I have been peripherally following the "controversy" surrounding Golden Rice,
with the aim of coming to a layman's understanding of the pros and cons of the issue. Although I have entered into the "debate" with bias toward
peer reviewed science, that bias has and will continue to be unchanged. Science is a consensus, not a democracy (or a
"wisdom of the crowds" concept). Or better stated,
science is the consensus of data; the role of a scientist isn’t one of voicing one’s preferences or opinions, but as evidence gatherers. And the good thing about science, it is never "done." It is self-correcting; as new data becomes available. (Although this is not the specific article I was looking for in regards to
"Science is a consensus, not a democracy" it does, in a round about way along with the comments, address the concept.)
So with that in mind, I was curious as to the attached video report,,,
MILES O’BRIEN: Ocampo denies Greenpeace was involved in the rice raid, but he says he respects what the protesters did. (See also:
'Golden rice' GM trial vandalised in the Philippines and
DA to sue ‘paid residents, not farmers’ over destroyed GMO crops for more on the vandalism and legal aftermath)
DANIEL OCAMPO: We’re not afraid of the science, but we’re concerned about the long-term impacts on the environment and human health, because there’s no proof that they’re safe.
I Briefly touched on this above but this canard is also addressed here
in relation to feed animals and humans who eat those animals. (See also:
19 Years of Feeding Animals GMO Shows No Harm)
But we don’t need to depend on anecdotes to address these concerns. Writing in the Journal of Animal Science, in the most comprehensive study of GMOs and food ever conducted, University of California-Davis Department of Animal Science geneticist Alison Van Eenennaam and research assistant Amy E. Young reviewed 29 years of livestock productivity and health data from both before and after the introduction of genetically engineered animal feed. [NOTE: article is behind a paywall until October 1.]
The field data represented more than 100 billion animals covering a period before 1996 when animal feed was 100% non-GMO, and after its introduction when it jumped to 90% and more. The documentation included the records of animals examined pre and post mortem, as ill cattle cannot be approved for meat.
What did they find? That GM feed is safe and nutritionally equivalent to non-GMO feed. There was no indication of any unusual trends in the health of animals since 1996 when GMO crops were first harvested. Considering the size of the dataset, it can reasonably be said that the debate over the impact of GE feed on animal health is closed: there is zero extraordinary impact.
[,,,]
The authors also found no evidence to suggest any health affect on humans who eat those animals. No study has revealed any differences in the nutritional profile of animal products derived from GE-fed animals. Because DNA and protein are normal components of the diet that are digested, there are no detectable or reliably quantifiable traces of GE components in milk, meat, and eggs following consumption of GE feed.
Just how appropriate is this topic?
I was putting the final touches on this post when this article popped on my news feed,
No Health Risks from GMOs:
So, what does the scientific evidence say with regard to the safety of current GMOs? A 2012 statement by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) concluded: “. . . Contrary to popular misconceptions, GM crops are the most extensively tested crops ever added to our food supply.
,,,
The National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council agrees (NRC 2004): “To date, no adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human population.” The World Health Organization also agrees (WHO 2005): “GM foods currently traded on the international market have passed risk assessments in several countries and are not likely, nor have been shown, to present risks for human health.”
,,,
Even the European Union, which is politically not favorable to GMOs, had to acknowledge in its review of the research (European Commission 2010): “The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.”
MILES O’BRIEN: Alfonso sees no real difference between conventional breeding techniques employed by agriculture for thousands of years and genetic modification.
ANTONIO ALFONSO: So, if people say that this is bad, why is it bad? They are concerned about safety? There are science-based, you know, well-established techniques, methods for establishing safety.
This point is outlined very well
by Steven Novella, in his overall discussion of the GMO controversy.
GMO advocates are quick to point out that pretty much all the food consumed by humans have already been extensively modified by human activity. Corn, for example, was cultivated from teosinte, which looks nothing like modern corn. In fact, it took some detective work to figure out that they are essentially the same species.
Cultivation is mostly about artificial selection – saving the best plants from one year’s crop to provide the seeds for the following year. Repeat that a few thousand times, and you have the development of agriculture and all the food you recognize today.
Cultivation can also involve cross-pollination, creating a hybrid species in an attempt to get the best traits from closely related species. Using a combination of cross-pollination and artificial selection, breeders have created countless varieties of common plants. The black or purple tomato, for example, of which there are about 50 varieties, is high in flavanoids, which give them their color. Orange carrots were developed by a fortuitous mutation resulting in high levels of beta-carotine. This turned carrots into an important staple crop as a source of vitamin A.
Breeders who are impatient to wait for a fortuitous mutation to occur developed what is called mutation breeding – exposing plants to chemicals or to radiation that increases the mutation rate. Between 1930 and 2007, 2540 mutagenic plant varietals have been released.
