If you were to ask my opinion of the second greatest scientist of all time, I would have a hard time responding. There are so many choices and I would probably have to spend an hour clarifying the criteria with you before coming up with any kind of response. But my first choice is easy, and I’ve already written a post about him. Johannes Kepler’s laws of planetary motion and what he did specifically for the field of astronomy and the way we view the universe are great achievements. But his most profound gift to science was his willingness and ability to abandon a theory in which he was intellectually, emotionally, and spiritually invested – having spent his entire life trying to prove it. In the face of conclusive and contradictory evidence, and with a heavy heart – he changed his mind. He gave up his quest for mathematical proof of the existence of a Godly order in the universe. He didn’t abandon his belief in God. He simply abandoned a tenet he had cherished. He thought critically and acted with intellectual integrity unmatched by even many of those arguably more brilliant than he. He had to be open to the evidence. He had to be willing to let go.
….
In my brief stint as a substitute teacher in between undergrad and law school I had the pleasure of subbing a civics class of high school seniors for a couple of weeks due to the teacher’s serious illness. Kids love to debate, but they don’t necessarily enjoy the learning involved in debating effectively. Most everyone of every age believes he or she debates effectively. They state their positions, by which they impress themselves, and they assume that anyone reasonable should be equally impressed. Their positions are most powerful, because they believe them. If they weren’t so powerful, they wouldn’t believe them.
After a couple of days discussing some topic of government or policy, I became a little frustrated. (probably if I had been blogging for any length of time beforehand, my level of expectations would have been much lower). At one point I asked everyone to take out a piece of paper and fill the page with their argument. Most of the kids had no problem. A few had a problem limiting the argument to one page, but I insisted. Five minutes or so later everyone was finished. Other than grammar or spelling, my later review of the papers generated little disappointment. These were bright and articulate students.
Then I asked them to turn the paper over. Their next assignment was to write an argument just as compelling, but for the opposite side of the issue. I didn’t want irony. I didn’t want qualifications. I wanted them to write their position as if it was their own. I wanted them to convince me of that argument. I got resistance. Some were frustrated and said they didn’t know what to write. Others were unable to fill the page. A few couldn’t bear to turn in the paper without reassuring me at the end that they didn’t really believe that position. One asked why she had to do it. (I didn’t realize at the time that some Christian fundamentalists object to such exercises as “values clarification” curriculum which undermines their faith). Only three or four in a class of about twenty were really able to do it, and only after some prodding.
It’s not easy to see another view. It runs against human nature. We have the capacity for it, but we do not have the drive to compel it. We don’t want to change our minds. Not even a little.
….
About eleven or twelve years ago I participated on an early Internet forum. Some of you may remember those ancient times before blogs where the forum was set up like a flow chart where you could track a discussion on the main page (those forums are probably virtual collector’s items now). I had an encounter with a conservative participant very well versed on the NRA talking points about gun control. My views on the Second Amendment differ significantly from those of most of the gun control advocates. The short version is that while I agree that the Second Amendment contains a qualifying dependent clause which suggest an intent to regulate the right of possession with a little more scrutiny than the other rights named in the Bill of Rights, the framers left few clues as to their intent and therefor the text should be construed in favor of the individual and against the state. The longer version is in an old post. And I elaborated a bit more in a later post.
Well, in my encounter with the NRA member, the fact that my ultimate conclusions on the issue matched his was not good enough. He was invested in not merely the conclusion, but on the whole structure of the narrative. That I attributed any intent of the glorious “Fathers” to limit gun rights in any way was simply unacceptable, and he surmised that I wasn’t truly in favor of the Second Amendment or gun rights. He didn’t call me a liar. He simply repeated his customary rant rhetoric, as if I was a gun control advocate (I am actually – as are some NRA members – it’s a question of degree). He could not leave the box of his dogma long enough to realize the ridiculousness of the rant. It reminded me of a scene on L.A. Law where a young attorney had spent so much time preparing her arguments that when the Judge dismissed the case against her client within seconds of calling the case she continued to argue. The Judge said, “how not guilty do you want me to find your client?”
Before he could accept me into the fold, whatever it may have been, I had to recite the full catechism. I had to agree that the Second Amendment is clear and concise, and that “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” was always intended to be the equivalent of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” The first portion of the sentence was merely philosophy, intended for no legal effect. He wouldn’t say it that way, because it sounds ridiculous. But anything less was caving to the liberal narrative.
….
You can listen to my last radio show, aired this last Thursday, at the archives. The 7:00 p.m. slot for those who don’t know about it. I confess I transgressed. Although I support GMO labeling (purely from a consumer rights perspective) I remain agnostic as to whether there is absolutely no positive value to GMO biotechnology. Unlike some of my callers, I am not an expert on what I know nothing about.
Innocently I raised some of the arguments against GMO’s, one being the potential for genetic strains of organisms loose in the wild with no ecological context. I cited the salmon farming as an example of such a biological contamination – the fact that salmon which have been selected for certain characteristic have gotten loose to contaminate the wild gene pool is a serious concern of some biologists, as explained to me during one of my trips to the Monterey Bay Aquarium. I suggested that the biotechnological genetic modification could potentially be as dangerous as the selective breading genetic manipulation. Bad move on my part. Apparently the anti-gmo narrative is that selective breeding is not genetic modification, the main reason being because so many industry hacks have said that it is. That discussion dominated much of the show, as I was accused of “spreading the corporate line.”
In the beginning I asked listeners for information of balanced discussions of the topic, but all I really got were sources to convince me of the anti-gmo line, some of which sounded interesting, but none of which I was really looking for. One book was recommended. Otherwise, it was all films and websites. But that’s fine. A couple of women called me up afterward, laughing at some of the callers, and suggested some leads. Either way, that’s not really the topic of this thread. The topic is the investment not just in the conclusion – they were willing to forgive my agnosticism on the subject. They were not willing to concede that selective breeding is genetic manipulation.
….
Afterwards I remembered arguments made on behalf of the nuclear industry during the early 80s when they were on the defensive following Three Mile Island and the timely release of The China Syndrome, along with mass demonstrations against nuclear power. One industry advocate said, “all we do is boil water.” It became a mantra. “We boil water.” Sounds benign.
So boiling water must be inherently destructive. We can’t boil water on our stoves. Or we can’t admit it, because that’s what nuclear power does. We merely raise the temperature of water to 212 degrees Fahrenheit to render it into a gaseous form. But we do not boil water. To acknowledge that we boil water should require a Kepler moment. Apparently it will be required of some activists who cannot accept that genetic manipulation takes place outside of the biotechnological realm.
….
Yes on Proposition 37. I realize that’s not good enough for some of you.
194 comments
Comments feed for this article
July 23, 2012 at 6:33 am
Fred Mangels
Yes on Proposition 37.
Have you ever considered simply not voting on an issue where there may be equal pros and cons?
July 23, 2012 at 7:22 am
Bolithio
A couple of years ago I was listening to alot of podcasts. There was one where a pair of hosts would debate some issue, and they did it in a very respectable and engaging way. The best part about the show, which was very subtle, was after there 30m break, they would return to the debate on opposite sides of the argument. Thing was, they did not inform the listener, they just simply switched sides. Ill try to remember what it was called and if its still around. But it was allot of fun to listen to.
July 23, 2012 at 7:35 am
Eric Kirk
Fred – the issue for Proposition 37 is labeling, not banning. Whether the gmo’s have any benefits is irrelevant to my view that the consumer should have easily available any information about the product which would affect his choice of purchase. Many people don’t want to consume GMO products. That is their prerogative.
I would think that a libertarian would understand that. Is the nanny corporation who knows better than you what is good for you any better than the nanny state?
Bolithio – that does sound fun!
July 23, 2012 at 7:37 am
Erasmus
I don’t live in CA — what is Prop 37? If it is the labeling initiative (that’s my guess), I say: vote no, because there are several ways to modify genes, and the genetic engineering in use for the past three decades or so is merely the most sophisticated. Why require a label for one form of G.M. and not for others? There is a clear implication that the labeled type is dangerous, although there is no evidence for such a fear. (On the other hand, the label “organic” on produce vastly increases the odds of E-coli contamination). —— Until genetic engineering came along, a common method of gene-altering was (and still is) nuclear radiation. “Did you know that this was the way many crops were produced over the last half-century? That much pasta comes from an irradiated variety of durum wheat? That most Asian pears are grown on irradiated grafts? Or that Golden Promise, a variety of barley especially popular with organic brewers, was first created in an atomic reactor in Britain in the 1950s by massive mutation of its genes followed by selection?” (Matt Ridley, ‘The Rational Optimist,’ p. 151).-Should these products be labeled? How should it read? Should organic produce come with a warning label? Why not?—– If the labeling initiative passes (and given the level of educational achievement in CA, I suspect that it will), a judge well-versed in this issue will toss it out. Do such judges exist? I have no idea.
July 23, 2012 at 7:39 am
Eric Kirk
Nevertheless Erasmus, rational or not, it is a fear. It’s up to the producers and distributors to market their products to the public. They shouldn’t be able to hold back information which is so important to the consumer. It should be the consumer who decides what is rational about his/her purchase.
Here’s the Wikipedia page on the measure. I’ll link to the actual measure shortly.
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_37,_Mandatory_Labeling_of_Genetically_Engineered_Food_%282012%29
Here are the ballot propositions for this fall.
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ballot-measures/qualified-ballot-measures.htm
July 23, 2012 at 8:11 am
Bolithio
That most Asian pears are grown on irradiated grafts?
Another amazing thing about asian pears is that most of them are pollinated by hand. http://www.beewatchers.com/2010/02/why-not-just-bring-in-more-bees.html
July 23, 2012 at 8:21 am
Fred Mangels
Many people don’t want to consume GMO products. That is their prerogative..
I understand that. If you’d read my preliminary positions on the initiatives I posted the other day you’d see some of my reasoning for either standing aside or voting No.
To sum it up, I like being able to read what’s inside the food I buy and labeling is already required to a great extent. I’m not concerned about eating GM foods. Still, I know that some are.
I also don’t like what seems to be a growing demand that everything be labeled and/ or announced. I don’t want to be part of that hysteria, which is why I’m considering standing aside.
Wondering what component of food will be attacked and brought into the labeling fracas next also has me considering voting NO.
I’ve noticed some food containers already being labeled as having no GMO products. I’d prefer something like that where food companies label GMOs voluntarily and use that as a selling point. If you’re worried about consuming GMO foods, only buy ones that are labeled as Non GMO.
July 23, 2012 at 8:24 am
Dave Kirby
I don’t have a problem with the concept of disclosing the presence of a GMO ingredient in a product. I think folks will be surprised when they find out how widespread GMOs are and what foods contain them. My doubts are concerned with enforcement. Who decides the degree of modification that triggers labeling? Who pays for the GMO cops? What lengths does a producer have to go to determine if the ingredients in his loaf of bread are GMO free? Its not that simple and when things are that complex the potential for endless litigation could be a major burden on the courts.
July 23, 2012 at 8:46 am
Fred Mangels
….Who decides the degree of modification that triggers labeling? Who pays for the GMO cops?…..
Exactly the sort of thing I’m referring to as the labeling fracas, and you can be sure that won’t be the end of it. More foods components will be drawn into it and more legalities fought over: Another Born in California mess.
July 23, 2012 at 9:01 am
Erasmus
The typical consumer, in my experience,is not terribly concerned about a technology that has been in place for decades and whose products have been eaten trillions of times. If “information” is so important (and, yes, it can be), why not add the words “FDA-approved” to each GMO label? That is accurate and it may assuage some fears. If activists oppose the “”FDA-approved ” language, they would be seen as stokers of fear, not as “concerned” citizens. ——– By the way, if “information” about the ingredients in our food supply is crucial for our health, why not require that KFC and Coca-Cola list their “secret ingredients”? And why stop there? Let’s put a label on organic products warning us about the amount and type of fungal spores, bacterial toxins, and other “organic” items. What about labels for cadmium content in organic durum wheat, or the amount of mercury in fish? ———- But the bigger issue is this: why cater to people’s fears? We all know about an episode in German history when people were labeled. I suppose there were defenders of the yellow star who said: we just want to know whom we’re dealing with. Why should anyone refuse to announce his identity? What is there to hide? We have a right to this information! Sorry to drag the carcass of the 3rd Reich into the discussion —- I just want to underline how disingenuous all that discussion about “information” can be. The activists want to drive GMO products out of the marketplace, and they see labeling as a tactic. It won’t work, but it will (as Mr. Kirby pointed out) create a lot of work for lawyers.
July 23, 2012 at 9:07 am
Eric Kirk
There’s nothing that would prohibit the FDA-approval labeling Erasmus. And if the typical consumer is not concerned about it, then there should be no negative impact on their sales. We’ll know if the majority of California voters are concerned about it come November.
And the Nazi Jew labeling comparison is a bit melodramatic Erasmus, don’t you think?
As to catering to the fear, again, you’re putting the government rather than the consumer in charge of what is to be feared or not desired in a product. If the producer/distributor can’t make the case for the product’s utility and safety, hiding the information from the consumer is hardly a healthy arrangement.
As to your earlier questions about what constitutes a gmo, I believe the text of the initiative covers that.
http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/initiatives/pdfs/i1044_11-0099_(genetically_engineered_food_v2).pdf?
July 23, 2012 at 9:07 am
Fred Mangels
Perhaps not all that relevant but I understand the guy that bankrolled this initiative and got the ball rolling is that Dr.(?) Joseph Mercola who is featured on lewrockwell.com frequently.
He’s pretty much the contrarian opposed to what seems to be just about all conventional medical practices such as vaccinations and such. I probably shouldn’t paint him with such a broad brush as I’ve rarely read his columns.
July 23, 2012 at 9:08 am
Fred Mangels
Oh, and Dr. Mercola is from Michigan, not California, I believe.
July 23, 2012 at 9:13 am
erniebranscomb
First, I would have chosen Einstein over Kepler. Einstein was a clear and open minder thinker. Kepler started off with a childish idea that some kind of an imaginary being controls everything. Just like most people, if they really think about it, will accept that there is no sentient God running everything.
Second, I admire the students that tried to figure things out and did not try to argue the other side. People with open minds have already looked at, and considered the other side and rejected it. Law school students are taught “debate” to teach creative lying. Anything but the truth is less than honest.
Third, I am voting for GMO labeling, There is nothing wrong with a “label”. Hell, I even like people to sign their names to what they say. I don’t like wasting my time reading “Anonymous” crap to see if they make any sense at all, then discovering that they don’t. I like that you sign your name to your statements and I always read them. Only about 30% of anonymous is worth reading. In some respects I don’t blame them for not signing, but Damn, it would be nice to know who is trying to feed you crap that you don’t want.
July 23, 2012 at 9:30 am
Fred Mangels
…I am voting for GMO labeling, There is nothing wrong with a “label”….
When I read things like that, it makes me feel like voting No. That’s the sort of thinking that’s gotten this state into the condition it is in. The death of a thousand cuts. You have to think about the unintended consequences- as Dave Kirby noted above- of voting for “just a label”:
July 23, 2012 at 9:49 am
erniebranscomb
It’s a complicated world Fred. They label food that has peanuts in it, but peanuts don’t bother you and I, so why should we care. The simple fact remains that we can ignore the labels if we want to. To some people it may be a matter of life or death.
You can’t drive down the wrong side of the road just because you want to either. That’s why they put up the labels telling you which side of the road to drive. Ten thousand years ago they didn’t need those kinds of labels, today they do. Same with creatively engineered foods, they didn’t have GMO foods ten thousand years ago, today we do. I would just like to know which ones.
July 23, 2012 at 10:11 am
erniebranscomb
Fred, the world today is so complicated that there are now corporations that modify food crops to be disease resistant, and, oh by the way, the seeds are also modified so you can only get them from the corporations, because they have patented them. If Your neighbors corporate crop mixes with yours the corporations can sue you for patent violations. They can stop you from growing things that cross bred your crop that you had no control over.
The corporations want to keep those kinds of things secret. I don’t want them to be able to. Sometimes it’s more than just whether the food is good for you or not. People that know about these kinds of corporate takeovers want the truth to be out there. If the public refuses to eat the corporate food it will take the value of having a monopoly away.
You are already being “cut a thousand times”, labeling GMOs is like offering you a Band-Aid. Sometimes you have to think things all the way trough Fred. Not all rules are bad.
July 23, 2012 at 10:21 am
Bolithio
It’s a complicated world Fred. They label food that has peanuts in it, but peanuts don’t bother you and I, so why should we care. The simple fact remains that we can ignore the labels if we want to. To some people it may be a matter of life or death.
Indeed. Its worse though. The law currently only requires their labeling for the top 8 allergens if the products ingredients contain it. It is NOT required to label the product if it contains the allergen. Confused? In our amazing sci-fi world of mass produced food, most products are run next to or on top of some other food product. The result is cross contamination (even with the best intention and sterilization of equipment). Just a trace amount of peanut can send people into a deadly reaction.
As a father of child with a life threatening peanut allergy, I have been ‘lobbying’ for a law to require ‘processed in a facility’ for the top allergens. This GMO law actually has some of us bitter, because its not a life or death issue, is hard to define, and serves less to the public than a allergen cross-contamination label would.
I think Ill still vote yes though, and see what happens.
July 23, 2012 at 11:41 am
Erasmus
No wonder CA politics have become a laughingstock for much of the country: “I think I’ll still vote yes though, and see what happens.” Here’s what will happen: lawsuits, litigation costs, acrimony, all in the name of food safety, even though every regulatory body in the country has long ago decided in favor of the new technology (used also to produce some of our most common medical drugs —- should they be labeled too? Why not?). —- Yes, the Nazi example of people-labeling was melodramatic — that is why I wrote “Sorry” when I mentioned it. The point was to dramatize the far-from-pristine nature of “information” considered in the abstract. —– No one has addressed my chief objection to the initiative: it is unfair to single out one form of genetic modification and allow health food stores to pretend that their products are “natural” and innocent of gene-tampering. That is a lie, and I am saddened that so many people seem to have swallowed it.
