Martin Barker’s 500 words | GMO foods, the common sense debate…
Martin Barker shares his perspective on the issue of GMO farming as part of our on going project. He is a city councilman and blogs at his site: Dr. Martin Barker Blogs…
Are you interested in writing about a science related topic? Then check out our information on becoming a guest writer.
Before I get started today I want to make very clear that my views today are not those of Duncan City Council, the government entity on which I sit. They, in fact, support the banning of GMOs. Personally (and this is my opinion), I think GMOs are the main answer to the worlds future food issues, an aspect of reduced carbon emissions, and a way to increase global wealth and I also think those that vigorously oppose GMO are performing a great injustice that is likely (if governments respond to the activists instead of to common sense) to result in millions of needless deaths and much economic suffering.
Are fresh from the garden foods tastier? Without a doubt! Are they more nutritious? Apparently they have measurably higher levels of nutrients, so very likely. Are they cheaper? Not a chance in hell, calculate the hours maintaining the garden, the water (especially after the city meters it) and that calculates to a lot. Our home grown organic food does not likely have pesticides or herbicides but you can be fairly certain that large scale organic farming does; another check mark against a pure organic food industry. And ‘home grown’ foods do not contribute to society as a whole which is dependant upon taxation of goods and services.
Something that bothers me about this whole ‘ban GMO’ movement is that the activists are trying to force the ban on our society when the choice to not consume GMO already exists. It is already possible to eat all organic; there is no need to ban it. Grow your own food, buy from organic farms (the CowichanValley has many wonderful farms that would love the support of the locals), shop organically in the grocery store. It’s easy to discern what is organic and what is not in the grocery store; if it says it’s organic, it likely is, and if doesn’t, it’s likely GMO or has GMO products in it. Vote with your dollar if you don’t want GMOs, and the market place will adjust if enough follow your lead. The public should have the choice…
Here is some very basic research that you can do yourself to determine if you truly want pure organic, non-GMO food: buy organic for one week, and then imagine all the things you can no longer afford. That’s right, organic food is astoundingly expensive. It is astoundingly expensive because production is labour intensive, it has greater susceptibility to crop loss from pests and weeds and much lower yields. Worse yet, it has a greater carbon footprint than GMO farming. Imagine our bottom (and I mean in Canada) economic 20%’ers trying to live when their food costs have doubled. Somebody is going to starve…
There’s an argument that GMO food is not safe. Maybe, but not likely. It takes about 15 years for GMOs to survive the lab testing process before making the market and what people don’t seem to realize and what anti-GMO activists don’t talk about is that we have been eating genetically modified foods since the 50s. That’s right, for 60 years or so. The original method of altering genes was through mutagenesis, either by radiating the food or chemically damaging the genes of the product. The resulting products are then grown and the best ‘bi-products’ are selected and grown for human consumption. These were random genetic changes and not the pinpoint/surgical genetic techniques that modern geneticists are now capable of. In the time we have been consuming genetically altered food our life expectancy has increased by 10 years and cancer rates have dropped by about 1½ % per year (since the 80’s anyway). I invite those of you who are doubtful to look up this information; the Statistics Canada website is a good place to start.
Granted, there are a lot of factors that are involved in our lengthening lives and better health, from decreased rates of smoking to healthier lifestyles but the sum of the GMO argument is that it can’t be that significant a factor in decreased life morbidity/mortality if our lives are significantly longer. Can GMOs cause food sensitivities? I don’t see why not, after all the low quality diet many of us seem to choose would cause sensitivities: too much sugar, processed food, gluten etc.; the list is extensive and not entirely related to the consumption of GMO foods. I would bet the poor quality of our diet since the 80’s is the main culprit of increased food sensitivities and obesity. And we haven’t even talked about cultural sensitivities…
If you grew up in an indigenous culture, you should probably be eating more fish, meat, and native fruits and vegetables. But here is the kicker, what if there aren’t enough natural products? There’s less salmon, less deer, less natural fruit and vegetables and more indigenous peoples. The answer the anti-GMO folks have is spend more on non-indigenous foods that will likely cause sensitivities anyway or starve, in addition to being poorer…
On a global scale, things like ‘Golden Rice’ offer humanity a chance to help cure vitamin A deficiency, an issue that leaves between 1 and 2 million of the world’s poor (largely children) dead and a half a million blind per year. Drought resistant corn can be used to feed the millions of starving in Africa. Should we prevent them from having access to that which can save them? How about the mere fact that our global population is growing at a tremendous, near exponential rate? How are we going to feed them? Should we plough under more rain forests? Use greater carbon footprints? Force greater numbers of our workforce into subsistence level jobs in agriculture? Utilize greater amount of herbicides and pesticides? Should we just let those societies that are not as rich as us to starve?
