Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on July 24, 2016
Kurt Cobb: Are you anti-science if you don’t like GMOs?
It’s all the rage to call people who oppose the cultivation of genetically engineered crops anti-science. But if science is an open enterprise, then it should welcome discussion and challenges to any prevailing idea.
We should, however, remember that in this case genetic engineering of crops is not merely a scientific enterprise; it’s big business. A lot of people have a lot to lose if the public rejects genetically engineered foods, often referred to as genetically modified organisms (GMOs). We are not by any measure in the preliminary phases of this technology. We are not considering it or calmly debating it before its release. We have long since been launched into an uncontrolled mass experiment, the results of which are unknown.
Knowledge is admittedly a double-edged sword. One might argue that any scientific advance brings risks. I would agree. Understanding nuclear fission and then nuclear fusion led to the atomic bomb and then the hydrogen bomb.
More than 30 years ago millions of people across the world flocked to the nuclear freeze movement out of fear that newly elected American president Ronald Reagan would seek a nuclear buildup and a confrontation with the Soviet Union. Were these millions anti-scientific or the voice of reason?
Nuclear discoveries also led to the widespread application of nuclear fission as a source of heat for electricity generating plants, the dangers of which have most recently been on display at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant in Japan. The results of our grand nuclear experiment are ongoing.
Opposition to practical applications of scientific discoveries cannot willy nilly be labeled anti-science. We now know how to clone humans, but so far, human society has chosen to prohibit this use of cloning. One does not have to be anti-science to mount a reasoned case for such a prohibition. The American Association for the Advancement of Science opposes reproductive cloning, while supporting stem cell research and research on therapeutic cloning (the production of replacement tissues for humans).
The vast majority of those who want GMO foods labeled or their cultivation banned do not advocate an end to genetic research. They are not anti-scientific. They have legitimate concerns about the safety of crops derived from a specific application of this research, both for humans and for the broader environment.
Let’s see if the arguments used to label those who oppose GMOs as anti-science make sense.
1. Lots of prominent scientists endorse the safety and promise of GMOs.
This argument was most recently trotted out as a petition directed at Greenpeace, asking the organization to cease its opposition to GMOs and more specifically to what is called Golden Rice, a rice that produces its own Vitamin A. (Vitamin A deficiency remains a problem in parts of Asia).
It is understandable that those involved in a political debate over the regulation and even prohibition of GMOs will seek visible shows of support from others who are like-minded. This is part of the persuasion process.
But does this prove that those who oppose GMOs are anti-science? More to the point, are scientists who question the safety of GMOs anti-science even as they continue their scientific research?
We must be careful to distinguish research designed merely to understand the workings of the physical world from an endorsement of specific applications of our knowledge to products and practices. There is a big difference between science and applied science.
This is where the problem of what a friend of mine calls the Midgley Effect arises. Thomas Midgley Jr. was a renown American chemist in the first half of the 20th century. He was asked to find compounds that could be added to gasoline to reduce “knocking” in engines (which can cause damage). Midgley’s solution was tetraethyllead which became the basis for leaded gasoline.
Midgley assured the public that leaded gasoline was safe. In fact, Midgley was given the prestigious William H. Nichols Medal by the American Chemical Society in 1923 for his breakthrough. Despite concerns about the release of lead into the environment and deaths at a pilot plant, the U.S. Surgeon General and the U.S. Public Health Service both concluded that there was no evidence that leaded gasoline would cause human health problems. Thus, yet another uncontrolled mass experiment began with humans as the subjects.
Only unrelated research on the age of the Earth revealed abnormally high levels of lead in the environment which interfered with such age calculations and led to concerns about leaded gasoline–which, of course, was eventually banned.
But Midgley’s work on chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) as refrigerants was probably even more significant. At the time existing refrigerants–fluids that circulate in refrigerators and draw heat away from their interiors–were corrosive or flammable. The industry wanted something that wasn’t either. Midgley’s solution was a set of inert compounds that would easily vaporize and recondense called chlorofluorocarbons and that eventually went by the trade name Freon.