July 23, 2012 at 12:09 pm
erniebranscomb
Right “Erasmus”, lets not label things, for you. Lets not have any rules for Fred. Things were a lot more simple in the dark ages. Unfortunately fewer people survived back then.
I said that it was complicated… That’s why we settle things democratically. Sadly, even the voting booth has rules. I’m sorry that you feel that way, and I’ll even feel “sorry” for you when GMO labeling passes.
July 23, 2012 at 12:30 pm
Eric Kirk
Erasmus – basically it’s fair to single out the one form of genetic modification because a significant portion of the population is concerned about it and want to know whether it’s in the food they’re buying. If it’s just a few odd people who are concerned, then it won’t pass in November. If enough voters are concerned enough to vote yes, then we know that the concern, rational or not, is widespread. As such, it’s up to the industry to educate and market their own products. But keeping it all a secret is hardly a rational answer to the discussion. If there’s a benefit in the price of the product, and people aren’t concerned, then the labeling is at worst a beurocratic nuisance – some other detail to put onto the packaging.
And if the side effect is that low income people stop buying processed corn products altogether, that wouldn’t necessarily be a problem from a public health perspective. Maybe there would be less adult onset diabetes. That is if the opposition propaganda is true, and that pretty much everything made of corn involves GMO’s.
Greenfuse published an article which does raise a legitimate concern about a side effect. The crops which are intended to resist Roundup is leading to health issues, as Roundup is a particularly nasty product and the increased usage is a health problem for farm workers and probably anybody living in the neighborhood. But this isn’t a health issue caused by the gmo itself.
July 23, 2012 at 1:04 pm
erniebranscomb
“this isn’t a health issue caused by the gmo itself.”
Exactly, but at some point it could be. Labeling will inform us.
July 23, 2012 at 1:35 pm
Erasmus
You seem to be in favor of partial labeling — I would not oppose complete labeling. ——— People are sensitive about food issues, and they are also misinformed about them (even more in Europe than they are in this country, according to Robert Paarlberg’s ‘Starved for Science’, p. 37: “most Europeans believe erroneously that a person’s own genes can be modified from eating GM food.”) The proposed labeling initiative does nothing to increase general knowledge about the food we eat. I would not trust a Greenfuse article on this subject any more than I would trust one of the many anti-vaccine websites on the internet. Roundup is a great improvement on the pesticides that preceded it. There is a discussion of its history and chemistry in Nina Fedoroff’s ‘Mendel in the Kitchen: a scientist’s view of genetically modified foods’ (pp. 274-278). Fedoroff was Hillary Clinton’s science adviser for two years, is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, and got her Ph.D. from Rockefeller University. Before one places credence in a Greenfuse article, I would spend 5 minutes reading Fedoroff’s pages. (Actually, the whole book merits reading.)
July 23, 2012 at 1:48 pm
Mitch
Are you familiar, Erasmus, with this story about Monsanto suing farmers for using seed from their Roundup ready crops?
How do you feel about private corporations being able to prevent farmers from replanting from seed?
How do you feel about farmers having to worry about the risks of using non-patented seed in case pesticide strays onto their land from that of a neighbor?
As I recall, you believe the creation was created by God. How do you feel about a corporation claiming ownership of an organism formed by taking one million parts God #1337 and two parts Monsanto #1?
(The issue at the trial is whether Monsanto’s claim is accurate and supported by evidence; the law is not questioned. Monsanto, protected by the force of the United States, will not allow anyone to use seed from Roundup Ready crops they previously planted.)
http://nelsonfarm.net/issue.htm
July 23, 2012 at 2:48 pm
JK
Yes, Erasmus, people are misinformed. Unfortunately, it’s not who you think.
Eric, Isaac Newton is the number one science bad-ass.
July 23, 2012 at 2:51 pm
Erasmus
This is what is frustrating about debating this issue: it moves from food safety to corporate malfeasance in a blink of an eye. Monsanto has rights similar to those of pharmaceutical companies. Every new drug is made from God-given molecules and atoms, and as a society we have chosen to reward those who rearrange the elements into new products — we award patents. There are lots of stories I’ve read about the deck being stacked against a non-Monsanto-using farmer. The only case I’m familiar with is that of Percy Schmeiser, the Canadian farmer sued by Monsanto and found guilty in three separate trials in Canada (ending with one in their Supreme Court). When the details of Schmeiser’s case became known to me, I realized what some people will do to become environmental heroes —- how much they will lie. Because of Schmeiser’s lies, I am skeptical of the stories I see about Monsanto’s seemingly unfair tactics. They may be true, of course, but I will have to be persuaded with hard evidence.
July 23, 2012 at 3:33 pm
Fred Mangels
No wonder CA politics have become a laughingstock for much of the country: “I think I’ll still vote yes though, and see what happens.”.
Yep. The mantra of the California voter, often followed with, “What could possibly go wrong?”.
July 23, 2012 at 3:44 pm
Erasmus
Luckily for all of you who can still afford to live in CA, there is a great deal in life that transcends politics, and I often miss the culture of the West Coast.
July 23, 2012 at 3:52 pm
erniebranscomb
This is what is frustrating about debating this issue: it moves from food safety to corporate malfeasance in a blink of an eye.”
Erasmus, with all due respect. To those of us in California, whom you think are terminally naive, GMO labeling has always been about corporate malfeasance. If they can beat a farmer in court for using his own seed they need to be stopped. If they have to label their product as being GMO then the court of public opinion will apply. Why do you think that the corporations are trying so hard to kill the bill? To save label ink???
July 23, 2012 at 3:54 pm
Bolithio
Id like to know why its so hard to label a product. If something contains something, you print it on the label. Period. Im a laughingstock for thinking that? Yeh why should consumers be informed with what they are purchasing? Two words: Soylent Green.
July 23, 2012 at 4:06 pm
erniebranscomb
Good one Bolitio. As I recall, the people that ate Soylent Green never complained that it wasn’t labeled… I wonder how they let things go that far.
July 23, 2012 at 7:09 pm
Fred Mangels
…GMO labeling has always been about corporate malfeasance.
Thanks for admitting that this really isn’t about disclosure in foods. It’s more of an attack on businesses.
July 23, 2012 at 7:55 pm
JK
It’s hard to label because of cross contamination. Genetic modification creates an unstable, forced mutation. But, like most mutations, it can usually still breed with the original. So, a farmer who never used GM can still end up with contaminated crops, and not know it.
This is the point of the Svalbard global seed vault. Just in case we screw up using a science that is barely understood on our food supply, we still might be able to recover the older “not fucked up” versions.
July 24, 2012 at 7:09 am
Erasmus
Why are corporations trying to defeat the measure? Try a thought experiment. You work for a multinational corporation by selling their products in a chain store. The virtuous citizens of CA decide that they deserve to know the incomes of the workers who made the products you sell. The corporations object to the hardship that this requirement would impose on them — all the paperwork, the possibility of lawsuits if it turns out that they have been given incorrect information, and the sheer difficulty of complying with the law. Furthermore, the income of someone in China is hard to compare with that of someone in CA (living costs are much lower in most parts of China). Can you understand why corps would not want to be forced to put a label on their products? —– Extrapolate to so-called GMOs (and remember: virtually every food you buy has been genetically altered by human ingenuity). Do you expect a food company to oversee the methods used to breed the produce in foreign countries? Do you think that the bureaucratic requirement to comply with the law would be welcomed by any company? Does our economy need more paperwork?
July 24, 2012 at 7:24 am
Mitch
Erasmus,
Corporations have somehow managed to learn how to notify us that “this product was packaged in a facility that also processes peanuts.” All that expense and difficulty, plus the risk that they might be mistaken, appears to be worth it to them so they can properly fight the occasional lawsuit from those who are allergic to peanuts.
Although you don’t seem to see any difference between modern genetic manipulation and that achieved by more traditional selective breeding, others do.
They (possibly we, I’m uncertain) would like to know when modern genetic manipulation has been used. This strikes me as no different than being entitled to know if a murder was committed in the house I am thinking of buying — it may have no effect on the house, but it does affect its value to me. And I’m by no means confident that modern genetic manipulation is safe. If you are, fine, ignore the label.
Yes, I expect anyone in the business of selling food to be aware of the methods used in growing it. I would expect them to be aware of what chemicals were used in the fields, and I would expect them to be aware of what techniques were used to alter the natural varieties. Ideally, I’d like them to be a bit like the people the actors in their advertising probably portray: friendly, jeans-wearing farmers who live to grow healthy food.
Yes, this is an easier task for people who, in addition to profiting from food, actually do the growing themselves, or subcontract the growing to people within, say, a few thousand miles.
Perhaps the difficulty you think such requirements impose on billion-dollar multinational companies might be a sign that billion-dollar multinational companies don’t know enough about the food they profit from to responsibly place themselves in effective charge of our food supply.
July 24, 2012 at 7:31 am
Mitch
And yes, JK, it’s Newton hands down. Allow Eric some leeway.
July 24, 2012 at 7:55 am
Erasmus
How many times do I have to say it: there are many —- not just two —– methods of altering genomes. “For decades, plant breeders and farmers have routinely blasted crops with radiation. The practice, mutagenesis, is not organic, but has been widely – and quietly – accepted throughout the world as a way to hasten the breeding of plants. Even those who wouldn’t eat irradiated food rarely object publicly as they do with genetically engineered products. Mutagenesis produces new hybrids at remarkable speeds, but it also causes rapid mutations in their genetic structure. Seeds are typically collected, germinated, and surveyed for new traits. (….) Without exception, the changes induced by mutagenesis were more significant than any brought about using the tools of molecular biology. Again, that doesn’t mean that mutagenesis is dangerous. It’s not. Surely, though, radiation — a process that affects the entire plant — ought to frighten people more than the manipulation of a single gene. Yet nobody has ever refused to let a ship dock at an African port because it was filled with irradiated wheat” (Michael Specter, staff writer at the New Yorker, in “Denialism,” p. 135). ————- —– What does the proposed label have to say about mutagenesis? Nothing?! And you wonder why I oppose the initiative?!!
July 24, 2012 at 8:07 am
Mitch
Erasmus,
My degree is in Applied Biology, MIT, 1979. I don’t normally spout the credential, but this is one time it’s relevant. I don’t trust the corporations with genetics or food, and I’m glad those seed banks exist. I’ve heard trust me about a billion times too many.
July 24, 2012 at 8:44 am
Eric Kirk
If you were to ask me the name of the most brilliant scientist, I would opt for Newton or Einstein. But the greatest contribution to science was offered by Kepler – he set an unprecedented (at least according to record) example for the pursuit of objectivity.
And while Ernie’s right that he was more religous than Einstein (who was agnostic, not atheist), Einsten had the benefit of 400 years of secularizing culture. Atheism and agnosticism as overt philosophies are actually fairly new to the species.
July 24, 2012 at 9:12 am
Mitch
Lawyers. Gotta have the last word. But point taken. 🙂
July 24, 2012 at 9:17 am
Mitch
Just to prove I probably shoulda been a lawyer, I’d say the greatest contribution in the sense Eric means was probably that of Francis Bacon. But I can be persuaded otherwise. In the past, I’ve misattributed Bacon’s idols to Kant, but whoever came up with the list gave humanity a great gift:
http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/agexed/aee501/bacon.html
July 24, 2012 at 9:31 am
Erasmus
Of course, it may turn out that James Watson will have contributed more to human betterment than the physicists so beloved on this blog. His credentials are even more illustrious than Mitch’s and his views on genetic engineering are even more trustworthy than those of the people who write for Greenfuse. For these reasons, I recommend reading the chapter “Tempest in a Cereal Box” in his book ‘DNA: the Secret of Life.’ After digesting his thoughts, the reader may reach the conclusion I have: opposition to the newest form of genetic modification isn’t just wrong — it’s silly.
July 24, 2012 at 9:39 am
Mitch
Erasmus,
Even the greatest of scientists are not immune to hubris. Watson certainly has fine credentials, and I would agree his rise even above mine. (Meow, Erasmus, meow, meow.)
But many, many scientists simply do not appreciate the dangers caused by mixing technology and greed. In a way, that’s a compliment to them — they themselves are genuinely decent people, and they don’t realize what happens when the crooks and liars of our business community get their hands on the latest toys science has enabled.
July 24, 2012 at 9:49 am
erniebranscomb
Eric, I see your point. During a time when you could be excommunicated or killed for thinking that things happened by other than Gods plan, Kepler made a bold step forward for science.
Fred, I am so pro-business that I reek of it. I’m pro-logging, with rules. I was against everything that Hurwitz and Maxxam did. However, logging with selective cut and sustained yield is the solution to many of the worlds problems. Trees grow on sunshine clean water and soil. They provide lumber for housing and they sequester CO2. It would seem that the environmental groups would be screaming for Logging. Why is it that they are still hung up on stopping ALL logging? Logging with rules is a major solution for the north coast, it will provide jobs and legitimate income.
I am for re-aligning Richardson Grove because it is good for the trucking business and it would actually make the products that we use here on the north coast less expensive and the products that we ship out more profitable. I have no fear the the north coast will ever become a magalopolis. However, redwoods are precious, and they need to be protected… mostly from our psuedo-environmentalists. Without digressing, the Grove project is the best environmental solution to a legal road into Humboldt. But we need rules to protect the redwoods from BOTH caltrans and the pseudo-environmentalists.
All I want is the businesses (farmers) that want to produce GMO free foods to be able to do so. That means that they will need some control over other businesses that produce GMO and want to run the GMO-free people out of business.
So, I guess you are right, it is “an attack on (unscrupulous) business.” That requires a few rules”. A GMO label will help business
July 24, 2012 at 10:48 am
Eric Kirk
Erasmus – for the record, the article was reporting on a study, and it may even have been a reprinted article. I’ll look at it when I get home and post the details.
July 24, 2012 at 2:22 pm
Erasmus
Mitch —- at this moment, I don’t see an unbridgeable gap between our views. (Maybe I’m just feeling overly mellow from the red wine I just drank.) —- I’m glad that no one has nominated Darwin as the greatest scientist of all time. I don’t doubt the fact of evolution, and Darwin seems to have been one of the more admirable historical figures (e,g., his strong opposition to slavery), but he was far less original than commonly believed and his theory falls far short of genuine scientific proof. (Natural selection is like an editing process —- dependent on something that already exists and that it can’t account for.) The obeisance paid to Darwin by people like Richard Dawkins has slowed down the search for factors in evolution that Darwin did not foresee. He should not be mentioned in the same breath as Newton, Kepler, or Einstein.
July 24, 2012 at 3:05 pm
erniebranscomb
“… factors in evolution that Darwin did not foresee. He should not be mentioned in the same breath as Newton, Kepler, or Einstein.”
Agreed, but it was Darwin, great scientist or not, that wrenched the theory of evolution away from the church, and suggested that things might have gotten to be here by other than divine magic.
July 24, 2012 at 3:51 pm
suzy blah blah
-Kepler may have had his moments, but his ruff design, with it’s theme of repetitive infinity, which may look elaborate to an unsophisticated awareness, is very simplistic when compared to one that is divinely inspired
July 24, 2012 at 4:11 pm
Erasmus
I think Ernie is correct —- Darwin looms large in cultural history, and it was indeed necessary to secularize science.
July 24, 2012 at 5:03 pm
Mitch
Erasmus,
Keep drinking. 🙂
It seems a little silly to rank the great scientists of history. I certainly consider Darwin to be among the greatest. His achievements are reduced by his fear at going up against the religious establishment, but perhaps that just shows the broadness of his wisdom.
Darwin was not alone in seeing the importance of natural selection. As far as I know, he did not try to crowd others out. History happens.
July 24, 2012 at 6:54 pm
grackle
I’m left non-plussed by Erasmus’s insistence that one must equate transgenic mutations with mutagenesis; that it would be wrong to call a spade a spade; that there is some danger in the simple act of informing people about the food they purchase.
Myself, I’m suspicious about the very act of hiding the process; it’s not like we haven’t seen the unintended results of 150 years of chemistry and biological manipulation in such matters as the wholesale use of DDT, the arising of “super-bugs” in response to the profligate use of anti-biotics; the results of showering our environment with PCB’s, etc etc..
Since Mansanto is the prime purveyor and beneficiary of genetically manipulated seeds, why not look at what we know about Monsanto as a corporate citizen? Super-fund sites, anyone?
It seems to me that the sort of genetic manipulation that this initiative addresses is just plain something I want to be informed about. I don’t think anyone has been able to patent mutagenically derived seeds, although I may be mistaken. I’m not particularly worried about the safety of the food products produced. I am quite concerned about the chain reaction of built up resistances to Round-Up and like herbicides, two or more generations down the road. We have a pathetic track record in our attempts to outsmart mother nature and I don’t really want to reap what we will inevitably sow.
July 24, 2012 at 9:51 pm
Bruce Ross
When I was in high school — and a lad passionate and certain of his opinions — I recall when the teacher from whom I rented a room (complicated story) told his son, also high school age, to make the other side of the argument he was making. Much as you did with your students. An old trick, I now know.
But at the time, I was horrified at what I saw as the sheer cynicism of it all. There’s not another side to Truth!
Perhaps in law and journalism, and a few other trades, one cannot avoid — both via education and in practice — that there are two or more likely nine sides to any story. Gosh it’s rough news to the young, though.