The obvious answer to all those above questions is no. We must allow GMO farming, and those of us who can afford expensive food may continue to buy organic, or grow our own food and eat from our ‘dream menus’.
I have tried to present common sense logic to the issue of GMO farming. I’m sure I could write a book expounding the virtues of GMO products and I am also sure that detractors could do the same. We could talk about the validity of the science from both sides of the argument, analyse the validity of the arguments, or just accuse Monsanto of some crime against humanity. In reality, I think the common sense arguments are enough in this case. And the discussion of GMO is important, so important that millions of lives are being held in the balance…
Disclaimer: Since I have recently seen others who argue for GMOs be accused of ‘lobbying’ or other more dire accusations; I speak for myself on an issue that I believe is important to our global society. I have received no money, or encouragement to write on the topic. I am certainly not a lobbyist. Not saying I wouldn’t take a bit of cash if anyone wants to give me some…
If you would like to share your story on GMOs or an experience in science communication with us at Skepti-Forum please see our prior posts: here for GMO Perspectives, and here for Adventures in Science Communication.
Photo Credit: Keeva999 | CC
Unfortunately, this won’t convince any anti-GMO luddites. Their anti-GMOness is a religion not based in facts or evidence but based only in belief. How humans get this way is beyond me.
Never say never Oldfart. Articles like Martin’s will do more for the advancement of the science of genetic engineering than you could ever possibly imagine.
An absolutely bang-on article Martin!
Unlike many people who try to politely defend the science of genetic engineering, you have grasped the fact that a big part of defending GMOs involves going after organics; organic activists to be precise, activists who have often never worked a day on a farm in their life and who have certainly never run one.
So way to go Martin! The best defense is a good offense.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/10/12/herbicide-insecticide-gmo-crops.aspx?e_cid=20141012Z1-Canada_SNL_art_2&utm_source=snl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art2&utm_campaign=20141012Z1-Canada&et_cid=DM59064&et_rid=690175762
Herbicide and Insecticide Use on GMO Crops Is
Skyrocketing,
and Rubber-Stamped Approvals Now Usher in Next-Gen GMOs
By Dr. Mercola
October 12, 2014
A recent Huffington Post1 article penned by David Bronner, President of Dr.
Bronner’s Magic Soaps, highlights the dire problems we face as pesticide
use on genetically engineered crops continue to rise.
It’s quite shocking to realize that the way we grow food in the US, as well as many
other regions of the world, is producing a toxic legacy that our descendants
will undoubtedly struggle with as time goes on.
Land, waterways, and food itself is becoming increasingly toxic, thanks to the
seemingly unlimited greed of chemical technology companies.
Mr.Bronner offers a summary of Dr. Ramon J. Seidler’s paper “Pesticide
Use on Genetically Engineered Crops.”2
Dr. Seidler, Ph.D. is a former Senior Scientist with the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), and he doesn’t toe the line when discussing
the hazards of genetically engineered organisms (GMOs).
According to Bronner, Dr. Seidler’s paper “should be required reading for
all journalists covering GMOs, as well as for citizens generally to understand
why their right to know if food is genetically engineered is so important.
“
Use of Toxic Chemicals on GMO Crops Is Skyrocketing
There are two major categories of genetically engineered
(GE) crops:
– those engineered to withstand high amounts of herbicide, such as
Monsanto’s Roundup-Ready varieties,
– and those engineered to produce their own internal insecticide (Bt
crops).