Nonflammable, noncorrosive, nontoxic to humans and able to circulate in refrigerators for years, even decades without breaking down, his discovery found wide application in refrigeration and eventually air conditioning. So safe were CFCs deemed that they were used in aerosol spray cans and even asthma inhalers.
For his work on CFCs Midgley received another award, the Perkin Medal from the Society of Chemical Industry in 1937.
If chemist F. Sherwood Rowland had not asked in the early 1970s where CFCs go once they are released, we might now be living without the better part of the Earth’s ozone layer. His work alerted the world that CFCs were indeed quite long-lived as advertised, were making their way continuously to the Earth’s ozone layer and were systematically destroying it. Without the ozone layer much greater ultraviolet radiation would hit the Earth and endanger all living things. CFCs were ultimately banned by the Montreal Protocol.
Shall we consider the scientist who discovered the deleterious effect of CFCs on the ozone layer anti-science? Shall we consider the geochemist who discovered the widespread dissemination of lead in the environment that was linked to leaded gasoline anti-science?
Of course not. Pointing out potential and actual dangers of a specific application of scientific research in not anti-science at all.
In these cases we must remember that lots of people who called themselves scientists assured us that leaded gasoline and CFCs were safe. But, they were wrong, grievously wrong. And, we must remember that it took decades to uncover the widespread damage being done by both.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) long ago ruled that GMO foods are “substantially equivalent” to their non-GMO counterparts and therefore do NOT require any testing. Those supporting the widespread dissemination of GMOs could be very wrong as well. There isn’t enough information to know what the ultimate results will be for human and animal health.
What is more interesting is that the authors of the petition mentioned above have essentially admitted that we are doing an uncontrolled experiment on humans (because governments required no controlled studies). They write:
But the science telling us GM [genetically modified] crops and foods are safe has been confirmed by vast experience. Humans have eaten hundreds of billions of GM based meals in the past 20 years without a single case of any problems resulting from GM.
The petition writers, of course, do not adduce any evidence that there has not been a single case of a problem with genetically engineered foods. They merely assert it. I would hazard a guess that they did not do an exhaustive survey to find any cases.
This leads us to the second claim that is supposed to prove that somebody is anti-science if he or she opposes GMOs.
2. There is no evidence that GMOs are harmful to humans, animals or the environment.
Anecdotal evidence and even some scientific studies suggest that GMOs may be harmful in one or more these three categories. Even if that evidence is valid, it begs the question, How harmful? Do the supposed benefits of GMOs outweigh any alleged or actual harm?
The problem with engaging assertion number 2 above is that it is an inversion of responsibility. The GMO industry and its supporters assume that it is the responsibility of the public to discover any harm and to document it sufficiently to prove that harm.
But the real responsibility ought to lie with the industry. Typically, the way this is done is that the government requires studies under controlled conditions to establish the safety of a product. Individual consumers and independent researchers don’t have the financial and technical resources to do this.
If the industry wants to warrant that GMOs are safe for human consumption, it should have to follow protocols designed for novel products which it wants to introduce into the human body. These protocols are generally reserved for new drugs. But some scientists in the FDA suggested that just such protocols would be necessary to assure that GMOs are safe before their release to the public. (They were overruled.)
The industry assures us that GMOs are not novel. After all, the FDA ruled that GMOs are “substantially equivalent.” On that basis all patents for GMOs crops would be invalid since they are not novel. But it is precisely based on the novelty of specific genetic alterations of plants that the GMO companies have successfully obtained patents on their products.
If GMO plants are indeed novel as the companies insist when they go to the patent office, then they ought to be obliged to prove they are safe under established protocols for novel products designed for human consumption.
Don’t let the industry get away with this inversion of responsibility. Can the industry really make the claim that those who oppose GMOs because the foods derived form them are not properly tested are anti-science? Isn’t the industry really anti-science for opposing the testing of novel foods in the same way the drug companies are obliged to test novel compounds? Isn’t the industry being anti-science by claiming that GMOs are not novel? (Maybe that’s just straight out lying.)
There is a third claim that is supposed to demonstrate that those who oppose GMOs are both anti-science and ignorant.