July 25, 2012 at 6:49 am
Mitch
I semi-agree with Bruce (and myself) that an inability to see that there are good arguments on all sides of many issues is a disability we all face to a certain extent, but especially when younguns.
The corresponding disability of age is sometimes an easy willingness to accept that all sides are equally valid, especially when fighting would be too uncomfortable.
As I’ve grown older, I like to think that I’ve realized that there are often good arguments as to the best means with which to achieve shared ends. But, alas, I’ve also realized that it is a reality that some humans are more selfish than others and, oftentimes, those who have achieved wealth and power have done it by exercising selfishness more than by any other talent. Such people must be watched and challenged and, critically, we must be aware that we all have the same tendencies to a greater or lesser degree.
There may be two valid sides to whether companies should do deep-sea drilling for oil; there are not two valid sides to whether companies should be allowed to use emergency fail-safe mechanisms that, by design FFS, won’t work about one time in ten.
There may be two valid sides to whether nuclear power is a boon to humanity; there are not two valid sides to whether companies should be strictly regulated when dealing with nuclear power, with the regulators themselves monitored by auditors.
There may be two valid sides to whether gays should be crushed under walls or women should face genital mutilation… uh, no. Wait. Full stop. No, there simply aren’t. Some things are wrong, even when they are completely normal to certain cultures. When a culture is inhuman to its members, the question for other societies is not whether the culture in question is wrong, but how to help those who are beaten down by it, how much, and at what risk to one’s own society’s members.
I’ve met many real conservatives and many real liberals — substitute your own preferred politically correct terminology if these labels disturb you. I’ve also met many people who would assert they are conservatives, or who would assert they are liberals, but who in reality have simply chosen the side they think will let them make the most money. It’s definitely not a failing of pseudo-conservatives only.
July 25, 2012 at 7:27 am
Erasmus
“Our attempts to outsmart mother nature” —- is that a definition of science? Doesn’t medicine try to “beat” nature, in some sense? How can we outsmart Nature if we are part of the natural world? Do other species try to outsmart her? No? Is that why are 99% of all species that have ever existed extinct? ————— My pipedream is that CA will be as wise as the Oregon voters who turned down a similar labeling initiative a few years ago, and (as a resident of MI) I wouldn’t care what happens at the voting box in November if CA weren’t such a huge, bloated, rotting carcass on the shores of the country: the stink from its politics emanates far and wide, and we can’t laugh it off as if it were just Vermont.————- A more realistic hope: that this measure will be tossed out by the courts, like so many others that the distracted voters have passed. There is no need to label something that has no bearing on food safety —- period.
July 25, 2012 at 9:48 am
Fred Mangels
… if CA weren’t such a huge, bloated, rotting carcass on the shores of the country:….
Lol! So true.
July 25, 2012 at 10:30 am
grackle
I suppose it might be, as “science” is often practiced. Partial understandings lead to partial, often unintended results. You articulate your view admirably and I appreciate it. I prefer a transparency that allows people to make up their minds based on their own reasons and reasoning. It’s just that simple. Of course, I’d also like people to be able to make up their own minds about whether or not they can buy foie gras, or horse meat for that matter but I hope Prop 37 passes just because transparency is a net good.
And by and by, I’ve no opinion on the world’s greatest scientist.
July 25, 2012 at 11:00 am
Eric Kirk
Grackle – I believe that mutagenic seeds are patented, but I don’t know that the DNA pattern itself is patented as it is with transgenic technology.
I’m also not certain the distinction between those two concepts is definitive here. My understanding of transgenic (based on the little reading I completed before Thursday night’s show) is that it involves splicing of DNA patterns for distantly related species, while mutagenic can involve chemical and radiation exposure to DNA as well as selective breeding.
In fact, most mutations are caused by chemical and radioactive interaction with DNA – in the natural world. Background radiation and the sun’s radiation is believed to be the primary agent for evolutionary mutation (as well as cancer and neutral mutation).
Does Prop 37 distinguish between the two? I haven’t read it that closely.
July 25, 2012 at 3:17 pm
JK
I don’t know, Eric. I still think Newton’s got the edge. Without integral calculus you don’t even have the math to check most modern physics. Einstein could not have made his prediction that was confirmed with the eclipse.
July 25, 2012 at 3:19 pm
Dave Kirby
Much of the modification of our food supply is about cosmetic appearance and transport . Though we are encouraged to eat more green leafy vegies the bulk of them contain higher levels of pesticides than other produce because we don’t like insect holes in our spinach. Virtually all the modern tomato strains have been modified so they ripen at a uniform and predictable rate. Heirloom varieties don’t look as pretty and don’t ship as well as those tasteless perfect orbs of scarlet. As I said I personally don’t oppose the concept of labeling. The more we know about our food supply the better. But we have been modifying our food supply for a long time and defining what is a GMO may prove a lot more difficult than the proponents of this measure realize. Not all GMOs are “frankenfoods” there are some that have been tweaked to increase yield and flavor with genes from other strains of the same family. I’m not talking about glow in the dark cucumbers or Roundup resistant corn. This is more about apples and oranges.
July 25, 2012 at 6:31 pm
JK
“activists who cannot accept that genetic manipulation takes place outside of the biotechnological realm.”
No. This is completely fallacious. Manipulate specifically means to ‘handle or use, esp with some skill, in a process or action’ Basically, they are ‘manipulating’ a natural process to get results they cannot get naturally. Then they make the asinine assertion that because the process is natural, their ignorant, clumsy manipulation of it is OK.
The problem is that the “science” of genetic modification consists of tearing pieces of code out of one organism, putting some “punctuation” markers around it, then scabbing into something else’s code. Afterward, praying that it will do something other than get cancer and die. Even when it does do something, there are always weird side effects.
Until you can at least marginally accurately predict what the outcome of mods will be, you should NOT introduce them into your FOOD supply. On the other hand, if we’re too stupid as a species to figure this out, maybe we deserve what we get.
July 26, 2012 at 6:05 am
Bolithio
Id like to say that GMO as a scientific form of food production can offer the world an amazing opportunity to improve the lives of people. Im thinking of Africa, where drought resistant grains are being developed. There are likely hundreds of examples.
Here in America however, we question the intent of our major private industries – especially when it comes to what we are putting into our bodies. Is it any wonder that people do not trust companies like Monsanto? If their mission is indeed sustainable agriculture, why do they sue small farmers and shill for mega-farms?
But I digress. Asking for a label for GMO (not hybrid plants, and the argument that hybrids are GMO is obviously not what we are talking about here) will do two things. For one, it will inform the masses that some foods are GMO (I bet most people are not even aware of this). Then we get the choice to eat it or not. In other words Erasmus; its not opposition to GMO, its awareness.
If I have a sense of entitlement as an American, it is to have the choice.
And CA, considered by some to be “a rotting corpse on the coast”, others see it as a State where standards are set to protect and maintain clean and healthy environments for society – not merely enable short term minded businesses to make money.
July 26, 2012 at 6:53 am
Erasmus
Bolithio’s comment is reasonable —- I would prefer a label that does more than just say “GMO,” for those three letters don’t mean much to the average consumer: it’s an inert parcel of information. And my colorful description of CA should not be seen as a blanket indictment of the state — I was thinking of ways in which CA’s economy resembles Greece, and the recent news about the extremely low rate of return on the public employees’ pension funds ought to send shivers throughout the state. ————— JK has swallowed the line that activists have been peddling for many years, and I was once a victim of their falsehoods too. Until a friend who teaches science at UC-Davis shamed me into doing some research on this issue, I thought that GMOs were a profit-driven gamble by corporations that was endangering our food supply. Anyone who wants to outgrow activist-driven hysteria could consult Nina Fedoroff’s ‘Mendel in the Kitchen’ and learn what reputable scientists have written on the matter. On page 197, for instance, we read” “What is rarely mentioned in debates about genetically modified food is how it has made our food safer.” The paragraphs that follow explain how. Will activists confront the evidence? Of course not — they would lose their reason for taking up space on the planet.
July 26, 2012 at 7:03 am
Plain Jane
Labeling GMO food allows consumers to choose. Using the excuse that consumers, in their ignorance, will reject GMO foods to justify not labeling it as such is unacceptable corporate elitism.
July 26, 2012 at 7:09 am
gpf
“…they would lose their reason for taking up space on the planet.”
Erasmus, I hear your arrogance, elitism, condescension and mockery. What is your reason for taking up space on the planet?
July 26, 2012 at 7:45 am
Erasmus
Is it elitist to point out how uninformed the average citizen is on this matter? “Only 57 percent of American citizens appeared to be aware that ‘ordinary tomatoes contain genes.’ In Europe an even lower 36 percent of respondents got this simple question right” (Robert Paarlberg, ‘Starved for Science,’ p. 37). I’d have no reason to oppose labeling if I had trust in the average Californian’s knowledge of the issue. These days, people can be talked into voting for almost anything. (Want to put the Bill of Rights up for a vote?)
July 26, 2012 at 7:47 am
Erasmus
gdf: to allow you to feel superior to me.
July 26, 2012 at 8:06 am
Eric Kirk
Well, there’s no objection to the labeling of ingredients, and I’m ignorant of about half the ingredients listed on the average product.
July 26, 2012 at 8:37 am
Erasmus
If this issue had not been politicized, I’d have no objection to labeling. Activists have been upfront about using the initiative as a tactic to rid the world of GMOs, and they wish the acronym to frighten consumers like a skull and crossbones. I’m for light, not for heat, but this controversy has long since left the realm of dispassionate science. (See some of the comments above.) There is no move to require crops bred through nuclear-induced mutation (found in every grocery store) to be labeled —- activists neglected to hitch their star to that particular wagon (though the opportunities for fear-mongering would have been endless). No, the issue is political, not scientific, and anyone voting for the PARTIAL labeling law has been led by the nose into joining the activists’ crusade. ———- Does no one understand why a corporation that uses GMOs would object to the exemption from a labeling law of a corporation that uses nuclear-induced mutations? If no one on this blog grasps this, I’ll have to hope that somewhere in our legal system exists a corrective to a momentary passion. (Someone like Vaughn Walker.)
July 26, 2012 at 9:11 am
Ernie Branscomb
” “What is rarely mentioned in debates about genetically modified food is how it has made our food safer.”
Assuming that to be true, why would the corporations object to labeling that fact???
“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” W.S.
July 26, 2012 at 9:16 am
Eric Kirk
Erasmus – So basically the activists have marketed their product more effectively than the industry. Whose fault is that?
My issue here is similar to my skepticism about campaign finance regulation – yes, a lot of misinformation can be put out there, but it’s ultimately up to the individual to discern. Assuming that you’re right and that the objections to GMOs are irrational, it’s really up to the industry to make its case rather than hide the facts from consumers on the basis that they know better what’s good for the consumer.
I mean I think it’s completely irrational that some consumers prefer peanut butter filled with lard and sugar because in the more pure peanut butter the oil separates from the rest of the product. Now I personally don’t really mind stirring it, but some people don’t want to have to do that. So apparently there’s a requirement in some places that consumers be warned that the PB might separate. Irrational to me, but apparently important to other consumers. If they want to know whether it separates, who am I to tell them that they aren’t entitled to that information?
July 26, 2012 at 9:19 am
Mitch
Bolithio @ 6:05,
Re California. A few years ago, my husband and I were at SFO, preparing with some dismay for a flight to North Carolina, part of Merican America. We were not in the best space, having already visited our destination, and knowing what was coming.
Sure enough, someone with a Merican accent waddled their family into our elevator, noticed that there were braille marks by the floor buttons, and snickered something like “leave it to California to waste money on this crap.” That entire bunch of Mericans were on our flight.
July 26, 2012 at 9:30 am
Erasmus
As usual, Eric makes many valid points —— but when “products” are mentioned, and I am impelled to think of what “product” is produced by activists, I can think of one above all: fear. Yes, they market that very effectively, and I will join you in saluting their skill. (If anyone has read Alexander Cockburn’s ‘A Short History of Fear,’ I would appreciate a review. Is it solely about global warming? That would disappoint me.)
July 26, 2012 at 9:30 am
Eric Kirk
Maybe they don’t have blind people in North Carolina.
July 26, 2012 at 10:26 am
Mitch
Eric,
North Carolina uses a businesslike approach. When you take your driving test, there’s a fine print section asking you to check the box if you’re blind. Using that inexpensive approach, they’ve determined there are no blind people in the state, and therefore no need for the wasteful approach that California takes, with foolish braille buttons and ridiculous audio cues at critical street crossings.
It’s that sort of efficient, economical approach to determining needs that enables North Carolina to maintain its safety thread at a fraction of the cost of California’s net.
July 26, 2012 at 10:49 am
tra
Don’t forget that it was North Carolina that “solved” the climate change / sea level rise problem by banning any references to climate-change-driven seal-level rises in their coastal planning, instead referring to “recurrent flooding” that could only be “extrapolated linearly to estimate future rates of rise but shall not include scenarios of accelerated rates of sea-level rise.”
http://news.discovery.com/earth/north-carolina-to-sea-level-rise-go-away-120615.html
July 26, 2012 at 11:26 am
Ernie Branscomb
The thing that offends me to most about disability laws is the lack of uniformity. They protect the blind, the deaf and the physically disadvantaged, but the stupid people get no protection at all… Is that fair?
July 26, 2012 at 1:54 pm
Bolithio
Erasmus says: ” Activists have been upfront about using the initiative as a tactic to rid the world of GMOs, and they wish the acronym to frighten consumers like a skull and crossbones. ”
So what? That is exactly what activists did regarding logging. Im sure many many people in the activist group wanted to end logging entirely. And industry opposition to new regulation would use the same argument you are, that “they are going to take this too far!”. But that’s not what happened. Instead we have an enforceable legal framework in which to harvest timber and protect the environment. So just because there are extreme viewpoints within a community, it doesn’t mean that they will get their way. Rarely does the pendulum swing that far from center, even in CA.
And by the way, even though I am aware of the use of radiation in many facets of our industry – it still gives me the creeps. If I could chose a product, side by side, which was 10% more costly, yet not exposed to nuclear-induced mutations, I would chose the latter.
July 26, 2012 at 2:48 pm
Plain Jane
If only that were true, Ernie. If we could abolish their free speech rights the level of national discourse would rise dramatically. Just kidding, of course. Their right to speech is just as precious as mine.
July 26, 2012 at 4:11 pm
Erasmus
Bolithio —- you are probably right, and I’ll try to keep your words in mind when I find myself getting hot under the collar.
July 26, 2012 at 4:27 pm
suzy blah blah
@Erasmus
-you couldn’t be nearly as hot as Kepler must’ve been.
July 26, 2012 at 5:42 pm
Worldweary Willie
Stupid people are the most protected group in America. TV programming and all of marketing are aimed at protecting them from using their cerebral cortexes, basely appealing to the most animalistic and tribal parts of the brain. Presidential debate language rarely stray from eighth grade comprehension levels. When Buckley “descried the vulgarization of America” he was talking about the dumbing down, a trend where most are content in life with being entertained with fighting and f—ing images, and few care to learn.
If anyone wants to get their food from the world’s largest pesticide producer and seed monopolist, let them. Just label the food for the rest of us.
July 26, 2012 at 8:34 pm
Eric Kirk
You can almost be certain to avoid GMO’s if you don’t buy canned or processed food. Corn products are the big issue, but there are locally owned tortilla makers who avoid the GMOs. Or you can make your own if you know the source of the corn in the flour/meal.
July 27, 2012 at 9:15 am
Ernie Branscomb
A partial list of GMO free foods
July 27, 2012 at 2:16 pm
Erasmus
If you want your body to be GMO-free, make sure you don’t get sick — and stay away from vitamin C (almost entirely GMO). Let’s hope you don’t need insulin, or human growth hormone, or interleukin-2, or a host of other drugs. And make sure you stay away from cheese: “Any person who eats cheese in Canada and the U.S. has been eating a food whose processing involves a transgenic food product,” said Ralph Hardy of the National Agricultural Biotechnology Council in testimony before Congress. ——— But not to worry: there are plenty of mutagenetic foods to eat (such as Rio Red grapefruits, created in Brookhaven National Lab in 1968, and sold in health food stores) or organic produce (vastly more like to infect you with E-coli). At least you’ll be politically correct!
July 27, 2012 at 2:31 pm
Eric Kirk
They do have organic Vitamin C. Not so sure about insulin or human groth hormone.
July 27, 2012 at 3:44 pm
Erasmus
An organic form of insulin would have to be made from pig pancreas (a protein foreign to the human body, thereby occasionally causing allergic reactions). Why anyone except an eco-fundamentalist would prefer the older kind of insulin is beyond me. Other GMO drugs: interferon and tissue plasminogen activator (given to stroke victims). I’m not aware of anyone objecting to these GMOs. Political correctness somehow becomes less important when one’s health is at stake. (And I doubt that there is a movement to require doctors to inform their patients of the GMO nature of drugs; I guess “information” isn’t always so important, is it?)
July 27, 2012 at 3:47 pm
Ernie Branscomb
What about locally produced goat cheese?
Erasmus… Get a clue! All anybody wants is a LABEL. If I’m diabetic I’ll take the GMO insulin. My choice. I get my vitamin C the natural way, I don’t take the pill. Life often gives you unpalatable choices. It’s just that I don’t feel the need for somebody else to tell me “what’s good for me”. I eat a lot of GMO already… My choice!
July 27, 2012 at 5:44 pm
Mitch
On a whim I typed “James Watson Charles Darwin” into Google and came up with the Charlie Rose episode below. Erasmus may be disappointed to hear that Watson calls Darwin “the most important person who ever lived on Earth.”
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6927851714963534233
July 27, 2012 at 6:25 pm
Eric Kirk
Hmmm. I’m not even sure he’s the most important figure for evolutionary biology.