These two categories account for more than 99 percent of all acreage dedicated to GE crops in the US. Their widespread use has led to a phenomenal resistance
problem — so-called “super weeds” and increasingly resistant
pests are rapidly spreading and wreaking havoc across American farmland.
From the very beginning, this seemed like an inevitable outcome even for non-scientists, yet for the longest time the chemical technology industry insisted that resistance would not occur.
Well, we now know they either didn’t know what they were talking about, or they purposely fashioned a lie to keep their business growing…
Regardless, the end result is that farmers have been forced to apply even more, and more toxic, chemicals to their crops just to keep pace with growing chemical
resistance.
As Bronner notes:3 “[T]he use of systemic insecticides, which
coat GMO corn and soy seeds and are incorporated and expressed inside the
entire plant, has skyrocketed in the last 10 years.
This includes use of neonicotinoids (neonics) which
are extremely powerful neurotoxins that contaminate our food and water and
destroy non-target pollinators and wildlife such as bees, butterflies and
birds…
Mainstream pro-GMO media also fail to discuss the
ever-increasing amount of older much more toxic herbicides like 2,4 D
and Dicamba being sprayed along with huge volumes of glyphosate
to deal with superweeds.
Most importantly and egregiously, this biased reporting
does not mention the imminent approval of the pesticide industry’s next
generation herbicide-tolerant crops that are resistant not only to
glyphosate, but also high doses of 2,4 D and Dicamba, that will lead to huge
increases of these toxic chemicals sprayed on our food and farming
communities.”
Next-Generation
GMO Nightmare to Be Unleashed…
The United States uses about 1.1 billion pounds of pesticides each year,4, 5 and there’s little doubt that the current
pesticide load is taking a very real toll, as mounting research has linked
pesticides to a vast array of serious health problems.
GMOs were initially foisted upon us with promises of increased efficiency and reduced requirements for toxic pesticides, but the truth has turned out to be the
complete converse. We’re now stuck in a vicious circle that demands ever
more toxic remedies just to keep up with the resistance that develops from
chemical overuse.
The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) recently decided to
deregulate Dow Chemical’s next-generation GE crops, which are not
only resistant to glyphosate, but also carry resistance to toxins like the
Agent Orange ingredient 2, 4-D and Dicamba.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also appears
poised to rubber-stamp the new herbicide for Dow Chemical’s Enlist 2,4-D
resistant corn and soybeans. This herbicide contains both 2,4-D and
glyphosate. Andrew Kimbrell, executive director for Center for Food Safety
states in a September 17 press release:6 “2,4-D
resistant crops pose a monumental threat to our nation’s agricultural,
environmental and human health. With this approval comes millions of more
pounds of toxic herbicides dumped onto our land; it’s an unacceptable
outcome. Center for Food Safety will pursue all available legal options to
stop the commercialization of these dangerous crops.”
2,4-D Resistant Crops—A Solution More Dangerous Than the Original Problem
As discussed in previous articles, 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic
acid (2,4-D) was one of the ingredients in Agent Orange, which was
used with devastating effect during the Vietnam war. 2,4-D and similar
herbicides have since been linked to:
Immune system cancers
Parkinson’s disease
Endocrine disruption
Reproductive problems
Dow Chemical developed 2,4-D resistant crops as “the answer” to
glyphosate resistance. According to the USDA’s own analysis, the
approval of Dow’s 2,4-D resistant corn and soybeans will result in a
two to seven-fold increase in 2,4-D use by 2020 — from our current
use of 26 million pounds to an estimated 176 million pounds per year. And
that’s just in the US.
That’s some “answer”! Especially since bugs will undoubtedly develop
resistance against these toxins within a decade or so as well. Then what? In
addition to 2,4-D and Dicamba-resistant crops, a number of other
herbicide-resistant varieties are also awaiting federal approval, including the
following. Each and every one of these will eventually cause resistance, and
probably multi-chemical resistance, just as we’ve seen among
antibiotic-resistant bacteria with multiple-drug resistance:
ALS-tolerant
crops (Pioneer Hi-Bred)
Bromoxynil-tolerant
crops (Calgene)
Imidazolinone-tolerant
crops (BASF)
Isoxaflutole-tolerant
crops (Bayer)
Sulfonylurea-tolerant
crops (DuPont)
As noted by Kimbrell: “This is not the solution to our superweed problem and
will only spur the evolution of yet more herbicide-resistant weeds . We need a
new direction for our agricultural system, not increased reliance on
chemicals.”