3. GMO crops are no more risky than crops created through hybridization or crossbreeding.
This is a clever argument indeed. For it tries to get the listener to accept the equivalence of the two types of genetic alteration. But they are not equivalent. And, the key reason is not the one cited most often by GMO critics, namely transgene splicing, the splicing of genes from completely different categories (from a fish to a tomato to cite a real example). While it’s theoretically possible for such gene transfers to take place in nature, they are highly unlikely. (How often is a fish in the wild going to come into contact with a tomato?)
What is more important is that humans have ample experience with crossbreeding. The fact that humans are still here in the numbers that they are testifies to the safety of crossbreeding which has been practiced for a very long time. This does not testify to safety in every instance, but to safety in general. Historically, crossbred plants are tested in small areas to see whether thrive and to see how they interact with other plants. These small experiments keep any mistakes contained.
GMO crops on the other hand are poorly tested* and then introduced practically worldwide within a few years. If there is a hidden adverse interaction with the environment, we will be subject to worldwide effects before we are aware. Those effects might take years to become apparent. And, it might take us years to trace those effects to GMO crops. The adverse environmental effects of GMOs will not be contained. There will be no small mistakes.
Since our experience with GMOs is limited, there has been very little time to discover unintended consequences. The fact that GMO crops to date have not produced catastrophic systemic failures in farm fields or in the surrounding environment does not prove that the next new GMO crop won’t produce such a failure or that existing GMO crops under some as yet unencountered situation won’t produce such failures.
Now, here’s the key point: Because we cannot from experience judge the risks of GMOs to the broader environment (as we can with crossbreeding), and we cannot anticipate all the interactions between GMOs and the environment, THERE IS A NONZERO RISK OF SYSTEMIC CATASTROPHE, namely, worldwide crop failure or systemic ruination of adjacent ecosystems.
The proponents will say that the risk of such systemic effects is small. But it does not matter how small that risk is if we intend to keep subjecting the environment to novel crop genes. If the risk is nonzero and we metaphorically pull the gene gun trigger enough times, we will eventually create systemic ruin.
We are playing a game of Russian roulette with the many genetic engineering techniques we are now employing. Techniques which have a nonzero risk of creating systemic ruin should be banned. Ruin is too great a price to pay no matter how big the perceived benefits are (and the supposed benefits of GMOs are hotly disputed).
The foregoing discussion is really a reiteration of something I’ve covered before based on the work of risk expert Nassim Nicholas Taleb. Taleb explains why the precautionary principle should apply to GMOs.
Perhaps risk is not the purview of the pure scientist. But it certainly must be the purview of the applied scientist. To misunderstand risk in the worldwide dissemination of genetically novel crops is to set oneself up to be the next Thomas Midgley and to risk the lives and livelihoods of millions, even billions of people based on a mere feeling that what one is doing is low risk.
___________________________
*The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) requires field testing of GMO plants to determine whether they have the potential to harm other plants. The genetic contamination of non-GMO plants (through the exchange of pollen) which is prevalent worldwide seems of little concern to the USDA which seems not to regard this as a harm to other plants. This is particularly a problem for organic growers who are forbidden to use GMO crops and those conventional growers seeking non-GMO verification of their crops. The FDA regulates as a pesticide any GMO plant which produces its own pesticide (as many of them do) and determines whether ingesting that pesticide in the amounts in the plant poses a hazard to human health–not particularly appetizing. A summary of these regulations can be found on p. 4 of this document.
Kurt Cobb is an author, speaker, and columnist focusing on energy and the environment. He is a regular contributor to the Energy Voices section of The Christian Science Monitor and author of the peak-oil-themed novel Prelude. In addition, he has written columns for the Paris-based science news site Scitizen, and his work has been featured on Energy Bulletin (now Resilience.org), The Oil Drum, OilPrice.com, Econ Matters, Peak Oil Review, 321energy, Common Dreams, Le Monde Diplomatique and many other sites. He maintains a blog called Resource Insights and can be contacted at kurtcobb2001@yahoo.com.