July 27, 2012 at 6:50 pm
tra
For Erasmus:
A University of Minnesota study concerning fecal E. coli in fresh picked produce by Mukherjee et al, published in the Journal of Food Protection (Vo. 67, No. 5, 2004), found that the percentage of E. coli prevalence in certified organic produce was similar to that in conventional samples. However, it did find a marked difference in the prevalence of E. coli between the samples from certified and non-certified organic farms. “Ours is the first study that suggests a potential association between organic certification and reduced E. coli prevalence,” the authors wrote. They noted that the results of the study “do not support allegations that organic produce poses a substantially greater risk of pathogen contamination than does conventional produce.”
http://www.ota.com/organic/foodsafety/ecoli.html
So, according to the University of Minnesota study, E. coli prevalence was about the same in samples from conventional and organic farms, and was lower in samples from certified organic farms.
Oh, and by the way, there are more than 100 strains of E. coli, most of which are beneficial. Four strains have been shown to be dangerous, most notably E. Coli O157:H7. With regard to that strain, the Centers for Disease Control notes:
…most illness from E. coli O157:H7 has been associated with eating undercooked, contaminated ground beef.
July 27, 2012 at 7:25 pm
tra
Sorry, the way I worded that was not clear, and could potentially be misleading. There was a significant difference in the prevalence of E. coli between samples from conventional farms, and samples from non- certified organic farms, but there was no significant difference between the samples from conventional farms and samples from certified organic farms.
Why the difference? Well, certified organic farms are required to take measures to ensure that any manure they use has been composted long enough and at a high enough temperature to eliminate pathogens like E coli, Salmonella, etc. The University of Minnesota data suggests that these requirements do make a difference.
It’s worth noting that conventional farms do not have to follow those guidelines. So, why do their contamination levels come in lower, on average, than the levels found on non-certified organic farms? Apparently it’s because so many of the conventional farms use chemical fertilizers rather than manure.
By the way, as mentioned above, most E. coli strains are harmless and/or beneficial. In the Univeristy of Minnesota study, out of 476 samples from 32 organic farms, there was not even one sample that included any harmful strains of E. coli:
No E coli O157:H7 or other pathogenic E coli strains were found in any of the produce samples, the report says.
http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/cidrap/content/fs/food-disease/news/may1904produce.html
July 27, 2012 at 7:41 pm
tra
And here’s what the U.N.’s Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) has to say on this topic:
Food safety standards. There have been many claims that eating organic foods increases exposure to micro-biological contaminants. Studies investigating these claims have found no evidence to support them. It is important to realize that all organic foods must meet the same quality and safety standards applied to conventional foods. These include the CODEX General Principles of Food Hygiene and food safety programmes based on the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) system, where required by national regulations. Often, however, the standards of the individual organic certification body are even stricter.
Manure. One of the suggested sources of micro-biological contamination is manure. The use of manure is common in both conventional and organic systems, the potential for contamination is therefore applicable to both. It is well known that manure is a carrier of human pathogens, but properly treated (e.g. composted), it is both a safe form of organic fertilizer and more efficient nutrient source to crops. Furthermore, certified organic farmers are restricted from using untreated manure less than 60 days before the harvest of a crop and are inspected to make sure these standards and restrictions are met.
E. coli. Another stated source of worry is that of E.coli, especially virulent strains such as 0157:H7. The main source of human infection has been identified by the US Centre for Disease Control (CDC) through meat contaminated at slaughter. Evidence suggests that such virulent strains develop in the digestive tract of cattle mainly fed with starchy grains. Cattle fed with hay produce less than 1% the E.coli found in the faeces of those fed with grain. As organic cattle are fed with diets containing a higher proportion of hay, grass and silage, reducing the dependency on fodder sources off-farm, organic agriculture invariably reduces the potential risk of exposure.
When reading that last bit — about organic vs. conventional cattle farming, keep in mind that according to the CDC, red meat is the most common source of E. coli that is actually dangerous, including E, coli O157:H7. And here the FAO is pointing out that due to the difference in diet, “organic agriculture invariably reduces the potential risk of exposure.”
Meanwhile, on the side of “everybody panic, organic food is gonna kill you” you’ve got various right wing blogs, and, of course, the Moonie-owned, rabidly right-wing scaremongering rag, the Washington Times:
http://mediamatters.org/research/2011/06/10/wash-times-uses-e-coli-outbreak-in-germany-to-s/180488
Personally I think I’ll go with the CDC the UN FAO, and the University of Minnesota researchers on this one, but if you want to throw your lot in with Teabaggers and Moonies, that’s up to you.
Since organic products are labeled as such, you, the consumer, get to choose. So if, like Erasmus, you choose to believe that organic foods are “ vastly more like to infect you with E-coli,” despite the lack of evidence that they are even slightly more likely to (and the FAO’s assertion that in the case of beef, organic, grass-fed beef is actually less likely to have E. coli), well, you are free to make your own choice.
July 27, 2012 at 7:44 pm
Eric Kirk
I think the whole e-coli/organic scare was whipped up by an incident with lettuce a few years ago, in which the e-coli actually lodged within the tissue of the vegetable. And then there was the Odwalla incident. I agree that those incidents provided fodder for a lot of hysteria. But Erasmus’ point is probably that similar irrational fear have been whipped up around GMO’s, with no incidents as of yet.
July 27, 2012 at 7:54 pm
tra
If that was supposed to be his point, repeatedly (falsely) claiming that organic food is “vastly more like to infect you with E-coli” was an odd way to do it, given that no one here has claimed that GMO foods are vastly more likely to kill anyone. It seems more likely to me that he actually believes the E. coli misinformation, which makes his position even more ironic, given that the fact that organic foods are labeled as such is what allows him to choose to avoid the organic foods that he so fears.
July 27, 2012 at 8:01 pm
tra
Meanwhile, there are increasing reports that GMO crops are failing to increase yields, but are leading to both increased pesticide use, and increased pestilence:
Genetic engineering has failed to increase the yield of any food crop but has vastly increased the use of chemicals and the growth of “superweeds”, according to a report by 20 Indian, south-east Asian, African and Latin American food and conservation groups representing millions of people
Most worrisome, say the authors of the Global Citizens’ Report on the State of GMOs, is the greatly increased use of synthetic chemicals, used to control pests despite biotech companies’ justification that GM-engineered crops would reduce insecticide use.
In China, where insect-resistant Bt cotton is widely planted, populations of pests that previously posed only minor problems have increased 12-fold since 1997. A 2008 study in the International Journal of Biotechnology found that any benefits of planting Bt cotton have been eroded by the increasing use of pesticides needed to combat them.
Additionally, soya growers in Argentina and Brazil have been found to use twice as much herbicide on their GM as they do on conventional crops, and a survey by Navdanya International, in India, showed that pesticide use increased 13-fold since Bt cotton was introduced.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/19/gm-crops-insecurity-superweeds-pesticides
July 27, 2012 at 8:46 pm
tra
Here’s a report from the Union of Concerned Scientists, which points out the difference between the increases in crop yields that are theoretically possible with GMO crops, and the actual increases in yields, which, it turns out, range all the way from negligible to non-existent”
http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/science/failure-to-yield.html
Meanwhile, as many weeds are rapidly becoming more resistant to Monsanto’s glyphosate (“Round-Up”) herbicide, farmers have to apply more and more of that Monsanto product every year in order to suppress these new “superweeds.”
Having rapidly captured a huge part of the seed market with their hyped up claims about increased crop yields and their greenwashing promises of less need for pesticides, Monsanto developed, in effect, a captive market where the failure of their product to perform as predicted just brought them more profits, in the form of increased sales of Round-Up as farmers attemped t to deal with the Round-Up-resistant “superweeds.”
But there are signs that Monsanto’s Round-Up Ready empire is starting to unravel, as some of the superweeds are now so resistant to Round-Up that no amount of this poison will kill them. In a desperate attempt to cover up the growing ineffectiveness of their Round-Up Ready seeds, Monsanto has now had to resort to paying some farmers to plant Round-Up ready GMO crops, subsidizing these farmers’ purchase of other herbicides to try to kill the superweeds that the decade-long orgy of Round-Up Ready-dependent planting have created:
…to keep farmers dependent on its expensive chemical system, Monsanto is now paying up to $20 an acre to farmers planting Roundup Ready GMO crops, so long as they spray other harmful chemicals on the land to reduce weeds, since Roundup isn’t doing the trick anymore…
…More than 5 million acres of farmland are now infested with Roundup-resistant superweeds. Some monster weeds (such as pigweed) develop stalks several inches in diameter and have actually wrecked farmers’ equipment. This is opening the doors for other biotech companies like Dow to push other crops through the approval pipeline, including ones designed to be used with chemical 2,4-D, one of two highly toxic herbicides used in Agent Orange. Meanwhile, many farmers are turning to older, toxic pesticides to deal with the superweeds.
http://www.rodale.com/monsanto?page=0,1
July 27, 2012 at 8:55 pm
tra
Sorry, that link was to page 2 of that article. It starts here:
http://www.rodale.com/monsanto
July 28, 2012 at 6:43 am
Mitch
tra,
Thank you for these comments, especially your 7:54.
The perfect crop for today’s business leaders would yield indestructible, beautiful, addictive, filling, inexpensive-to-grow and nutrition-free “product,” which could not reproduce without an expensive patented product, and which could not be grown without another expensive patented product.
It would be a plus if it would cross-contaminate neighboring fields and destroy their crops.
As Erasmus’ favored authors will no doubt point out, human ingenuity will get us all the way there.
July 28, 2012 at 7:31 am
Erasmus
Charles Darwin “the most important person who ever lived”? That statement underscores my belief that experts are often fatuous outside their field of expertise, and I doubt that Watson is well-versed in history. ——– Yes, Ernie, I appreciate the information provided by labels, for they can be important in making choices at the supermarket. And if labels provided more complete information, they would be even better. Some people might want to know that a product was created in a nuclear lab; you, apparently,don’t — and the new label’s sponsors don’t either. And you seem not to understand why that might bother a company selling GMOs. ———- The “Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta noted 2471 cases, including 250 deaths, of infection by the unpleasant E. coli strain O157:H7 in 1996 alone. These bacteria live in manure. Manure is used as a fertilizer in organic farming systems. Organic foods were implicated in about a third of the confirmed O157:H7 cases despite the fact that organic food constitutes only about 1% of food consumed in the US. According to the FDA, organically produced foods suffer higher rates of biological contamination, including tuberculosis bacteria and aflatoxin-producing fungi” (Pandora’s Picnic Basket, by Alan McHughen, Oxford University Press, p. 233). There are other risks associated with organic foods, but I’m not going to type any more info and get into a duelling citation game. I’ll end on this note: when the sprouts that killed more than 50 people, and put over 700 on dialysis, in Germany last year turned out to be organic, I wasn’t surprised. Nor was I surprised that sales of organic produce didn’t take a nosedive in this country. And I ask you to imagine: what if these sprouts had a “GMO” label on them? What would the reaction have been?
July 28, 2012 at 7:36 am
Dave Kirby
Tra…Having been exposed to Agent Orange in Nam I have read a lot about it. I actually found a can of Ortho Brush Killer in one of my sheds when I bought my place. I was surprised to see it was 24d/245t ,,,the same formula as Agent Orange. The emergence of super weeds does not surprise me. Roundup is one of a group of herbicides that is actually a growth stimulator. It causes plants to grow themselves to death. I can see how thru resistance it could have the opposite of the intended effect if it didn’t finish the job.
July 28, 2012 at 8:26 am
Bolithio
There is risk in everything. Some risk is well understood, some is not. Whether it be mutating organisms via nuclear radiation, creating new organisms via splicing genes from various other organisms, and/or creating a food industry based on manufactured organisms that are designed to receive a cocktail of various chemicals (also of our making/tinkering) – I would argue – have risks that we cannot possibly fully understand at this point in time.
Call me irrational and fearful if you like. But I question the wisdom in this practice and have fear over the long term consequences to our genetic material. I dont think we can be sure that 50 years of this will not adversely effect our species. Not to mention the environment we heavily relying on to support us. The emergence of supper weeds should remind us that our bodies will not adapt as quickly as some plants and insects, which in my mind, increases the risks associated with GMO.
So many of our inventions have been brilliant, yet the latent dysfunction of these ideas lead to long lasting adverse effects. DDT may have helped eliminate malaria, but how much cancer is it responsible for?
Again, if we trusted our government, we could be reasonably assured that our industry was acting in societies best interest. But as it is, these companies have free reign to do what ever they want – all in the name of maximum wealth accumulation. If we didn’t live in this ‘money at all costs!’ era of humanity, I would be much more in favor of the development of GMOs.
July 28, 2012 at 8:35 am
Erasmus
What is happening to Roundup’s effectiveness is simply inevitable, as pests evolve their defenses against their enemies —- and it happens with every herbicide and pesticide. As James Watson says about this: “It’s simply the bell that signals the next round, and summons human ingenuity to invent anew.” Amen.
July 28, 2012 at 8:40 am
Mitch
“If we didn’t live in this ‘money at all costs!’ era of humanity, I would be much more in favor of the development of GMOs.”
Exactly.
When I was in school, technology was going to result in a ten hour work week and robots doing most of the heavy lifting by now. Food would be plentiful for all, and power would come from completely safe nuclear plants and solar energy. I don’t know if anyone was naive enough to believe it.
Forty years later, instead of a ten hour work week, we have high unemployment and a super-wealthy 0.01%. Instead of plentiful food, we have higher population. Nuclear power’s safety was revealed as a fraud (though in a world not run by businessmen, plants could have been made truly fail-safe), fossil fuel is still mined and sold at prices that don’t make solar a no-brainer where it can be used.
The Erasmusses of the world tell us that global warming is just the trifle of the day, soon to be dealt with by the brilliant folks who have eradicated disease. That’s if it’s real — we’re probably really cooling the planet, so everyone can be refreshed. Yes, this is truly the best of all possible worlds, our technologists cleverer than nature, and our business leaders the finest possible.
July 28, 2012 at 9:27 am
Erasmus
“The trifle of the day”? I try to avoid alarmism, but I hope I don’t desert reality when I do so. ——- I sense desperation whenever I encounter straw-man arguments. As an MIT graduate with a degree in applied biology, you must have some trust in technology —- do you trust the medical establishment? Tenured professors? Nobel Laureates? Are “Green” thinkers (such as Paul Ehrlich, James Lovelock, E.O. Wilson) worthy of trust? Is cynicism the best response to our society’s institutions and leaders?
July 28, 2012 at 9:58 am
tra
Erasmus,
The statement you quoted from “Pandora’s Picnic Basket” is attributed by the author to Dennis Avery, of the Monsanto-funded conservative think-tank the Hudson Institute.
“‘Pandora’s Picnic Basket’ contains a number of ‘untenable pseudo-scientific assertions’. For instance, on p.233 we read, ‘According to Dennis Avery of the Hudson Institute the highly respected US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in Atlanta noted 2471 cases, including 250 deaths, of infection by the unpleasant E. coli strain O157:H7 in 1996 alone. These bacteria live in manure. Manure is used as a fertilizer in organic farming systems. Organic foods were implicated in about a third of the confirmed O157:H7 cases despite the fact that organic food constitutes only about 1% of food consumed in the US.’
“In fact, according to Robert Tauxe, M.D., chief of the food borne and diarrheal diseases branch of the CDC, there is no such data on organic food production in existence at their centers and he says Avery’s claims are ‘absolutely not true.’ Avery’s claims have repeatedly been debunked with even Gregory Conko of the Competitive Enterprise Institute commenting that, ‘looking at a few selectively reported cases from a single year doesn’t seem to be convincing anybody who doesn’t already have a predilection to believe you in the first place.'”
http://www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=88
It looks to me like Avery is an ideologue who cherry-picked his data to “prove” his pre-existing bias, and McHughen is a GMO advocate who apparently accepted Avery’s cherry-picked data uncritically.
Now if you want to buy into the pseudoscientific “findings” of individuals with ideological axes to grind, that’s your choice. Meanwhile, the CDC and UN FAO statements stand unrefuted: There is simply no evidence that organic foods are, on average, more likely to contain dangerous E. Coli contamination than conventional foods.
July 28, 2012 at 10:16 am
tra
Personally, I’m not particularly concerned about the direct health effects of GMO foods, as I have not yet seen convincing evidence that these foods will harm my body. But I am concerned about the Big Picture effects on our food system and environmental health.
The GMO industry predicted that their products would dramatically improve crop yields and reduce pesticide use. But as the studies I cited above show, they have failed to substantially increase crop yields, and have actually led to a significant increase in the use of pesticides.
So, from my point of view, the risks appear significant while the benefits do not. Therefore I would prefer not to support the GMO industry with my food purchasing dollars, and for this reason I support labeling that will allow me to make an informed choice. Please explain what is wrong with that.
July 28, 2012 at 10:34 am
tra
No wonder you don’t want to get into a “duelling citations game:”
Avery’s thoroughly-debunked claim that organic foods pose an eight-fold increased risk of E. Coli O157:H7 was not only fatally flawed by his choice to include only data from 1996, he also fudge the numbers by including as “organic” items that were not even actually organic, such as the unpastuerized Odwalla apple juice.
In a similar incident, he also claimed that a Consumers’ Union study had showed that organic chicken was more likely to contain Salmonella, but it turns out that the Consumers’ Union study had not even looked at organic vs. conventional.
This guy was a habitual liar, and a serial purveyor of junk science.
Click to access 234-208.pdf
July 28, 2012 at 11:13 am
Mitch
Erasmus asks, “Is cynicism the best response to our society’s institutions and leaders?”