Former EPA Scientist Sets the Record Straight
Who profits from the non-stop madness of this “chemical treadmill,”
to use Dr. Seidler’s term? The pesticide companies, of course. And
they’re the very same companies that develop these genetically engineered
and highly profitable patented seeds. Dr. Seidler writes:7
“Chemical companies that historically have produced DDT, PCBs, bovine growth hormone, Agent Orange, glyphosate products and, more recently, neonicotinoids have inserted themselves squarely into the seed crop production component of the world’s food supplies. These corporations have a clear conflict of interest when it comes to reducing the numbers and concentrations of chemicals on crops, because any such reduction has an immediate impact on their financial bottom line.
There is also a clear conflict of interest when it comes to altering farm management to avoid insect and weed resistance if it results in using fewer chemicals… More gene traits and greater chemical use mean more profits.
Through enforcement of intellectual patent rights, industry has also prohibited independent scientists from investigating emerging insect resistance problems…”
According to Dr. Seidler, USDA data reveals that glyphosate
use has increased 12-fold since 1996, with the advent of GE crops.
Overall, annual herbicide use has risen by more than 500 million pounds.
Meanwhile, weed resistance has been documented on 60 million farm acres across the US. He chides the media for using USDA data showing that insecticide used on Bt corn had substantially decreased prior to 2010; ignoring the latest data
showing that insecticide use has dramatically increased ever since
2010. So to suggest that Bt crops led to a decrease in insecticide
use is patently false. Bt resistant rootworm is also being reported in both
the US and Brazil, showing the abject failure of this chemical technology.
“Furthermore, the use of seeds coated with systemic neonicotinoid insecticides has skyrocketed in the past 10 years, but this is generally ignored,” he writes. “Recently, US government scientists found that the use of clothianidin on corn in Iowa alone almost doubled between 2011 and 2013, with widespread contamination of waterways and harmful effects on non-target wildlife…
Scientists report that only 5-40 parts per billion (ppb)
of these neurotoxins are lethal to pollinators. An amount of neonicotinoid
powder the size of a standard pencil eraser may contain 50-100,000 lethal bee
doses. The killing power of the 350 tons (770,000 pounds) of
neonicotinoids used on Iowa farms last year is incalculable.”
Non-Organic Grains are Grown in a Chemical Soup…
Most of us simply do not understand just how many chemicals are used to grow the food on our plates. To combat pest and weed resistance, farmers are strongly
encouraged to employ what is called an “integrated resistance management
scenario.” This includes:
·
Using “stacked” genetically engineered seeds with Bt traits of up to eight different genes
·
Injecting insecticides into the soil prior to
crop germination
·
Using seeds coated with up to four systemic insecticides plus a fungicide
·
Using an annual crop rotation schedule in which at least two different GE crops are rotated to avoid “corn after corn” cycles
Basically, toxic chemicals form the very basis of GE
agriculture. Chemicals are added at every turn — in the soil, on the
seed, on the plant, and on some crops herbicides are also added right at
harvest, to increase seed release. This technique is called desiccating.
For example, desiccating non-organic wheat crops with glyphosate just before
harvest came in vogue about 15 years ago, and Dr. Stephanie Seneff suspects this practice may be the reason why
we’ve seen such a dramatic increase in celiac disease since then.
Celiac disease is a severe reaction to gluten that
primarily affects your gastrointestinal system. Glyphosate has been shown to severely damage your gut flora and cause chronic diseases rooted in gut
dysfunction. What happens is that the villi in your gut get destroyed by the
glyphosate, which reduces your ability to absorb vitamins and minerals. Also,
wheat contains gliadin, which is difficult to break down.