Genetic modification is the latest technique for changing organisms to suit our wants and needs. The technology involves various techniques for inserting one or more specific genes directly into a target organism. There are two basic types of GMO – transgenic and cisgenic. Cisgenic involves inserting genes from closely related species, ones that could potentially cross breed with the target species. Transgenic refers to inserting genes from distant species – even from different kingdoms of life, such as putting a gene from a bacterium into a plant.
There are four types of GM plants currently approved for use: herbicide tolerance, insecticide production, altered fatty acid composition (for canola oil), and virus resistance. Many other potential applications are in various stages of development.
GMO advocates are quick to point out that GM technology is nothing new, and that it is simply an extension of the various technologies we have used for thousands of years to alter organisms. This is overstating the case, however – transgenic GMO is not just a new technique, it also opens up new possibilities, like putting a gene from a bacterium into corn. But it is legitimate to put GMO in its proper historical context. It is not entirely new. Contamination of genes from other kingdoms even occurs in nature through horizontal gene transfer.
In any case, the “it’s not natural” argument is fallacious. Meanwhile, GMO should be looked upon as a powerful technology, and such technologies can have both powerfully good and powerfully bad consequences depending on how they are used.
MILES O’BRIEN: When golden rice was first created in the late 1990s, the giant agribusiness corporation Syngenta funded research and development, but since it’s inbred, generating seeds that farmers can replant, the company saw no moneymaking potential and turned the project over to the nonprofit world.
BRUCE TOLENTINO: There is no profit motivation. Our motivations are purely for the good of mankind.
The notion being countered by Tolentino, "GMO research is all industry funded." As the
Genetic Literacy Project points out, there is a resource available to determine funding sources:
A new public database of research tells a different story. The resource is the GENetic Engineering Risk Atlas (GENERA). The results [represented on the graphic below jointly developed by Biology Fortified, Inc. (BFI), an independent tax-exempt non-profit. and the Genetic Literacy Project] show that independent peer-reviewed research on GMOs is common, conducted worldwide, and based on a random sampling makes up half of the total of all research on risks associated with genetic engineering.
GENERA is a searchable database of peer-reviewed scientific studies on the relative risks of genetically engineered crops. The database includes important details at-a-glance to help people find and learn about the science of GMOs. GENERA has now entered its beta-testing phase with the first 400 out of over 1,200 studies that have been curated.
The mission of BFI, popularly known as Biofortified, is to strengthen the public discussion of issues in biology, with particular emphasis on genetics and genetic engineering in agriculture. Founded in 2008 as a scientist-run information resource and public forum, Biology Fortified does not accept funding from industry sources, and is instead funded by the contributions of readers and grants.
Dr. Karl Haro von Mogel, Chair and co-Director of BFI, said that people are looking for independent information about GMOs. “People are looking for sources that they can trust that can help them find unbiased information about genetic engineering, but in a politically-charged debate, unbiased sources are difficult to find. We’ve been recognized for our independent expertise on this subject, so it was only natural that we should take a project like this on.”
From
GENERA's about page,
"This database is intended to be comprehensive, to include all of the relevant research, and to accurately report the outcomes of each study as reported by the authors. To increase transparency, the funding sources of each study are listed, which requires contacting the authors of any paper that does not report this information."
MILES O'BRIEN: ,,,Farmer Rolando Nicolas was overseeing a crew of workers planting rice when I met him.
“First and foremost,” he told me, “the amount of yield and how much we would earn is what counts.”
And in fact, that’s the main stumbling block that scientists now face. At IRRI, they’re trying to modify the most popular, high-yielding rice varieties, but so far the golden rice they have created doesn’t [sic] measure up on output.
This view is also mirrored by Nathanael Johnson over at Grist. In his piece
Are GMOs worth their weight in gold? To farmers, not exactly, Johnson took a look at GM farming, "trying to understand what leads an individual farmer to choose GM seed. I emailed or chatted with farmers until I started to hear the same explanations over and again."
And looking closely reveals something surprising: I’d thought that there would be an obvious financial advantage in biotech, making it impossible for conventional crops to compete. But that’s not the case. In the race toward profitability, GM traits don’t give seeds a jet-pack — it’s more like they provide an umbrella.
,,,
All the farmers I talked to said that the potential yield for GM and non-GM seed is the same. But, Scott said, in practice GM yield is usually higher. Each of the two main GM traits — insect resistance and herbicide resistance — insure that yields don’t fall too far below their potential.
,,,
“I think there will be a big shift to organics in 15 to 20 years. Input costs for GMO farming just keep rising — seed costs, pesticide costs. I just don’t think it’s sustainable.” He chuckled: “There you go — it’s all about sustainability. Economic sustainability in this case.”
CHITO MEDINA, Farmer Scientist Partnership For Development: It’s a trick, the way we look at it. It’s a trick to push more GMOs.