No, cynicism is not the best response. But a sharp lack of trust is a good start towards a good response. Of people who are trustworthy, I would have put academic research scientists towards the top of any list forty years ago. Now that much of academia is an R&D subsidiary of the top multinationals, I don’t have much trust in academic research scientists either, but I certainly trust them more than I trust the typical business person or politician.
People stand ready to condemn a woman for drinking while pregnant. We have abundant evidence that we are collectively doing far worse to future generations. Yet, as a species, we remain in denial. Our natural tendency towards denial and selfishness is supercharged by today’s business and political leaders, who use the media as their mouthpiece. It is aided by our religious institutions.
Future generations will look back at our times as the period in which humanity destroyed its birthplace for a handful of silver.
July 28, 2012 at 11:48 am
Erasmus
I must thank tra (not for the first time) for his research, and I must apologize for perpetuating Avery’s unsubstantiated claims. I’m surprised that McHughen — whose book seems balanced in its presentation, for the most part — and Oxford U. Press were bamboozled by the fellow. On the other hand, I don’t retract the kernel of my charge, which is that “natural” foods are often less healthful than conventionally grown ones. As The New Yorker’s Michael Specter has written: “Other than mosquitoes, the two substances responsible for more deaths on this planet than any other are water and ‘natural’ food” (‘Denialism,’ p. 134). A moment’s thought should convince anyone of the truth of this statement. (Almost all of Africa is “natural” or organic — according to some definitions — in its approach to agriculture). —————————-Mitch: Guess when this was written: “We cannot absolutely prove that those are in error who tell us that society has reached a turning point, that we have seen our best days. But so said all who came before us, and with just as much apparent reason.” (Thomas Babington Macaulay). Answer: 1830.
July 28, 2012 at 11:53 am
tra
Erasmus asks “Is cynicism the best response to our society’s institutions and leaders?”
Skepticism always, cynicism never.
July 28, 2012 at 12:00 pm
tra
Mitch said: “ Future generations will look back at our times as the period in which humanity destroyed its birthplace for a handful of silver.”
Or future generations will look back at our times as the period in which humanity nearly destroyed its birthplace for a handful of silver, but stepped back from the brink, just in time.
July 28, 2012 at 12:22 pm
tra
” I must thank tra (not for the first time) for his research, and I must apologize for perpetuating Avery’s unsubstantiated claims.”
Thank you for that, Erasmus.
In my experience, most blog commenters would have either ignored the point, changed the subject, launched a personal attack, or used some other intellectually dishonest dodge to avoid simply conceding that the source they had cited earlier had, in fact, turned out to be untrustworthy. I guess some folks think that conceding a point when you realize you were previously misinformed is some kind of “loss” for them.
But to me, when someone concedes that they had been previously misinformed, that generally increases that person’s credibility (at least in my eyes), as it shows that they are open to new evidence even when that new contradicts their current beliefs — which, in my view, makes it more likely that their opinions may be based on the best information they have been presented with, rather than based on only that information that supports their existing beliefs.
July 28, 2012 at 12:34 pm
Mitch
Erasmus,
I understand that you think history can serve as a guide to those who fear we are destroying ourselves. It cannot. It is only in the last couple of generations that humanity’s impact has reached a planetary scale.
What history provides, mostly, is evidence of humanity’s extraordinary shortsightedness and self-centeredness. It has only been by revolution or the threat of revolution that those with money and power have shared it with the rest of humanity (let alone with related conscious species). Give the revolutionaries a generation or so, and they become the new powers against whom others must revolt Thin order to be treated with the dignity and decency that are due neighbors and relatives.
Unfortunately, there is no way for future generations to make a credible threat to attack those now living, so they cannot threaten today’s thieves with revolution.
Those who have led us this far will die reassured by Erasmus & Co that ingenuity from the future will save us. It might, but not because it has a good track record. Mostly, the track record of science has been one of unleashing massive new powers as a side effect of its discoveries, leading each generation to think it is on the path towards heaven on earth, only to find in retrospect that the new powers are used primarily to benefit a tiny minority of the population, or that they enable an explosion of population which then lives in poverty while the wealthy tut-tut. Ask a Jew from Germany how much German civilization and science contributed to their future. Ask anyone from Hiroshima how much American civilization has enriched their life. Give it a few more years, and I’m confident we will be able to name some city or continent that has been similarly blessed by the results of molecular biology.
Where history and religion can be helpful is in warning us against hubris. the dangerous hubris that shouts “full speed ahead” because we’ve survived every crash so far.
Science and technology do give us more and more power; unfortunately, that power is almost always under the control of business leaders who use it to further their greed and political leaders who use it to further their control of others.
When I see that changing, I’ll have some confidence that science can rescue us from the almost literally incredible mess we’ve made of things.
July 28, 2012 at 12:46 pm
Bolithio
Those who have led us this far will die reassured by Erasmus & Co that ingenuity from the future will save us.
That hardly seems fair. What will save us? Have you completely given up Mitch? Humans are our only hope.
July 28, 2012 at 1:01 pm
Mitch
Yes, Bolithio, I have completely given up hope. That’s not the same thing as giving up trying, which I see as a continuing obligation.
I think the only thing that will save us is the equivalent of a myth-free religion, one that bases a real morality on something better than a sky daddy.
I don’t see that happening. When I look at modern day politics and civilization, I don’t see much of anything happening, besides the worst of the worst competing with one another to fill their bottomless holes.
July 28, 2012 at 1:13 pm
tra
“I’m surprised that McHughen — whose book seems balanced in its presentation, for the most part — and Oxford U. Press were bamboozled by the fellow.”
McHughen has some impressive credentials, is clearly a very accomplished person, and has some significant expertise in the areas he writes about. But he clearly has a pro-GMO agenda — which would be fine, as long as he didn’t let that cloud his judgement and severely bias his selection and presentation of evidence.
Unfortunately, that seems to be exactly what happened: It suited McHughen’s purposes to accept and promote Avery’s assertions, so it appears that he accepted those assertions as if they were fact, and made no effort to trace the claim back to the source Avery (falsely) attributes it to: the CDC. If he had made any effort to do so, he would havevery easily found that the CDC flatly denied that their data supported Avery’s claims, and he would also have found that there was a whole ugly history of Avery falsely claiming that various specific CDC scientists agreed with him, and then continuing to misquote them and misattribute his claims to those scientists and the agencies they worked for, even after those scientists and agencies has directly contradicted his claims.
As far as Oxford U. Press, if they fact-checked that claim at all, they probably just confirmed that Avery had indeed written what McHughen said he’d written. And they may also have seen that Avery made identical and similar claims in other writings, and that various newspapers and magazines had quoted him.
Avery was a skilled PR practitioner, expert at pushing exactly these sorts of sensationalistic pseudoscientific claims — claims that got him quoted widely in the popular press. As a result, the misinformation he peddled so successfully more than a decade ago continues to be promulgated even today, as people type in their Google searches on “organic food and E. coli” and are directed to numerous right wing blogs, which cite old newspaper or magazine articles, which in turn cite McHughen and/or Avery, who in turn (falsely) cites non-existent CDC support for his position.
It’s a classic example of a highly successful, corporate-funded disinformation campaign which yielded (and continues to yield) long-lasting results. Monsanto, DuPont, ConAgra and Procter & Gamble and the other agribusiness and chemical companies that funded Avery certainly got their money’s worth.
July 28, 2012 at 1:18 pm
Mitch
Just start with US history of the last half century.
Science has come up with advance over advance in making solar power lower in price. Attempts to give it a boost by taxing oil at something closer to its genuine cost have failed, and failed, and failed.
We continue to devote vast resources to war.
People like Karl Rove are able to declare black is white, and get the majority of the electorate to believe it.
We are well on our way to creating a police state, and well on our way to dismantling the middle class created as a result of our world war two war mobilization. We have restored an aristocracy of wealth, and accept poverty levels that caused shame in the 1960s.
We continue to respond with predictable human nature: that is, events like Columbine, Aurora, and baby-in-a-well draw upon our admirable compassion and empathy, and events like the destruction of the planet remain too abstract to engage us.
The time for a proper turnaround has come and passed, and America was busy cheering the national grandfather that GE drummed up; I do believe we are now doomed to coast onwards to our destruction. It may take longer than I expect, but human nature doesn’t change with the speed now required to save us.
July 28, 2012 at 1:30 pm
tra
“On the other hand, I don’t retract the kernel of my charge, which is that “natural” foods are often less healthful than conventionally grown ones.”
Okay, so you’ve withdrawn the evidence, but are holding to the belief that the retracted evidence was supposed to support. So, my question is, upon what are you now basing that belief?
For example, if you can cite some evidence that people who eat organic foods actually suffer more foodborne illness as a result of their food being grown with organic methods, I’d like to see it.
July 28, 2012 at 2:23 pm
tra
Mitch,
Would it be fair to say that, while you think it’s almost certainly too late to turn things around, and the human race is almost certainly doomed to some kind of self-inflicted self-annihilation, you do have at least some glimmer of “hope” that we might still be able to change our collective attitudes and behaviors in time to avert catastrophe?
Because if there’s really NO chance to turn things around, I’m not sure why “trying” would be a “continuing obligation.” In my mind, the obligation to keep trying to make things better only makes sense when there is some hope — however remote — that this trying could possibly make a difference.
Consider the example of trying to save someone by administering CPR. If you’re doing CPR, you’re supposed to keep at it until either the person begins breathing on their own and has a pulse, or emergency personnel arrives, or someone else takes over for you, or until you are literally too exhausted to go on.
This obligation makes perfect sense to me, since although the chances that the person will successfully be revived after an hour or two of CPR may be very, very low, we are obliged to continue trying to save their life until we literally cannot continue, because though the chances are low, they are not zero.
On the other hand, if someone is decapitated, there is no obligation to try to save their life, because it is literally impossible to do so.
While I agree that our current trajectory could lead to massive environmental collapse at some point in the future (maybe even the not-so-distant future), I actually do have some hope that humans might still have enough time to achieve the kind of cultural and societal transformation that would be necessary to allow for the long-term survival of the human race.
It’s certainly true that certain aspects of human nature and culture do pose very significant barriers to that kind of transformation. So I wouldn’t want to try to put a number on what our chances are, except to say that I don’t think the chances are zero.
July 28, 2012 at 2:25 pm
Erasmus
My comment on “natural” foods is aimed at the planet as a whole —- I often buy organic food at a local co-op (though I’m selective about what I buy) and don’t worry about food poisoning. We Americans fail to realize how primitive (“natural”) conditions often are in most of Africa, much of Asia and S. America. There is nothing “natural” about refrigerating food to market, there is something very “natural” about food rotting. Manure is still the most common fertilizer in much of the world. I don’t need statistics to make my point. What Specter wrote is irrefutable, once we take our blinders off and look at the planet objectively.
July 28, 2012 at 3:05 pm
Mitch
tra,
Nothing is impossible. I just don’t think there’s much point in pretending things are better than they are. I don’t think the human race will be wiped out, I just think we’re headed for an environmental crash that will kill off more than half of us, maybe more like most of us. People in power across all types of political approaches have demonstrated that they are incapable of “economically valuing” that risk in a rational way. It’s hard to blame them.
There will certainly be some Erasmusoid surprises ahead — I don’t doubt that biotech is going to master in vitro photosynthesis within my likely lifetime, and that will help a lot. So will fusion, and fission if it becomes palatable, and whatever huge energy source humanity discovers next.
It’s just that as we are forced to keep piling technical fixes upon technical fixes, I’d say it’s likely we are going to do to the planet what we did to Victorian London and Chernobyl. You only get to guess wrong so many times, particularly when you are dealing with life forms that can replicate independently.
And it doesn’t matter how many sweet, loving people there are around — if the folks who get into power continue to behave in the manner that people who get into power have behaved throughout history, that doesn’t bode well for any species powerful enough to do planetary level damage.
As for CPR to a corpse, I don’t pretend to know why I feel an obligation to keep trying — I honestly don’t. But we’re all dead in the long run, and that’s no reason not to feel love for one another. And even if humanity were run by the Dalai Lama with Jesus whispering in one ear and Lao Tzu in the other, it still looks like the universe is going to go dead some day. It’s just a question of how long from now.
July 28, 2012 at 3:16 pm
tra
Erasmus, Well of course food and water are the leading “substances” that carry diseases or impurities that lead to illness and death. After all, other than air, they are the the only two substances that we take into our bodies in mass quantities, day in and day out.
But…so what? That tells us nothing about whether one type of food growing carries more diseases or impurities than another.
And nobody’s objecting to refrigeration.
I don’t see where you’re going with this.
July 28, 2012 at 3:58 pm
Erasmus
Well, people used to object to frozen food —- as they have objected to every advance in food production (Johnny Appleseed thought that grafting and pruning were “unnatural.” One generation’s new technology is the next generation’s business as usual.)————————Mitch’s pessimism troubles me. If he were not well-educated, I’d suggest that he read a number of items that might instill some gratitude for the conveniences available to us, for the relative longevity of our lives, for the rights that would have been unthinkable a century ago, for the easy access to art and music. While he was studying applied biology, I was reading Rimbaud and Baudelaire, and I can’t help chuckling when I see my pseudonym used as a signifier for naive faith in technology. In truth, I am pessimistic about the human heart — its tendency to hate, to exclude, to fear. The physical world that has everyone so troubled seems to me to be a lesser worry (but certainly not a “trifle” — we need a stage on which to strut our stuff.) Just be glad you were not born one or two hundred years ago, Mitch. And have a glass of red wine.
July 28, 2012 at 6:20 pm
moviedad
You deleted my “Rarety?” comment?
July 28, 2012 at 7:50 pm
Eric Kirk
No moviedad – you posted it at the herald. I didn’t see it here.
July 28, 2012 at 7:51 pm
moviedad
Sorry, I was looking for my place-marker.
July 29, 2012 at 6:39 am
Mitch
Erasmus,
I feel enormous gratitude for the brilliant and creative people who have brought us some true understanding of the material world. I think the achievements of science in removing the blinders that institutions had imposed have demonstrated that we are a worthwhile species.
I recognize that I am a beneficiary of these discoveries, and don’t need to read a book to come up with a lengthy list of how science and technology have transformed the possibilities open to me. I don’t need to go back a hundred years, five or ten will do nicely. Even in terms of something seemingly unrelated — the amount of discrimination I face daily — science and a scientific approach have benefited me greatly.
Your pessimism about the human heart is the cause of my pessimism about where we are headed. I have nothing but endless admiration for the scientists who have collectively granted us too much power over nature. I have boundless contempt for the leaders of our societies.
In my opinion, the one book that should be required reading for anyone entering science is “An Enemy of the People.” Those inclined to enter science usually do so with a naive optimism about how their work will be used. It is unjustified.
Humanity’s worst instincts remain on daily display in the power positions of our societies… science has increased these people’s power to fuck things up. At humanity’s level of emotional capability, it’s been like strapping a rocket engine to a VW, and has had and will have the same effects.
July 29, 2012 at 6:50 am
Mitch
Meanwhile: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jul/29/climate-change-sceptics-change-mind
July 29, 2012 at 7:42 am
Erasmus
Mitch wants us to believe a study funded by ….. one of the Koch brothers! —— Actually, I have no reason to doubt the study’s conclusions. The only reason I mention the Koch brother is this: possibly —- just possibly —– the source of one’s money doesn’t always guarantee a specific outcome. And we can’t (as proved by this case) dismiss a result we don’t like just because Koch money was involved.
July 29, 2012 at 8:04 am
Mitch
Erasmus,
Now you’re just being cute. The other denialists have already ganged up on the guy, and I doubt his funding from Koch has been or will be renewed.
Koch got value for money — a few years delay and the use of the name Berkeley for the delay. For all I know, the scientist has been sincere all along.
It had been 97.15 to 2.95, now it’s 97.16 to 2.94. Imagine if the consensus fell the other way.
July 29, 2012 at 8:58 am
Mitch
Before someone else points it out, let me just make clear that I don’t accept your stupid opinion about mathematical so-called addition. I have my own opinion, and it’s every bit as valid as yours. This is a democracy.
July 29, 2012 at 9:05 am
Erasmus
???????????
July 29, 2012 at 9:05 am
Mitch
OK, then, I’m going to call it a numeracy test instead of a mistake.
July 30, 2012 at 1:49 pm
environmentalism » Blog Archive » Ernie's Place: Environmentalism, really?