Normally, a reaction takes place that builds connections between different proteins in the wheat. But glyphosate gets right in the middle of that process, resulting in wheat that is highly indigestible. Toxic, indigestible,
disease-promoting… These are the call words of much of our conventional food
supply these days. How could such a tragedy occur? As noted by Dr. Seidler:
“Pesticide overuse in agriculture
is analogous to the overuse of antibiotics in intensive
commercial livestock production systems, which has given rise to new germs that
can withstand multiple antibiotics, requiring even more antibiotics at higher
concentrations. These ‘supergerms’ are like the ‘superweeds’
and now ‘superinsects’ that resist standard treatment
options. Scientists warn that without non-chemical management procedures, weed
and insect resistances will grow and require still higher concentrations of
more toxic chemicals in our food production system.”
GMO Labeling Threatens the ‘Chemical Treadmill’ Business
Adding insult to injury, chemical technology companies, including Monsanto, Dow, and BASF, just to name a few of the most notable ones, are spending tens of
millions of dollars each year on lobbying and PR efforts to prevent you from
knowing these toxin-stuffed crops are in the foods you eat on a regular basis.
Some 65 nations around the world require GE foods to be labeled, while here in
“the land of the free” we’re still fighting tooth and nail
for the same right to know. Opponents of GMO
labeling spent more than $27 million on lobbying in the first six months of
this year alone. This is about three times more than they spent during all of
2013, when they shelled out $9.3 million.8
“A recent international report9 by some 60 scientists warned that
current agricultural practices in developed nations cannot be maintained…
The energy inputs, environmental destruction, habitat loss
and loss of natural biodiversity are all too severe. Rapid and
significant changes in the management of agricultural production systems are
essential,” Dr.Seidler writes.
“What is recommended are agricultural practices (aka
‘sustainable, agri-ecological, or biological practices’) that
replace the resources consumed by intense commercial agriculture through the
use of various cover-cropping strategies, ecosystem-friendly crop rotations and
less use of toxic chemicals.”
Bill, “increasingly toxic food” Then why no lawsuits, funerals and news reports.? “unleashed” terms like this indicate biased reporting. “forced to apply” Not me. Who forces farmer? We are stupid and have no alternatives? Read your mercola and bonner nonsense more critically. There are more clues in the bunk you [posted. . and figure out why they are lying. Then perhaps read a few sources who know better.
And ‘home grown’ foods do not contribute to society as a whole which is dependant upon taxation of goods and services…..I would disagree with this sir. The larger a percentage of members of society that knows how to grow food. The better off we are. Self sufficiency is a good thing. Also society is not dependent on taxation. Gov’t is. That is only one segment of society. Remember the phrase “necessary evil”
The daftest thing about the urge for “GMO Labelling” is tha stuff as basic as the potatoes and tomatoes you grow yourself are genetically modified, by a cultural process not dissimilar to the natural genefic modification that differeniates us from chimpanzees. Likewise, every dog on the street or in your lap is a genetically modified wolf.
I believe that the proprietary use of post DNA discoveries is not primarily intended for our benefit so much as it is for the biochemicals companies. GMO production of seed for plants immune to Monsanto’s herbicides seems like a bad idea.
But the wine industry invented a mechanism to inform the customer of what genetic modifications of grapevine stock he was supporting. It’s called varietal labelling in California, and “appellation controllée” in France.
Never mind how the tomato seed was produced, is it the variety “Red Rock”, designed to look good even after a rough journey, or is it “Early Girl” or Park’s “Whopper”?
One of these days, someone GMO researcher is going to solve the problem of when the grass family does not have a symbiotic relationship with nitrogen fixing bacteria. Then at last we might be able to do without nitrogen feriliser dependent upon the hydrocarbons industry.
One other thing: I’m sick and tired of the word “organic” being used, as in the old days “Christian” meant “our kind of good people”.
I do not want to buy food that’s been grown on land heavily treated with poisons, nor meat from animals so densely packed they have to be fed antibiotics.
But I do not believe that 7,000 million people on Earth can be fed without the use of synthetically produced nitrate ferttilizer.