and this cheesy Twitter campaign is just a sad extension of his pitiful existence.