[…] Eric Kirk just did a post on GMO foods, and whether or not they should be labeled. It starts out like it’s about Kepler, but it ends up about GMO labeling. It was one of the most interesting discussions that I’ve ever seen on a blog. The comments were educated and articulate. My only hope is that GMO foods would be labeled. If your are going to sell me food, you should be obligated to tell me all about it. One of the points that was made was that we would need genetically modified foods to feed the world. Maybe so, but we wouldn’t need GMO foods if we had more space to grow natural food. In our own valleys we have replaced prime agriculture land with brick and mortar industry. A good example of that is “Silicone Valley” thousand of prune and walnut trees were removed from the San Jose Valley to make room for buildings. The buildings would have probably been better placed in the foothills and the valleys left for agriculture, quite the opposite of the plan to move everybody to the cities. Sadly, The San Jose valley was known by the Indians as The Valley of the Acorn Oaks. The oak trees were removed to plant prunes and walnuts. I don’t necessarily disapprove of planting a better crop, as long as in doesn’t glow in the dark, like some GMO plants. Or if it glows in the dark, it should be at least labeled that does that. […]
July 30, 2012 at 6:32 pm
Ernie's Place: Environmentalism, really? | The Environmentalism.org
[…] Eric Kirk just did a post on GMO foods, and whether or not they should be labeled. It starts out like it’s about Kepler, but it ends up about GMO labeling. It was one of the most interesting discussions that I’ve ever seen on a blog. The comments were educated and articulate. My only hope is that GMO foods would be labeled. If your are going to sell me food, you should be obligated to tell me all about it. One of the points that was made was that we would need genetically modified foods to feed the world. Maybe so, but we wouldn’t need GMO foods if we had more space to grow natural food. In our own valleys we have replaced prime agriculture land with brick and mortar industry. A good example of that is “Silicone Valley” thousand of prune and walnut trees were removed from the San Jose Valley to make room for buildings. The buildings would have probably been better placed in the foothills and the valleys left for agriculture, quite the opposite of the plan to move everybody to the cities. Sadly, The San Jose valley was known by the Indians as The Valley of the Acorn Oaks. The oak trees were removed to plant prunes and walnuts. I don’t necessarily disapprove of planting a better crop, as long as in doesn’t glow in the dark, like some GMO plants. Or if it glows in the dark, it should be at least labeled that does that. […]
July 30, 2012 at 8:42 pm
spyrock
whether or not a product is gmo should be on the label. this is really a no brainer. not having it on the label only benefits the monsantos or huge corporations of the world. i have relatives in idaho who have been raising organic sweet corn in idaho for 100 years. they are a global company. they started growing corn in ohio back when chief cornplanter was chief of the shawnee. so not only are they organic, they are indiginous growers of non-gmo sweet corn.
my job is in the label room at a cannery. i see that the right label gets on the right can. a mislabeled product or one that omits something like an allergin has the potential to kill a consumer. so this is serious stuff. i dispose of outdated labels all the time for much less controversial reasons.
i’m 100% sure whether or not the product is gmo will be made into law.
July 31, 2012 at 7:25 am
Erasmus
A “no-brainer”? Does that mean that the voters of Oregon were brainless when they voted against a labeling law? Is the Canadian government devoid of a brain also? I suspect that most Americans would rather place their trust in those “brainless”entities than in the hands of CA voters.——————————————————————————————I have already explained why I oppose a label that declares a product to be the result of one kind of genetic modification but neglects to label the common practice of mutagenesis: altering a genome by means of nuclear radiation. (In May, The Economist magazine had an article entitled “Nuclear-powered crops,” in which this practice was discussed.) No one on this blog seems to agree with me on this point; we’ll see what the courts have to say. The proposed label law would be unfair to GMO producers — it would be as if manufacturers had to place a label on their products that said: Made in China, where slave labor is employed” but their rivals down the street (which imported goods from Saudi Arabia) did NOT have to label their products “Made in a country with no religious freedom”. (For the sake of argument, pretend that we import vast quantities of goods from S.A.). Most people would reject a label that let the Saudis off the hook. To repeat: the courts will have to decide this one. CA voters have a knack of voting first, thinking later.
July 31, 2012 at 8:37 am
gpf
Erasmus, please clarify for me the similarity between mutagenesis and gene splicing. A seed exposed to nuclear radiation has its DNA altered, and this also happens in nature (albeit slowly).
Splicing gene sequences from an animal to a plant can never happen naturally, so there are many unknowns. To just wait and see could be dangerous.
July 31, 2012 at 10:42 am
Erasmus
“Can never happen naturally”? So what? Do you think a chihuaha (a genetically modified wolf) would be created “naturally”? A pit bull? The polio vaccine? ——— As Michio Kaku has written, “Since all life on earth probably evolved from an ancestral DNA or RNA molecule, it is not surprising that DNA from one species can propagate so easily within the genome of another” (‘Visions,’ p. 222). Unless you are a creationist, you must understand that every life-form is related to every other life-form. There is no reason why a gene removed from a fish genome should not be inserted into a tomato genome: the two organisms already have a multitude of genes in common. Who cares — and why care — that they will share one more gene? There are likely hundreds (or even thousands) of genes that can be found in both of them. ——————————-It strikes me as very odd that everyone on this blog appears insouciant about food created from nuclear radiation. Since when did nukes and radiation become a matter of such unconcern? I have no trouble imagining some activists whipping this matter into a frenzy, with frightened citizens clamoring for a “nuked” label on food products. (After all,a “GMO” merely uses an already existing gene; a “nuclear-powered crop” results from a new one.) (Google The Economist nuclear-powered crops and the article I mentioned in a previous comment will appear at the top of the page.)
July 31, 2012 at 11:03 am
Mitch
Erasmus,
Radiation is a mutagen. It may be a danger to the food supply, but it doesn’t concern me. When something is irradiated, it is equivalent to shooting bb’s through a sheet of paper; what’s written on the paper may lose some accuracy, but you’re probably not going to get Shakespeare.
Genetic modification is targeted gene transfer. For me, at least, I don’t care that it’s a fish gene in a tomato — I care that an operating piece of equipment is being put into a new environment in which it will replicate automatically. We are told there are protections in place. We were also told that about deep sea drilling and nuclear reactors.
Introduction of species into new environments has historically had unanticipated and devastating effects on those environments. We now know just enough about genetic manipulation that people can declare it “perfectly safe,” just like deep-sea drilling and nuclear power.
I’m actually in favor of genetic engineering for some uses, but uses like adding resistance to a brand of pesticide seem far more aimed at corporate bottom lines than at alleviating food shortages.
July 31, 2012 at 11:08 am
Eric Kirk
Mitch – wasn’t there a book that came out a few years back which blamed the extent of world hunger on The Silent Spring and DDT bans? I don’t know enough to argue the point one way or another, but the argument has been made.
July 31, 2012 at 11:28 am
tra
“…but uses like adding resistance to a brand of pesticide seem far more aimed at corporate bottom lines than at alleviating food shortages.”
Which is why we shouldn’t be surprised at the reports I cited and linked to above, showing that GMO farming has increased the use of pesticides, but failed to increase crop yields.
July 31, 2012 at 11:30 am
gpf
The pesticide shed at UC Davis is (or was) called Rachael Carson Hall. I believe Erasmus said that Davis was where he gained his insights about GMOs?
I think I evolved through my mushroom ancestors and fish, but my connections with tomatoes are a long ways back.
July 31, 2012 at 12:26 pm
tra
Eric,
The usual attack on Rachel Carson is that the banning of DDT has cost millions of lives from malaria. Right-winger Thomas Sowell wrote:
“…there has not been a mass murderer executed in the past half-century who has been responsible for as many deaths of human beings as the sainted Rachel Carson. The banning of DDT has led to a huge resurgence of malaria in the Third World, with deaths rising into the millions.”
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell060701.asp
Too bad before he starting throwing around accusations of “mass murderer,” Sowell didn’t take the time to check the facts:
“Malaria deaths have declined steadily over the past 50 years, generally as DDT use was reduced. In 1959 and 1960, the peak years of DDT use, 4 million people died from malaria, worldwide. WHO cut back on DDT use in 1965 when mosquitoes began showing serious resistance and immunity to the stuff, but by 1972, when the U.S. banned agricultural use of DDT (but continued exports), about 2 million people died annually from malaria. Today, largely without DDT, malaria deaths are down to under 900,000 — a 75% reduction in deaths from peak DDT use.”
http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2011/05/16/sowell-wrong-about-ddt-and-rachel-carson/
July 31, 2012 at 1:23 pm
Eric Kirk
That was it. Malaria.
Sowell used to be my favorite right winger, but I think in the Fox News era he’s had to change with the times. He used to be a little more thoughtful in his writing, and less hyperbolic.
July 31, 2012 at 1:36 pm
Erasmus
It’s strange to argue with such a conservative group! I never would have thought that a new-fangled technology would stir such passions. ———– Mitch: the number of species that have been introduced to N. America in the past 400 years is immense, from honeybees to wheat to apples to ….. more flowers and trees than I have patience to list. I submit that the devastation they have caused has been overrated. And you don’t need genetic engineering to breed a crop that tolerates an herbicide. There is a hard red winter wheat called Above that doesn’t die from an herbicide produced by the BASF corporation. It was created by mutation breeding. TRA: suppose that your sources are correct, that GMOs have lower yields and lead to more pesticide use. I own no biotech stock and would not miss the opportunity to debate a technology that holds no promise for the future. It’s more than passing strange, though, that a recent issue of ‘Discover’ magazine stated that genetically engineered crops have been adopted more quickly and widely than any innovation in the history of agriculture. Even Cuba is getting in on the action (if my source is correct). And The New Yorker’s Michael Specter writes in ‘Denialism’ that “In China, during 1997, the first year cotton resistant to the bollworm was introduced, nearly half a billion dollars was saved on pesticides. More importantly, cotton farmers there were able to eliminate 150 million pounds of insecticide in a single year” (p. 139). Editorials in ‘New Scientist’ have similarly averred drastic reductions in pesticide use because of GMOs. What’s a bloke like me to believe? All the Nobel Prize winners who praise this new technology (along with Jimmy Carter) on one side ——– and a vocal (if less distinguished) group of naysayers on the other? I think I’ll be progressive on this issue.
July 31, 2012 at 1:45 pm
tra
Unfortunately, Sowell’s hysterical, counterfactual screed is just one example of this blood libel against Rachel Carson in particular, and environmentalists in general. Here’s another:
In 2005, Steve Milloy, at the time a Cato Institute scholar, was quoted saying: “It might be easy for some to dismiss the past 43 years of eco-hysteria over DDT with a simple ‘never mind,’ except for the blood of millions of people dripping from the hands of the WWF, Greenpeace, Rachel Carson, Environmental Defense Fund, and other junk science-fueled opponents of DDT.”
http://news.thomasnet.com/green_clean/2012/04/16/50-years-after-silent-spring-the-rehabilitation-of-ddt-and-the-de-habilitation-of-rachel-carson/
July 31, 2012 at 2:00 pm
Mitch
Erasmus,
Perhaps I’ve misunderstood your point. I think you’ve been comparing food irradiation with genetic modification. That seems very apples and orange soda to me — comparing a sterilization technique with a genetic modification.
If you are comparing mutation breeding with tech genetic modification, then that’s at least comparing apples with oranges. I have no problem whatsoever with grabbing the best traits that show up in a population, even one where the mutation rate is intentionally raised, and selecting for them. But that is not the same thing as cut’n’pasting genes — if it were, there’d be no point in cut’n’pasting genes.
I don’t have nearly enough knowledge to know whether the latter is safe or can be made safe, but I have enough wisdom not to trust any profit-based super-corp to tell me. Their histories are so littered with failed promises and lies that any reliance on them is potentially disastrous when it comes to tampering that potentially cannot be recalled.
At least with nuclear disasters, there will be a defined region in which most of the radiation will settle. With a biological disaster we cannot be assured of any such limit.
I’m not opposed to genetic engineering — on the contrary, I think it can be and has been very valuable. I’m opposed to its exploitation by profit-making entities, especially in a loose regulatory environment. Were the profit motive to be removed, I’d have some confidence that wiser minds would prevail in decision making. Back in the early 80s, in a proud moment for biology, the molecular biologists themselves put a moratorium on recombinant DNA experiments. I don’t see Monsanto and Exxon getting together to do that while they triple-check their latest billion dollar baby.
July 31, 2012 at 2:04 pm
Mitch
Oh, and after you’re done praising the apple and honeybee — you forgot to mention the rose and the teddy bear — you can check out some of the numbers here: http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/economic/main.shtml
July 31, 2012 at 2:17 pm
Erasmus
The December 1, 2011 issue of ‘Granma,’ Cuba’s state newspaper, has an article on Cuba’s embrace of biotechnology and its development of corn and soybean varieties. This is the same technology that Monsanto and other corporations are using, but the profit motive is absent (I am unaware of any corporations operating independently on the island). Is a Cuban GMO politically correct (or “tolerable,” or “OK” in any sense)? —————————The Asimolar conference of 1975 did halt work on recombinant DNA,and James Watson discusses it in detail in ‘DNA: the Secret of Life.’ I’m conservative enough to applaud such caution, but progressive enough to know when dangers are being overblown. Watson bemoans the five year delay in research caused by the conference. I’m glad that the industry got off the ground slowly.
July 31, 2012 at 2:35 pm
Mitch
“Is a Cuban GMO politically correct (or “tolerable,” or “OK” in any sense)?”
You’re asking my opinion? I’d need to know more about what the Cubans have developed.
If they are using biotech to increase their food supply, I’m inclined to think it’s good. As I said earlier, I’m not opposed to genetic engineering. If anyone wants to double the protein yield of an acre of land, and do it in such a way that the land’s future productivity is not harmed, and do it in a way that doesn’t require increased use of fossil fuels or slow-to-decompose chemicals, I think they should have at it.
When the corporations decide to do that, I’ll support them as well.
But what the corporations have mastered, for the most part, is not improving life for humanity, but finding externalities to exploit. That’s far easier than creating true sustainable improved yield crops that work with the environment.
Thanks for the correction on the decade in which Asilomar took place.
July 31, 2012 at 2:36 pm
Erasmus
No question, many invasive species have wreaked havoc on our land —– but I want to avoid sounding like Bill O’Reilly when he talks about illegal immigrants. (He focuses on their misdeeds, not on their contributions to society). Similarly, when a new technology is being introduced, I don’t want to sound like the opponents of gay marriage: they see negative side-effects that are “unforeseen” and see no reason for a social “experiment.” (The old, tried-and-true variety of marriage was good enough for our forebears, so it’s good enough for us —— that’s the essence of their line.) In other words: let’s not be too conservative. As Jimmy Carter and Norman Borlaug have written: “Although there have always been those in society who resist change, the intensity of the attacks against GM crops from some quarters is unprecedented, and in certain cases, even surprising, given the potential environmental benefits that such technology can bring by reducing the use of pesticides” (foreword to “Starved for Science,” by Robert Paarlberg). (Two Nobel Prize winners writing as one).
July 31, 2012 at 4:45 pm
tra
Erasmus,
Bt cotton has indeed increased yields and reduced pesticide use, at least in some regions and under some conditions, and at least in the first few years after adoption.
However, it appears that the “benefits” of Bt cotton are turning out to be short-lived. While the Bt cotton was initially resistant to the cotton Boll Worm, the pest has now become increasingly resistant to the Bt cotton.
Earlier this year, the Hindustan Times reported that India’s Ministry of Agricuture recently re-ignited the controversy over Bt cotton and a surge of farmer suicides in India, which are blamed on farmers adopting Bt cotton and then experiencing crop yields that were far lower than they were led to believe (and in some cases suffering from outright crop failures), while at the same time experiencing an increased need for expensive pesticides, and increased indebtedness, to the point where unprecedented numbers of these farmers have been killing themselves — often by drinking pesticides.
According to the Hindustan Times, the Indian Ministry of Agriculture’s advisory painted a “grim scenario:”
“‘Cotton farmers are in a deep crisis since shifting to Bt cotton. The spate of farmer suicides in 2011-12 has been particularly severe among Bt cotton farmers,’ says the advisory.
Bt cotton’s success, it appears, lasted merely five years. Since then, yields have been falling and pest attacks going up…For farmers, rising costs —in the form of pesticides — have not matched returns, pushing many to the brink, financially and otherwise. …
… ‘In fact cost of cotton cultivation has jumped…due to rising costs of pesticides. Total Bt cotton production in the last five years has reduced,’ says the advisory.”
http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/Business/Ministry-blames-Bt-cotton-for-farmer-suicides/Article1-830798.aspx
So, while it may be too late for those farmers who saw no way out other than to end their lives, surely the invisible hand of Free Market Capitalism dictates that farmers will swiftly be able to dump the failing Bt seeds and turn to other sources, right? Well, apparently it’s not quite that simple:
“However farmers must continue to buy Bt cotton, as the only credit available to them from seed agents is for this type of seed, Dr Sahai added. ‘Seed agents are offered higher commission for Bt cotton rather than for traditional seeds.'”
http://digitaljournal.com/article/323656
Of course some of this is attributable not to the technology itself, but to aggressive and misleading sales pitches — that promised unrealistic yield increases, overstated effectiveness against pests, and failed to take local conditions into account — and to increasing multinational corporate control over the seed industry.
July 31, 2012 at 4:49 pm
tra
At any rate, cotton is not a food crop, and the GMO labeling policy being proposed in California would apply to foods, not textiles.
I have not seen any evidence to contradict the findings of the UCS study that found that for major U.S. food crops, including corn, soybeans, and canola, GMO crops have led to a very significant increase in pesticide use, while the genetically-engineered traits have led to little to no increase in crop yields.
July 31, 2012 at 5:08 pm
tra
To be fair, I should point out that there are a lot of factors that may be contributing to the farmer suicides in India. And whether GMO’s play a leading role, or indeed any significant role at all, is a matter of some controversy.
However, I have read numerous reports claiming that the suicide epidemic has been most severe in the regions where GMO cotton has been most widely adopted, which, while far from proof of causation, is certainly consistent with there being a connection.
And there is certainly no lack of horrifying, heart-wrenching anecdotes told by surviving family members, who point to their loved ones’ adoption of the GMO seeds as the point at which their fortunes began to rapidly unravel, leaving them penniless, deeply in debt, and without hope.
Some of the farmers who have committed suicide have been explicit about why they were choosing to drink Round-Up, rather than choosing some less painful way to die (apparently it’s a particularly horrible, painful, lingering death). So it’s hard not to see some of these incidents as a kind of desperate, last-ditch form of protest — similar, in a way, to self-immolation.
July 31, 2012 at 5:50 pm
suzy blah blah
At any rate, cotton is not a food crop, and the GMO labeling policy being proposed in California would apply to foods, not textiles.
-cotton seed oil.
July 31, 2012 at 6:01 pm
Mitch
tra,
I know zip about Bt cotton or Indian farmer suicides. But what you describe makes perfect sense at a purely abstract level.