Now I wonder
where he got this idea from? Could it be,,,
Vandana Shiva?
Unfortunately, Vitamin A rice is a hoax, and will bring further dispute to plant genetic engineering where public relations exercises seem to have replaced science in promotion of untested, unproven and unnecessary technology.
MILES O’BRIEN: This environmental scientist Chito Medina is with a group called the Farmer Scientist Partnership For Development. The Filipino acronym is MASIPAG.
CHITO MEDINA: GMOs is just something, like, if you will pardon my word, something like you are raping the species, because you are using the gene without its consent and without its normal biology.
Does this man have an
original thought of his own?
Mark Lynas, the British journalist who campaigned for years arm in arm with Greenpeace against crop biotechnology, but more recently abandoned his views refers to Shiva as part of the “lunatic fringe” of the anti-GMO movement. A year ago last January, after Lynas renounced what he now calls his ‘anti-science” past, Shiva rebuked him for saying that farmers should be free to use GMO crops, saying it was like giving rapists the freedom to rape.
MILES O’BRIEN: Medina believes golden rice is not need. [sic] Poor people can get small amount of vitamin A from this black rice that MASIPAG has developed with conventional breeding or much more from mangoes or sweet potatoes. But what poor people eat here and now is rice. At IRRI, they remain determined to make it more nutritious.
I think we all can agree that GMOs alone won't solve the planet's food problems; GMOs are just one tool.
MASIPAGs black rice may be another tool. But, not directly stated in this report, opponents are focused on the poverty based malnutrition stating that
money would be better spent on traditional nutritional programs. This is creating a false dichotomy, all avenues should be explored and used. Also bare in mind, the money has already been spent on the development of golden rice.
Mr. Cadan stepped through a hatch and into the ship’s campaign room. He sat down at a table, and explained why Greenpeace takes the position it does against Golden Rice, why it will oppose to the end its commercial production. “Proponents say it will address Vitamin A deficiency, but that isn’t the main problem,” he said. ‘‘The main problem is malnutrition, and that is a result of poverty.” People need a range of healthy, fresh food, such as green leaf vegetables, not vitamin-enhanced rice, he said.
“There are other solutions,” he said, such as handing out pills to millions of vitamin-deprived people. Easier said than done. Mr. Cadan also repeated a familiar — but unproven — refrain, that genetically modified products are inherently unsafe. “We think it’s just insane,” said Mr. Cadan.
The issue, these alternate solutions have not worked for the very poor who cannot afford to buy vegetables or fruits, or cannot devote the land to grow more of them.
It would also help the people of many poverty-stricken countries if their governments were less corrupt. Working roads would do more to reduce nutritional deficits than any GMO possibly could, and so would a more equitable distribution of the Earth’s dwindling supply of freshwater. No single crop or approach to farming can possibly feed the world. To prevent billions of people from living in hunger, we will need to use every one of them.
As a side note, MASIPAG loses much credibility if
this report is true. (See the BBC citation above.)
"The local office of the Department of Agriculture backs up this version of events. Their press statement also names names: "The surprise attack was staged by the group led by Wilfredo Marbella, deputy secretary of Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP) and Bert Auter, secretary general of KMP Bicol. Also identified were members of Anakpawis Partylist and MASIPAG."
Mind's eye is telling me that helping poverty stricken Philipino's is not their "only" motive.]
BRUCE TOLENTINO: We want to make sure that the experiments go on, that the research continues. We want to make sure that the data is available, not only to researchers, but to everybody who wants to examine the data.
MILES O’BRIEN: In destroying that test field, GMO opponents only made it harder to get answers. The irony is those answers could save thousands of lives, but also might undermine the case against genetic engineering in the future.
As
Nathanael Johnson points out:
Perhaps the problem with Golden Rice, as Marion Nestle has pointed out, is that it’s indicative of an assumption that “complex societal problems — in this case, malnutrition — are more easily solved by private-sector, commercially driven science than by societal decisions and political actions.”
There’s a good point there: Social problems usually require social solutions — messy and hard as they are. But the thing is, sometimes technology really can help.
Here’s my take on Golden Rice: It’s one small, flawed fix for the massive problem of malnutrition in Asia. It’s probably not going to be the fix, but it seems shortsighted to attack the people who are actually on the ground trying to do good, unless you are out there too with something much better.
Are there other fixes? Yep, you could give people pills, or convince them to grow (and eat) more vegetables. But the donors supporting Golden Rice have been trying that too. The hope is that Golden Rice can put a little more of a dent in the problem. At the very least, as Pollan put it, after all these years of promises, it will be interesting to watch this test case: “We deserve to find out once and for all if this shining promise can live up to the hype.”
Sure, Golden Rice has been used for biotech industry PR, and if it succeeds we’ll doubtless see more of that. But it also holds potential for real good.
GMO debate grows over golden rice in the Philippines
