Are GMOs Safe? We Do Not Know

Scientific American, in the August 2015 issue, noted the 70th anniversary of the United States dropping atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The magazine further noted:

“The scale of the devastation sparked an enduring debate over whether the use of such weapons is ever justifiable and the extent to which scientists are morally responsible for the consequences of their discoveries.”

Why should that “enduring debate” be any different for scientists than it is for corporations, governments or individuals. All are morally responsible for their actions. But some Scientists worship at the altar of Science.

A friend recently passed on to me an article that had been passed around in his men’s discussion group. The person who had introduced the article to the group considered that the article de-bunked the concerns of those people, myself included, that think that it is unwise to include Transgenic Organisms in our food supply without thorough testing. Without first reading the article, I responded to my friend that some states have recently succeeded in passing laws requiring labeling of food containing these organisms (most often referred to as Genetically Modified Organisms or GMOs), and now there is a flurry of propaganda attacking the Non-GMO movement. I described these attacking articles as being similar to the propaganda war that the tobacco companies once waged, and that the fossil fuel industry is presently waging against the idea of global warming or climate change. I suggested that if you “follow the money” the money will lead you to Monsanto, Dow, Dupont, Coca Cola, Pepsico, Pfizer, Kraft, Hershey, BASF, Bayer, Syngenta, among others, and it will lead you to front organizations for the restaurant industry and the food processing and retailing industry. My friend responded that this article was written from the standpoint of science.

Then I read the article: “Unhealthy Fixation” by William Saletan, posted July 15, 2015 at Slate.Com. My friend had printed all 15 pages. He did not print the comments. At this writing there appear to have been over 3,300 comments submitted to the article. For some reason these comments are not accessible (to me). I can only assume that the comments are from both sides of the issue, and that many of them are typical of internet discussions between inflammatory strangers in the night.

Please read the article. In my opinion it is a “Slate pitch” which is a well known concept descriptive of Slate’s reputation for taking contrarian positions in opinion articles. It is well written and seems well reasoned, and seems damning to the cause of GMO labeling and the “fear” of Transgenic (GMO) Food. But only if you don’t know the story. If you have followed the story since the second half of the 20th century, and have seen the business and regulatory maneuvering within this issue to the present day, then you might have the same opinion that I do - that William Saletan took a title and subtitle as a “pitch” and set out to “build" a journalistic case. 

Also in my opinion, the article is not a scientific article. There are no citations or footnotes or endnotes. Although he alludes to studies, and there are quotation marks throughout the article, it is usually not clear exactly who is being quoted. There is no claim in the article that any interviews were conducted. He certainly does not specifically cite any peer reviewed articles or studies that tell of testing. Nothing is said that inspires any confidence in the feeding of Transgenic Food to children, to pregnant women, or even to our pets - unless you accept the writers slick reasoning (organic food is inferior to industrial food, conventional breeding is riskier than artificial genetic editing), and accept on faith his sometimes twisted logic (Bt selective spraying of a crop equated with Bt gene insertion in the entire body of the entire crop). None of Saletan’s sources for assurances of safety are cited. But please read the article.

Also read Wired Magazine, July 2015 “The Genesis Engine” by Amy Maxmen. The sub-heading of this article is:

“We now have the power to quickly and easily alter DNA. It could eliminate disease. It could solve world hunger. It could provide unlimited clean energy. It could really get out of hand.”

Ms. Maxmen treats the topic much more broadly (not as a food industry issue) and responsibly. The process she discusses is called “DNA Editing” and that is an important refinement in terms because it more accurately describes what actually is taking place. The process in the GMO production industry involves deleting and inserting, cutting and pasting of DNA from other species - but the GMO proponents have been able to wiggle away by saying that plant and animal breeders have been genetic engineers for Millenia. To suggest that selective breeding within a species is comparable to cutting and inserting foreign genetic material between species (“DNA Editing”) is dishonest, but effective.

Ms. Maxmen does a much better job of describing the development and the huge potential benefits of this technology than does Saletan, and she is very forthcoming with the potential dangers. She tells how 40 years ago the preeminent genetic researchers discussed what should be “off limits” lest this new found power to re-order the source code of life “might slip out their control”. She makes it clear that at that time they had not even scratched the surface of the potential of the technology compared to what is now possible. In summary she spends the last two pages relating, and quoting, the concerns of the scientists that she interviewed and the potential for unintended consequences of their work. Her article is a very responsible telling of the potential for good, and for evil, of this very controversial technology.

There are zealots on both sides of this issue. We know that Greenpeace tends to take extreme actions. Possibly the most moderate voice of reason that I have heard is that of Steven Druker, the lawyer philosopher who put his professional life “on hold” in the 1990s to bring suit against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for their outright promotion of GMOs while failing to require testing, much less labeling of the products that were being approved. Druker is interviewed in the July 2015 issue of Acres USA. The interview, Failure to Protect the People, tells a chilling story of how this technology came to market without regulation or testing by the FDA. Consider reading it, if you can only read one article on the subject.

Also consider referring to: 

Jane Goodall and Steven Druker Expose US Government Fraud over GMOs, SustainablePulse.Com, March 4, 2015 

Altered Genes, Twisted Truth: How the Venture to Genetically Engineer Our Food Has Subverted Science, Corrupted Government, and Systematically Deceived the Public by Steven Druker

Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You’re Eating by Jeffery M. Smith

On July 23, 2015 the United States House of Representatives passed a Republican sponsored bill, H.R. 1599, which is primarily designed to negate the GMO labeling laws passed by the individual states. The vote was, for the most part, along party lines and presumably adhered to the money line described above. I have seen it stated in several articles that 90% of Americans opposed this bill (the specific polling information was not cited anywhere). I thought that the figure was more like 60%.

 

On August 3, 2015, Deena Shanker, writing in Quartz reported that “The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition has issued a retraction to a 2012 paper on Golden Rice”.

 

Mark Foster tills an organic garden in the northern Chihuahua Desert at Alpine, Texas, and is a gentle and learned man who produces organic vegetables, fruits and eggs for over 100 customers on only 6000 square feet of ground (less than 1/8 acre) and blogs about it at http://redwagonfarm.blogspot.com. On July 26, 2015 I asked Mark if he ever used Bt as an insecticidal spray and he responded "I do. I try to use it sparingly because insects can build up a resistance to it. Very good with the Lepidoptera family that is the moths and butterfly family.” I then asked him if he would share with me his position on GMOs and he responded “We really have no business messing with life at that level”.

I agree.

*******************************************