First of all, biological systems will always evolve under selection pressure, so it’s completely reasonable to think that the effectiveness of a one-shot gene introduction will decline rapidly. The buzzword of the 70s was coevolution, and it’s a far better description of what happens in an ecosystem than evolution. This means that, and that means the next, and the next influences this. It’s a whole — the very unity that religions like to talk about.
Equally as significant, if farmers produce more cotton, cotton prices will go down. That means that the farmers need to switch to the new GMO cotton just to keep up, and those who don’t will end up losing money. A new requirement — use the new tech — is introduced into farming that hadn’t been there before, and the farmers that bend to that requirement will get increased yields but no more money than before.
As long as there are thousands of farmers competing to sell, increased quantities will drive the prices down to only slightly above the cost of production. It’s the free market, donchaknow. The farmers, to their detriment, don’t have a way to game the market, and they don’t have the power to form a cartel.
Problem is, the cost of cotton has become only a minor part of the cost of the products in which it is used. Advertising costs probably make up more of the cost of a piece of Western clothing than cotton. So the cost of farming the cotton in a T-shirt drops from four cents to three, the farmers make the same by producing more, and the cost of a T-shirt would drop by a penny, except the penny is split between Monsanto (or whichever pusher is involved), the advertisers, and the clothing company’s shareholders and executives.
When the Cubans develop a genetically engineered food crop, on the other hand, it’s probably for direct consumption of the product within Cuba. More food means less hunger.
See the difference?
July 31, 2012 at 6:43 pm
tra
Suzy,
Good point about the cottonseed oil. And according to Wikipedia, cotton grown for cottonseed oil production is actually the fourth-largest use of GMO seed, after corn, soybeans, and canola.
So presumably cottonseed oil produced from GMO cotton would, indeed, require labeling under the California law, which means that — contrary to my ill-informed comment above — discussion of pesticide use and yields related to GMO cotton is NOT off topic.
So, since it’s on topic, I’ll note that Erasmus referred to figures that reportedly showed that in China, in it’s first year of use, Bt Cotton reduced the use of pesticides significantly. Which certainly sounds promising, right?
But there are two “red flags” there: (1) The figures only cover just one year, and (2) the figures only covered the first year — when insect resistance to the Bt toxin would not yet have had a chance to develop.
Which is why I was not particularly surprised to find this:
“China was initially held up as the success story on Bt cotton [39]. It first granted permission to Monsanto to grow the crop in 1997, and for the first several years reported great reductions in the use of pesticides. Early warnings appeared in a study published in 2002 by researchers at an institute funded by China’s Environmental Protection Agency. It found that although Bt cotton was effective in controlling bollworm, it had adverse impacts on the bollworm’s natural enemies and was not effective in controlling many secondary pests.
A second study published in October 2004 found that Bt cotton did not reduce the total numbers of insecticide sprays because additional sprays were needed against sucking pests. A study of 481 Chinese farmers by researchers at the Cornell University released in 2006 reported that after seven years, populations of other insects such as mirids have increased so much that farmers have had to spray their crops up to 20 times a growing season [47].
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/farmersSuicidesBtCottonIndia.php
July 31, 2012 at 6:54 pm
tra
Mitch,
Apparently another major factor impacting Indian cotton farmers are the subsidies some other countries — including the U.S. and China — provide to their cotton farmers, which means the Indian cotton farmers aren’t competing on a level playing field.
So, again, the GMO-related factors — disappointing yields, higher-than-expected need for additional pesticides, and poor drought resistance of the crops raised from the expensive, non-saveable GMO seeds, that were not well-adapted to local conditions, and were purchased on credit on the basis of exaggerated promises from seed agents who were being paid higher commissions to sell those seeds — are probably just one factor among many. But apparently for many Indian farmers (and many widows of Indian farmers who have killed themselves) the GMO factors seemed to be the “straw that broke the camel’s back.”
July 31, 2012 at 9:02 pm
spyrock
sorry mr rasmus about the no brainer comment but i totally forgot about conservative republicans and the tea party. i’m sure they are for whatever monsanto wants to do no matter what effect these products have on the rest of us. however, the trend in the labeling industry for the last few years has been to provide more and more information about the product. because this has become a political issue between polarized individuals the result is anyones guess. having actually worked on farms starting with braceros in the early 60’s, we don’t like to admit that we have slavery in america, but not much has changed since obama’s ancestor was made a slave for life in virginia in 1640. i have also sprayed pesticides on crops. you wouldn’t believe how much we sprayed even after they banned ddt, they just switched to parathion and sevin which we had to wear gas masks and rubber suits to apply. i still don’t eat much fruit or vegetables because of my spraying experience on the farm. the real kicker is that most of the people who are putting these labels on our food products are non-english speaking becuase they are foreign immigrants. so don’t be surprised if your gmo creamed corn turns out to be organic black beans,.
August 1, 2012 at 7:11 am
Mitch
Erasmus,
Just so you know, I consider myself at least as conservative as liberal, so it doesn’t frighten me when people accuse me of upholding a sensible conservative principle.
There are two basic problem with conservative approaches to issues like gay marriage. The first is that the status quo is based on bigotry, which is in turn supported, loosely, by bigoted writings between 6,000 and 1,500 years ago. We’ve all outgrown these bigoted perspectives on many other issues. The second is that they ignore the true misery that is needlessly forced on sentient individuals — this is not put in the balance, along with the supposed “risks.”
As for a conservative viewpoint on genetic engineering, I think it is completely justified. I think the risks need to be weighed against the benefits, and approaches that maximize potential benefits and minimize potential risks need to be used where possible. One such approach, based on our evidence of the nature of the human heart, is to remove individual greed from the equation wherever possible.
We have recently seen the gods of the financial industry demonstrate their willingness to risk the planet’s entire financial system so that they could defraud supposedly intelligent players with clever new technology. These are precisely the sorts of people and motivations that will exist in any large capitalist enterprise, and they totally change the risk/balance equation for any technology they are allowed to touch. A conservative approach is to wisely keep them and their greed away from new technologies until ways of ensuring their safety can be discovered, documented, and experienced over long periods.
Even then, I suspect, an invisibly sociopathic corporate executive can find a way to screw things up to make a buck — just look back at the o-rings on the space shuttle Challenger, recall the warnings from the engineers, think about the extraordinary importance of the Challenger to our national esteem, and remember what happened and why.
And I don’t think invisibly sociopathic corporate executives are particularly rare.
Just removing the profit motive is not enough — as long as there are greedy people who will benefit individually out of proportion to the risks they impose on us all, we will be exposed to the dangers of idiocy. I think the problem is as much or more related to the size and non-locality of organizations as it is to capitalism.
August 1, 2012 at 7:33 am
Erasmus
Spyrock: according to an article posted by Eric on this blog recently, the rightwingers in Texas want GMO products to be labeled. (No surprise, given the shaky grasp of science exhibited by so many Republicans). ————- Farmer suicides? Decreasing yields? Increased pesticide use? Good thing I own no biotech stock! We’d better inform the Cuban government that they are headed down a blind alley, and that the world had better go organic — and fast. (Organic —– the way farmers raised crops and livestock before the 20th century, when famine was unknown. —– LOL).
August 1, 2012 at 8:33 am
Eric Kirk
This was the post on the Texas Republican platform, which also contained statements about vaccinations and home schooling which would find favor around here. Worthy of note to be sure.
August 1, 2012 at 8:58 am
tra
” Farmer suicides? Decreasing yields? Increased pesticide use? Good thing I own no biotech stock!”
Don’t worry, farmer suicides (of poor, small farmers) and increased pesticide use aren’t impediments to agribusiness and biotech companies’ profits. Quite the contrary.
“Organic —– the way farmers raised crops and livestock before the 20th century, when famine was unknown”
False dilemma. But you know that. Weak.
August 1, 2012 at 9:06 am
tra
“But the long-standing argument that organic farming would yield just one-third or one-half of conventional farming was based on biased assumptions and lack of data. For example, the often-cited statistic that switching to organic farming in the United States would only yield one-quarter of the food currently produced there is based on a U.S. Department of Agriculture study showing that all the manure in the United States could only meet one-quarter of the nation’s fertilizer needs-even though organic farmers depend on much more than just manure.
More up-to-date research refutes these arguments. For example, a recent study by scientists at the Research Institute for Organic Agriculture in Switzerland showed that organic farms were only 20 percent less productive than conventional plots over a 21-year period. Looking at more than 200 studies in North America and Europe, Per Pinstrup Andersen (a Cornell professor and winner of the World Food Prize) and colleagues recently concluded that organic yields were about 80 percent of conventional yields. And many studies show an even narrower gap. Reviewing 154 growing seasons’ worth of data on various crops grown on rain-fed and irrigated land in the United States, University of California-Davis agricultural scientist Bill Liebhardt found that organic corn yields were 94 percent of conventional yields, organic wheat yields were 97 percent, and organic soybean yields were 94 percent. Organic tomatoes showed no yield difference.
More importantly, in the world’s poorer nations where most of the world’s hungry live, the yield gaps completely disappear. University of Essex researchers Jules Pretty and Rachel Hine looked at over 200 agricultural projects in the developing world that converted to organic and ecological approaches, and found that for all the projects-involving 9 million farms on nearly 30 million hectares-yields increased an average of 93 percent. A seven-year study from Maikaal District in central India involving 1,000 farmers cultivating 3,200 hectares found that average yields for cotton, wheat, chili, and soy were as much as 20 percent higher on the organic farms than on nearby conventionally managed ones. Farmers and agricultural scientists attributed the higher yields in this dry region to the emphasis on cover crops, compost, manure, and other practices that increased organic matter (which helps retain water) in the soils. A study from Kenya found that while organic farmers in ‘high-potential areas’ (those with above-average rainfall and high soil quality) had lower maize yields than nonorganic farmers, organic farmers in areas with poorer resource endowments consistently outyielded conventional growers. (In both regions, organic farmers had higher net profits, return on capital, and return on labor.)
Contrary to critics who jibe that it’s going back to farming like our grandfathers did or that most of Africa already farms organically and it can’t do the job, organic farming is a sophisticated combination of old wisdom and modern ecological innovations that help harness the yield-boosting effects of nutrient cycles, beneficial insects, and crop synergies. It’s heavily dependent on technology-just not the technology that comes out of a chemical plant.”
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/4060
August 1, 2012 at 10:59 am
Erasmus
“Just not the technology that comes out of a chemical plant” —– in other words, a man-made (synthetic) chemical is verboten, whereas a “natural” chemical is allowed. I detect mere superstition in such a viewpoint. Here is what Matt Ridley writes about the matter:”Organic farming is low-yield, whether you like it or not. The reason for this is simple chemistry. Since organic farming eschews all synthetic fertiliser, it exhausts the mineral nutrients in the soil — especially phosphorus and potassium, but eventually also sulphur, calcium and manganese. It gets round this problem by adding crushed rock or squashed fish to the soil. These have to be mined or netted. Its main problem, though, is nitrogen deficiency, which it can reverse by growing legumes (clover, alfalfa, or beans), which fix nitrogen from the air, and either ploughing them into the soil or feeding them to cattle whose manure is then ploughed into the soil. With such help a particular organic plot can match non-organic yields, but only by using extra land elsewhere to grow the legumes and feed the cattle, effectively doubling the area under the plough. Conventional farming, by contrast, gets its nitrogen from what are in effect point sources — factories, which fix it from the air” (p. 150, ‘The Rational Optimist’). No wonder Edward O. Wilson has given his blessing to genetic engineering! (See ‘The Future of Life,’ p. 163).
August 1, 2012 at 12:28 pm
Mitch
“Conventional farming, by contrast, gets its nitrogen from what are in effect point sources — factories, which fix it from the air”
At what cost in energy, Erasmus? And does this energy come from sustainable sources?
Answers: high, no.
Bigger answer: as conservatives ought to understand, there is no free lunch.
August 1, 2012 at 1:25 pm
suzy blah blah
One such approach, based on our evidence of the nature of the human heart, is to remove individual greed from the equation wherever possible.
-dead on Mitch, individual greed is soooo totally the enemy of our group righteousness.
August 1, 2012 at 2:57 pm
spyrock
“Biochar Is a Viable Mitigation Solution
Biochar is charcoal that is the result of heating biomass in a low oxygen environment. Studies indicate that as much as 1.8 gigatons of CO2 per year is sequestered globally through biochar applications.[2] Substantial research indicates that the carbon in biochar is resistant to degradation and is stable in topsoil for as long as 2,000 years.
Biochar operations can co-produce both food and bio-fuels in a balanced system. Biochar and bio-oil are co-generated from non-food source agricultural waste. A cycle of application of biochar to topsoil increases productivity of land year after year. As a soil amendment, biochar improves the pH balance of the soil, increases tilth and decreases compaction. This allows for improved oxidization and provides critical habitat for soil microbes and mycelium that secure nutrients for plants. Nutrient retention reduces or eliminates the need for chemical fertilizers while reducing the mineral runoff thereby improving water quality. The moisture retention quality of charcoal reduces the need for irrigation.
The heart of the technology for TragaLuz is the growing development in the area of Biochar and Terra Preta. Terra Preta, or “Black Earth” is ancient man-made soils in the Amazon valley created by the indigenous peoples of that area. The soil is highly fertile and rich in stabilized carbon in the form of charcoal. The biological content of the soil is many times more active than neighboring soils not managed by populations.
Through the process of pyrolysis, biomass such as wood chips, by-products of agriculture, or other plant material is heated in an oxygen depleted environment. The three primary by-products of this process are volatile gasses, bio-oil and charcoal.
Bacteria and fungi that fix nitrogen from the air into the soil thrive in the physical structures of the biochar. Like a coral reef in the soil, these living systems interact with the root systems of crops and trees to make nutrients available to the thriving plants. The charcoal is not consumed in the process and has been found to be stable over many centuries. In the normal carbon cycle, dead plants break down into compost and over time the process releases CO2 back into the atmosphere. With the pyrolysis cycle, a percentage of the carbon held in the organic material is converted to pure carbon and stabilized in the top-soil.
This effectively removes CO2 from the atmosphere and creates a stable carbon sink while increasing the fertility of the soil. Unlike chemical fertilizers that diminish the biological diversity of soil with each season of application, the biochar process increases fertility each season while continually removing CO2 from the atmosphere. Fuel produced from the bio-oil will run farm machinery and distribution network to displace fossil fuel inputs from the TragaLuz farms. The displacement factor allows the financial benefit to be equal to the retail cost of transportation fuels.”
charles berkstresser
August 1, 2012 at 3:03 pm
Erasmus
“No free lunch” applies to organic farming as well: when more land is set aside for agriculture, less land belongs to wilderness. That truism explains Wilson’s refusal to condemn genetic engineering. ——————————-I’m surprised TRA didn’t point out the gap in my reasoning: from Ridley’s discussion of the extra land needed for organic farming to my reference to E.O. Wilson’s blessing of genetic engineering. I also failed to point out that Wilson’s book discusses most of the objections to the new technology and takes them quite seriously. (E.g..: “Many people …. believe that yet another bit of their freedom has been taken from them by faceless corporations….., using technology beyond their control or even understanding. They also fear that an industrialized agriculture dependent on high technology can by one random error go terribly wrong. (…) In the realm of public opinion, genetic engineering is to agriculture as nuclear engineering is to energy” (pp. 117-118). He deals with the other objections I’ve encountered on this blog, yet on page 163 he delivers his verdict: “Where genetically engineered crop strains prove nutritionally and environmentally safe upon careful research and regulation, as I outlined in chapter 5, they should be employed. In addition to feeding the hungry, they can help take the pressure off the wildlands and the biodiversity they contain.” ————————-This is Mr. Green speaking. He is saying: intensive agriculture = less wilderness being ploughed under. Whether “all organic” farming is “sustainable” is highly debatable, given the extra land it necessitates. “… in many parts of the world the only way in which inefficient organic farmers can feed a growing population is by cutting down more tropical forest: for example, Mexican farmers currently ‘slash and burn’ three million acres of virgin tropical forest a year” (from an article in ‘Nature’ — “Urban Myths of Organic Farming”, published in 2001). Yes, no free lunch by going organic, I’m afraid.
August 1, 2012 at 3:09 pm
Erasmus
I just read spyrock’s piece on biochar. Can we all agree that this is remarkably promising?
August 1, 2012 at 5:27 pm
Mitch
Yes, Erasmus.
Here.
Click to access Biochar_as_a_soil_amendment_-_a_review.pdf
Unfortunately, the time to have begun implementing such approaches was around the Raygun era.
You might consider skipping to section 8, costs, and ponder the question of exactly when ExxonMobilCongressCorp and its acolytes will determine that man-made climate change might not only exist, but actually matter enough that society should should invest $37 per ton in avoided carbon emissions. The way to do that is by implementing a carbon tax.
Bring it up with the tea party, the GOP, or even the Democrats. I’m sure their leaderships will all be receptive, and it can be passed next year.
August 1, 2012 at 6:32 pm
tra
Erasmus,
It looks to me like Ridley is just misinformed, and/or not up-to-date on the research. You should read this:
Click to access FSTbookletFINAL.pdf
This report covers 30 years of carefully documented experience in growing organic and conventional crops, side by side, and shows that while the yields from the organic crops were lower in the first several years, they soon caught up and matched the yields from the conventional crops, and in some cases exceeded conventional yields.
Organic practices lead to healthier soil with more organic matter, which not only helps increase the fertility of the soil, it also helps the soil hold more moisture — which is why side-by-side comparisons, including Rodales, but also others, find organic crops tend to significantly outproduce conventional crops in drought years.