18 Comments on "Kurt Cobb: Are you anti-science if you don’t like GMOs?"
dissident on Sun, 24th Jul 2016 1:43 pm
The safety of GMO crops is a red herring as it is often posed. The real issue is corporate racketeering. By doing some rinky dink genetic modification a corporation can claim patent rights on a whole species. Of course, the seeds for this species will be the ones peddled by the middlemen to the farmers and the corporate mafia extortion kicks in as premium prices are extracted for the seeds and contracts requiring farmers to buy new seeds every year (i.e. they cannot produce their own). Farmers can be herded this way since there is more market control than is typically believed.
In the case of Monsanto and Roundup the situation is even worse. The GMO corn is designed to facilitate the sale and use of Roundup. It is the Roundup itself that kills the soil, leads to twice the water consumption needed under normal conditions and leads to the accumulation of formaldehyde and other toxins the in the corn that should naturally not be there (the corn is growing in an ecologically disrupted soil). So GMO corn by itself is not the issue.
Boat on Sun, 24th Jul 2016 1:59 pm
A better question is, when the Republican claims coal is clean, is it. One wonders if they looked up coal ash and viewed images.
Opponents of gmo need to prove the danger. Get the funding and get on with it already.
Go Speed Racer on Sun, 24th Jul 2016 2:38 pm
Buy organic. Monsanto is pure Republican evil.
Watch ‘World according to Monsanto’.
Watch ‘Genetic Roulette’ it digs deeper.
Watch ‘GMO OMG’.
Apneaman on Sun, 24th Jul 2016 3:09 pm
Good one Kurt.
What dissident said and as for the safety, I’ll go with Dr David Suzuki who, when not being a science communicator and hopey environmentalist who had 5 kids ????WTF???, is a trained up geneticist. He says that the company scientists and supporters are claiming to know shit they don’t and he also says what dissident said. Also says we are all lab rats. I don’t care, I just want my meat and meat byproducts and Kraft 3 Cheese Ranch.
Methinks in a decade or so the sheeple won’t care if their food is GMO or HOMO.
David Suzuki speaks out against GMO’s – 5:48
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sl0-Ds6Cioc
Davy on Sun, 24th Jul 2016 4:03 pm
Roundup is better than atrazine and most other herbicides. I have never heard of a situation of twice the water consumption from Roundup. I mean compared to what? What is normal? I want all GMO abolished but I also want no more chemicals. It’s all bad. When all this modern agriculture goes 1/2 our board will be dead from starvation. So you still want to bitch about GMO, chemicals, and vast monocultures? Let’s bitch about being modern humans that allowed the poison in the first place but if people here think there is an safe alternative there isn’t at least that can support 7BIL people. We screwed ourselves let’s quit whining about what and look at the why and the no alternative. We can then start digging graves.
farmlad on Sun, 24th Jul 2016 4:50 pm
since the farmer and rancher recieve only 17cents of every dollar spent on groceries, we can easily afford to change growing practices even if they would cost the farmer twice as much. For starters the US government could start charging a 100% tax on all chemical fertilizers and pesticides and a comparrable tariff on all imported foods. This money could be channeled straight into food stamp funds etc.
By the way food is such a small part of our expences. Drug sales account for 12% of all wholesales which is more than groceries http://wolfstreet.com/2016/07/15/big-pharma-sales-boom-on-drug-price-increases/
Davy on Sun, 24th Jul 2016 6:32 pm
There is nothing easy with modern agriculture. It is just another one of those vital human activities caught up in a trap of scale that makes any efforts futile. We are in a catch 22 of needing to down size industrial agriculture quickly but without any structure to do a revamp. Any changes would be so disruptive as to drive the whole industry and many related industries into dysfunction.
We will muddle through the death of industrial agriculture much like we will muddle through the death of big oil. Along the way will be the end of our global economy and a great die off. There is little hope with these two modern global industries. They are beyond reorganization and by extention we humans are beyond change. Our destiny is sealed.
onlooker on Sun, 24th Jul 2016 7:05 pm
http://www.brandonturbeville.com/2016/07/groundbreaking-review-shows-how.html#more
Groundbreaking Review Shows How Glyphosate Alters DNA Toward Chronic Illness
onlooker on Sun, 24th Jul 2016 7:07 pm
It is not Anti Science to not want to stray far from natural processes, ingredients and remedies.
DMyers on Sun, 24th Jul 2016 9:33 pm
We are trapped here by our gross perceptions. We see the outer shells of things, their prominent characteristics, to the exclusion of both what is subtle and also what is invisible.
We’re dealing with an invisible world. The ear of corn may look to the market buyer just like every other ear of corn he has ever seen. And this is an objective perception. But the buyer does not know whether the corn contains what corn must contain to be of any nutritional value. Nor does he know whether there is something in the corn that he can’t see which is not something he wants on his corn (e.g., chemical herbicide).
I understand one of the bigger controversies in the GMO debate has to do with a process of creating plant organisms that withstand the chemical assault of herbicides, which is sufficient that apparently the weeds do not survive. These same crops, herbicide saturated and all, with a genetic tolerance for strong herbicide, are then put in the food market.
The question is, when a plant is modified, for example as is described in the prior paragraph, are other attributes of the plant sacrificed in order to capture the trait of benefit? Key here is the important matter of nutrients. I would contend there is a strong possibility that various uncontrollable genetic changes would take place in tandem with the target modification. In terms of corn, let’s assume it is most important to the world for its nutritional value. Empty calories are not, otherwise, that hard to come by.
Another issue in the mix is that of whether there is evidence regarding deleterious affects from GMO’s. It is my understanding that substantial evidence has indicated various health harming affects from GMO’s. The evidence is sufficient that some countries have outright banned GMO’s.
We no longer know whether the food on the plate is real food or an imposter that looks and tastes and smells like food to a very distracted consumer. As a result we may be eating our way to starvation. Just say no to GMO. Eat less and eat better.
onlooker on Sun, 24th Jul 2016 10:01 pm
From my understanding of the effects of what humans ingest, modified or artificial substances can and mostly do have deleterious effects when ingested. The body is adapted and has evolved to recognize what is natural as opposed to what is unnatural. To me GMO is one huge gamble analogous to doing geoengineering to control our climate. Highly volatile with almost assuredly unintended consequences.
kanon on Sun, 24th Jul 2016 11:12 pm
Davy — Any changes would be so disruptive as to drive the whole industry and many related industries into dysfunction.
Davy speaks so eloquently but always arrives at the same conclusion: BAU must continue, resistance is futile.
IMHO, the Ag sector could use a real good organic shakeup.
Davy on Mon, 25th Jul 2016 3:39 am
Nope, my point is missed. The conclusion is don’t expect to change BAU except around the edges without disruptive effects that render it dysfunctional. Once one of you figure out a “good organic shakeup” for agriculture that will accommodate 7BIL people, take care of climate change, and do away with fossil fuel inputs then I am all for it. Hell, I am all for let’s through the baby out with the bath water which would be discard modern agriculture completely and take our chances on a die off and see what shakes out with a smaller population. In the meantime let’s face reality and quit the denial that we have any “real” options that are not catch 22 and involve economic collapse and a die off.
Sure we can do away with GMO’s and not disrupt agriculture beyond a status quo condition but it will not happen overnight. GMO business has grown so large it just does not go away without consequences to the industry. All you are going to be able to replace this with is conventional agriculture. Permaculture and organic farming will not scale. I know I am trying to do it and it is tough. I have all the right stuff too. These are great practices but they are not adapted properly to make a profit except in niche areas. They won’t feed 7BIL people and keep the global system going. You have to make a profit to survive in a BAU world. That is the rule of BAU. I am all for outlawing GMO which I detest.
I am calling out those of you who think there are solutions to really big issues like oil and food without painful consequences. Really it is more than painful consequences it is death of many people. Death of many people is coming but how soon do you want it. Go ahead and play GOD and pull the plug. I am living the “leave BAU” lifestyle. I am doing it in the only way I can do it considering my circumstances and the conclusions I have come to and that is use BAU to leave BAU.