Synthetic fertilizers like ammonia rely on massive amounts of petrochemical resources to produce them. Most synthetic nitrogen fertilizers are created by combining the hydrogen in natural gas with nitrogen from the air. While the nitrogen from the air is essentially “free,” and certainly abundant, massive volumes of natural gas are needed to create the ammonia — by some estimates as much as 5% of all the natural gas used in the world today.
Meanwhile, synthetic nitrogen fertilizers actually rob the soil of organic matter, which, among other detriments, makes the soil less able sequester carbon, and less able to hold nitrogen, and absorb and hold moisture:
http://grist.org/article/2010-02-23-new-research-synthetic-nitrogen-destroys-soil-carbon-undermines/
August 1, 2012 at 11:36 pm
tra
“A recent study examined a global dataset of 293 examples and estimated the average yield ratio (organic : non-organic) of different food categories for the developed and developing world (Badgley et al., 2007)…
…On average, in developed countries, organic systems produce 92% of the yield produced by conventional agriculture. In developing countries, however, organic systems produce 80% more than conventional farms.
With the average yield ratios, the researchers then modeled the global food supply that could be grown organically on the current agricultural land base. They found that organic methods could hypothetically produce enough food on a global per capita basis to sustain the current human population, and potentially an even larger population, without putting more farmland into production.
Moreover, contrary to fears that there are insufficient quantities of organically acceptable fertilizers, the data suggest that leguminous cover crops could fix enough nitrogen to replace the amount of synthetic fertilizer currently in use.”
http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/susagri/susagri064.htm
A key factor that is crucially important in the developing world (and, in the long term, here in the developed world as well) is the proven ability of modern organic and “ecological farming” methods to revive and rebuild exhausted and degraded soils, increasing the amount of organic matter in the soils and improving soil structure.
This is especially important in developing countries because these countries have a great deal of agricultural land that has become seriously degraded — due, in some cases, to traditional farming methods (which may have worked fine at lower population levels but can often cause serious damage as populations increase), and in some cases due to modern synthetic-fertilizer-and-pesticide-heavy-monocropping-style “conventional” farming methods.
August 2, 2012 at 7:06 am
Erasmus
TRA —- Thank you for your references. I’m afraid I trust Rodale’s objectivity as much as I do ExxonMobil’s: very little. They have a righteous ax to grind, and they are diligent in their efforts.—– More power to organic gardeners, I say —- may they flourish. All my friends who garden do so organically, and I applaud them. Whether their methods are applicable to large-scale agriculture is another matter entirely (given that very few people wish to become farmers today). ————— The Grist article has been ably critiqued by some of the commenters. I thought “joe-t” was especially incisive. ——————————————Ah, if only “organic” were the answer! I might even break down and put a pro-organic bumpersticker on my car: “Organic Is The Answer to World Hunger!” or something pithier. Alas, my (admittedly incomplete — like everyone’s) reading has led me to agree with Nina Fedoroff (National Academy of Sciences) —– “Suggestions that organic farming is appropriate for countries with high population pressures and limited arable land and water supplies sound suspiciously like Marie Antionette’s ‘Let them eat cake.’ Or, as Peter Raven has noted, ‘Organic agriculture is essentially what is practiced in sub-Saharan Africa today, and half of the people are starving; so it is clear that more is needed” (‘Mendel in the Kitchen,’ p. 261). —- And merely refining the definition of “organic” just won’t cut any more ice.
August 2, 2012 at 10:25 am
tra
You don’t have to trust Rodale’s objectivity, as their data has been examined by independent scientists (including David Pimentel, a Cornell University professor of ecology and agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Research Service research microbiologist David Douds Jr. and University of Maryland agricultural economist James Hanson) and published in a peer-reviewed journal (Bioscience).
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/july05/organic.farm.vs.other.ssl.html
Fedoroff’s “Let them eat cake” comment is really quite ironic, when you consider that expecting poor farmers in resource-starved areas to solve their problems by adopting agribusiness solutions that are heavily dependent on expensive outside inputs like GMO seeds, chemical fertilizers and pesticides is very much a “let them eat cake” approach.
Raven is just completely misrepresenting modern organic and agro-ecological methods, which are not “essentially what is practiced in sub-Saharan Africa today.” That’s like claiming electric vehicles are bound to be inherently inefficient because they are “essentially” the same as the early electric vehicles of the nineteenth century.
For those who are actually interested in the welfare of poor African farmers, and the suitability of organic farming in that context, the following U.N. report should be required reading:
Click to access ditcted200715_en.pdf
From the Foreword:
“This study examines the relationship between organic agriculture and food security in Africa, particularly East Africa…The evidence presented in this study supports the argument that organic agriculture can be more
conducive to food security in Africa than most conventional production systems, and that it is more likely to be sustainable in the long term.”
August 2, 2012 at 10:56 am
tra
Can’t help but notice that you ignored the scholarly research from Badgley and Perfecto (2007), which I referred to in my 11:36 comment.
To save you some trouble, let me point out right up front that this research has been strongly criticized, and by no less than…wait for it…Alex Avery, of the agribusiness-funded CGFI, son of CGFI’s illustrious Dennis Avery who brought us the “organic food is loaded with dangerous E. coli” fraud we discussed above. Here’s Alex Avery’s “critique” of Badgley and Perfecto’s research, loaded with strident accusations of dishonesty, misconduct and professional malpractice by Badgley et al::
Click to access organic-abundance-report-fat.pdf
As with his father’s propagandizing, the son has been very successful in promoting his (unsupported) views in the media and on the internet, which is why his critique (helpfully archived on the website of the Ohio Pest Management Association) comes up as one of the top search results when looking for information on the 2007 research by Badgley et al.
Unfortunately, like his father, the younger Avery makes a lot of wild claims and baseless accusations that quickly fall apart under scrutiny. The response from Badgley and Perfecto was harder to locate, but once found, shows just how irresponsible and inaccurate Avery’s unfounded criticisms were.
Click to access response%20to%20avery.pdf
August 2, 2012 at 11:19 am
Erasmus
I remember when Cuba was praised for its organic farming techniques. It turns out that necessity, rather than choice, was the crucial factor in the island’s agricultural practices, and Cuba is now hosting biotech conferences that point towards a GMO future there (Granma, Dec. 1, 2011 issue). ——————————- I just pray that Africans follow Cuba’s path. They will, I hope, discount the rich man’s wisdom emanating from NGOs, and they will, I trust, eventually learn that Rodale-type studies aren’t taken seriously even in their countries of origin: unless the vast majority of farmers are stupid, they would have reverted to organic farming long ago if such a move would have increased yields and saved the expense of buying pesticides. Here is what William C. Clark of Harvard says about this question: “Even if the worst thing anyone imagines about genetically modified organisms were true, they would be worth it. If you look at what people are dying of in Africa and what these plants could do to produce food, we would have to be absolutely out of our mind not to use them. You could triple the risks. Make them the worst risks imaginable. Even then, it wouldn’t be a contest” (quoted in M. Specter, ‘Denialism,’ p. 146). Clark is a professor of international science, public policy, and human development. I’m going to assume that he’s done more research into this matter than I have.—————————————–Assuming that seeds, pesticides, etc. are, of necessity, “outside inputs” ignores the possibility that African scientists are capable of creating their own products. China has a thriving biotech industry, Cuba is making great strides, but Africa ……. will have to extend a begging hand?
August 2, 2012 at 11:39 am
tra
Personally, I don’t pin my hopes on “organic” farming alone. For one thing, “organic” is just one label, which overlaps significantly with broader labels, such as “agroecological farming,” “ecological farming,” “sustainable farming,” “conservation farming,” etc.
But overall, it seems to me that the bottom line is that approaches to third world agricultural development that are based on continuously improving the health, fertility, and structure of the soil, using resources that are actually available to third-world farmers, and growing a diversity of crops that are well-adapted to local conditions, appear to hold much more promise – both in the short-term, and in the long run — than approaches based on agribusiness-supported industrial monocropping systems that are heavily reliant on continuously applying large amounts of expensive synthetic fertilizers and pesticides to soil that continues to be impoverished and degraded, requiring even more expensive inputs in order to continue to (temporarily) provide acceptable yields.
The former are a recipe for lasting food security and real improvements in the lives of third-world farmers, along with ecological benefits that are important both regionally and globally.
The latter is a recipe for destroying the livelihoods of small farmers, bankrupting smallholders and driving them off their land, concentrating food production under the control of wealthy elites and corporations, and fostering ongoing dependency and insecurity.
Unfortunately the latter path is a scenario much more conducive to increasing the profits of multinational agribusiness corporations, which is why they are working so hard to perpetuate the myth that their model of agricultural production is the only way to feed the world. Not only is it not the “only” way forward, it’s not even a particularly promising way forward.
August 2, 2012 at 11:50 am
tra
You seem to be confusing two very different things: (1) the ability of a farming system to reliably and sustainably produce enough food to meet the needs of the population, at the least overall ecological cost, as opposed to (2) the ability of a farming system to produce the highest possible profits for large farmers and corporate investors. Yes, industrial monocropping dependent on synthetic fertilizers and pesticides (and now GMOs) do a great job of the meeting the latter goal. If that were the only goal, it would be no contest.
August 2, 2012 at 12:34 pm
tra
O.K. since you insist on “not taking seriously” the volumes of peer-reviewed science that show the benefits of organic-type farming methods and examine their potential for dramatically increasing crop yields in the third world, and since you insist on cynically summarizing the significant body of research demonstrating real. measurable, on-the-ground demonstrations of this potential as “rich man’s wisdom emanating from NGOs,” I guess there’s no point to continuing to point you toward any sources that don’t support your existing beliefs, as you are clearly unable or unwilling to give them any serious consideration. Still, it’s been an interesting discussion, and I thank you for that.
August 2, 2012 at 1:46 pm
tra
As for “rich man’s wisdom emanating from NGOs:”
Many advances in organic-type farming methods originate as a poor man’s (or woman’s) wisdom, validated through studies by (middle class) scientists, and then spread by NGOs, often operating on shoestring budgets and usually partnering with poor farmers to achieve successful implementation — much to the chagrin of the rich men and multinational corporations that are unable to profit off of techniques that rely on improving knowledge and locally adaptive practices, rather than making/keeping farmers reliant on expensive and/or patentable agribusiness products.
For example:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=farmers-in-sahel-beat-back-drought-and-climate-change-with-trees
In this case, the “poor man’s wisdom” in allowing native trees to grow in between crop rows, has, collectively, has resulted in rising water tables and increasing crop yields, and improving ecological conditions at a scale that can even be seen from space.
The major barrier to the success of this Farmer-Managed Natural Regeneration (FMNR) method of “re-greening of the Sahel”, in countries like Niger, and Mali, was that under colonial governments, all trees were declared to be property of the government (a legal framework that continued under post-colonial governments until recently, and still continues in some countries today), which allowed the government to sell lucrative timber-harvesting rights to logging companies. Since farmers were stripped of their ownership of their trees, once the trees had been cut down by the logging companies, farmers (who were not allowed to cut trees themselves) would prevent them from growing back by pulling them out when they were still small “weeds.” The resulting deforestation of farming areas was profitable for logging companies, and conducive to conventional monocropping arrangements, but devastating to small farmers, overall productivity, and food security.
This trend only began to be reversed when farmers in areas where their loss of control over their trees was unenforced began to allow trees to re-grow, and saw great benefits, which created pressure to reform the system in adjacent areas. When Mali finally recognized farmer ownership of their trees (after incidents in which government agents were killed by outraged farmers), the path was cleared for rapid progress. However, it took a concerted campaign by those dreaded NGOs to spread the word about the reforms, at which point the re-greening technique spread like wildfire. A similar scenario played out in Niger, when that country suspended enforcement of the farmers-don’t-own-their-trees rule. And it wasn’t Monsanto or Cargill that drew attention to the successful FMNR “re-greening” approach, measured its effects, pressured governments to make the necessary reforms, and worked to spread knowledge about it. That was done by farmers, with help from those dreaded NGOs.
August 2, 2012 at 1:58 pm
tra
The point being, that in many cases, achieving sustainable, productive agricultural outcomes in Africa, and elsewhere in the third world, is in large part a matter of enacting land reforms, removing legal and institutional barriers that keep poor farmers impoverished, improving educational and information-sharing opportunities for farmers, and facilitating the sharing of knowledge from farmer to farmer, from farmer to scientists, and from farmers and scientists to policy-makers.
The NGOs you dismiss as pushing “rich man’s wisdom” on poor farmers are often promoting awareness of methods pioneered by poor farmers, which, despite their effectiveness, are mostly ignored (but sometimes actively opposed) by the rich men who control the modern corporate-agribusiness-industrial complex — for the simple reason that these methods fail to provide an opportunity to make those rich men richer still.
If Monsanto could patent methods like composting, providing nitrogen-fixing cover crops, FMNR, intercropping, and so on, if they could charge a fee to farmers for their use every year, then Monsanto’s propagandists would be out there shouting as loud as they could about all the benefits of those methods.
August 2, 2012 at 1:59 pm
Mitch
Here is the FAQ page from the United Nations World Food Program.
http://www.wfp.org/hunger/faqs
As many of us probably already know, there is more than enough food produced. Hunger is not caused by insufficient worldwide food production, and it definitely will not be eliminated by increasing worldwide food production whether with GMOs, organic farming, or visualization.
The world is being destroyed by its economic models and the people who benefit from them. Straying from reality does not work over extended periods — those in charge can hide their failures for only so many decades. Citizens of the USSR learned this the hard way, and the rest of us will learn it in an even harder way.
August 2, 2012 at 2:30 pm
tra
Mitch,
Yes, there is more than enough food produced globally, but in many regions there is not enough food produced to provide adequate nutrition to their populations and/or much of the food produced is not available to the local population because they cannot afford to purchase it and it is instead sold elsewhere as cash crops, the proceeds of which are not shared among those who need it most.
The maldistribution of productive farmlands, rampant economic inequality, armed conflict, gender inequality, and many other factors are all important, and you’re quite correct to say that merely increasing crop yields, by whatever methods, will not, by itself, solve the world’s hunger problems.
However, increasing crop yields, especially the yields of small farmers in developing countries, goes hand-in-hand with addressing many of those factors — improving the plight of farmers in developing countries requires attention to those issues, and attending to those issues requires improving the plight of those farmers.
Contrary to the propaganda foisted upon us by the corporate-agribusiness-industrial-complex, there is more and more evidence showing that locally-adapted, ecologically-informed, organic-type farming methods are much more suitable for achieving these goals than the top-down corporate-profit-driven Big Ag prescriptions that we’ve falsely been told are the “only way” to feed the world.
August 2, 2012 at 6:11 pm
Anonymous
How is it that everyone posting missed Eric’s point?
August 2, 2012 at 8:25 pm
somebody
We were too worried about Hairy Teeth in 3rd Generation Off-Spring After GM Soy Consumption!
August 2, 2012 at 8:42 pm
Mitch
Cute, Anonymous, but Kepler’s willingness to abandon his previous position was based on an accumulation of evidence. The evidence has been accumulating, but not in support of everything everyone wishes to believe.
tra, I didn’t mean to dismiss organic farming methods at all. I agree they are important. I was trying to address what I believe to be a misunderstanding that the next great technological fix is the solution to poverty. If the solution to poverty were technology, there would no longer be any poverty anywhere on the planet.
August 2, 2012 at 9:06 pm
Mitch
Scientists who discover adverse findings from GMOs are regularly attacked, ridiculed, denied funding, and even fired.
Alas, somebody, this is what happens to scientists who talk publicly about hairy teeth in hamsters, as opposed to their observations of dental-associated piliferous structures in Mesocricetus auratus. They should know better.
August 2, 2012 at 9:10 pm
Mitch
Surov warns against jumping to early conclusions. He said, “It is quite possible that the GMO does not cause these effects by itself.”
Hamsters everywhere are sighing in relief.
August 3, 2012 at 7:34 am
Erasmus
“This is a rich-world argument that is hurting the poor.” — Norman Borlaug and Jimmy Carter, on the debate about the safety and utility of GM crops. ——–No, I”m not opposed to anything “sustainable” (however ill-defined), or “locally-adapted” (and I’m kind to puppies), or “ecologically-informed” (I proudly declare myself in favor of information). I do object to buzz-words, to those who try to foist on Africa farming methods that even Cuba is trying to outgrow, and to those who proclaim that the world is growing enough food: a fact that does nothing to remove sub-Saharan Africa from the ranks of beggar-nations.
August 3, 2012 at 7:45 am
Mitch
On July 28th, I wrote: I don’t doubt that biotech is going to master in vitro photosynthesis within my likely lifetime, and that will help a lot.
Well, that didn’t take long:
http://panasonic.co.jp/corp/news/official.data/data.dir/2012/07/en120730-5/en120730-5.html
For what must be the gazillionth time, let me say I don’t doubt in the ability of science and technology to increase humanity’s power. What I doubt is humanity’s ability to use these gifts in sane, necessary, and timely ways.
We don’t lack technology; we lack an economic system that ties individual rewards to real contribution to humanity, with a valuing of contributions based on 20th century knowledge that the environment is not an unlimited source and sink. The powers-that-be are too fat and happy reminding us of the benefits of our existing systems… benefits which, long term, are as real as the emperor’s new clothes.
Until a reality-based economics is introduced, we will be continuing our trip to oblivion, with science and technology enabling greater and greater speed and power.
September 27, 2012 at 1:09 pm
bolithio
Some time has passed… any guesses on the amount of money spent for and against prop 37?
almost 3 million has been spent in support of GMO labeling.
Close to 32 million has been spent by the opposition.
Wow. Call me a simpleton, but that alone is cause for me to vote yes.
September 27, 2012 at 1:49 pm
Eric Kirk
I wish the yes on 37 sign wasn’t so busy and hard to read.