I am downsizing with dignity knowing full well collapse is coming and it is those people who collapse in place that will buy time and make arrangements to help make their pain and suffering less. I am practicing relative sacrifice per my place in BAU to respect nature and those people in the world less fortunate. BTW, I didn’t ask to be part of BAU. I was born into it. I was educated into it and for a time bought into it. I was an ardent believer in globalism in the early 80’s because I thought maybe we could develop our way out of this mess I saw coming back then. I researched AGW and PO in college and it affected me profoundly. I am now since 2003 dedicating my life to railing against it and all its evils.
We ate that fruit of the tree of knowledge and we will know pay the ultimate price that comes with irresponsible use of knowledge. We opened doors that should not have been opened which is what the fruit of knowledge will ultimately lead to with an animals adapted to live within nature not its own infatuation. We grew our population far in excess of levels that reason would say is responsible because we are consumed with the lust for knowledge. We allowed leadership through economist and scientist to tell us this is ok because we can build and innovate ourselves into a world where we have it all. They told us we will eventually even colonize the solar system. What a bunch of losers. Our greatest minds are the greatest losers. They told us we can have a modern life and still protect the environment but we need JUST NEED “MOAR”. No one talks about less except with “MOAR”.
There is no ‘MOAR” anymore. We are cooked and the time to pay the price is beginning. What I am doing is telling people we have some time to make some changes. These changes will not amount to much but we can avoid some bad problems just by making some wise choices. Some things all we can do is mitigate because the effects and consequences are already in the pipeline but we can adapt. There are other things which are the overwhelmingly the greatest amount of changes ahead that are beyond mitigation and adaptation. These changes and effects just must be endured with forced changes to lifestyle and along with this disruptions is death. We are going to lose a lot of people at some point.
We still may have some time so let’s try to enjoy what little time we have left. Let’s try to make that enjoyment last a little longer. When I say enjoyment I mean the simple basic things like family, a good meal, and good health. The really bad lifestyles people engage in today and which are the reasons life is falling apart at a nonlinear rate is not what I mean by enjoying life. Let’s choose those decisions that enhance our quality of life in a basic and sound way.
Discarding GMO’s is a good choice but don’t think for a moment you can make significant changes to agriculture and still feed 7BIL people. If we start losing millions of people don’t think for a moment that our modern interconnected global system is going to keep on going. We created a space craft and are now in the void of alienation from nature. We have a system now that is barely functioning with all the BAU efforts being made. Imagine some good old “disruptive organic changes” and what that will do to BAU. That is my point and that point is the reality of collapse is baked in especially on the level of big oil, big agriculture, and big business.
onlooker on Mon, 25th Jul 2016 4:07 am
All of what Davy states is sound, reasonable and articulate. However, knowing as we know that our people in leadership positions mostly have unsound mental attitudes, one can expect exploitation to continue to maintain this BAU as long as possible. So the rich countries will exploit the poor ones till they initiate they’re total demise. Then this die off will spread even into the rich countries. So yes control what you can and do not worry about what you cannot control
simonr on Mon, 25th Jul 2016 8:08 am
Interestingly, the entire premise of this piece is that it is ‘wrong’ to be anti-science.
Scientifically that seems an odd argument
Not that I am (or care)
jjhman on Mon, 25th Jul 2016 2:37 pm
I pretty much agree with Davy except for blaming the problems on a lust for knowledge. Sorry, but knowledge is neutral at worst. At best it is the only thing we have to even mitigate the coming difficulties.
The problem really is human lust for sex, power and wealth. Unfortunately knowledge ends up the servant of lust.
Davy on Mon, 25th Jul 2016 6:09 pm
JJ, I guess my point regarding knowledge is when is it too much? When does it become a Pandora’s box. Should we have indulged in NUK and GMO? NO! My feelings are we were far better off with less knowledge and more natural connectivity. Hunter gatherers with complex tribal societies comes to mind. I am down on knowledge because I feel it is what has brought us to a tipping point so in that respect I find it a trap.
onlooker on Mon, 25th Jul 2016 7:05 pm
To me the trap revolves around us lacking simple prudence and humility. In turn this seems due to the myth of how exceptional we are. Well now we are discovering how exceptionally reckless we have been