There’s been lots of talk about genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) recently. It’s getting easier to develop these with what is known as crispr technology. The wikipedia page on this subject is a trial to read, but worth the effort; it shows, if nothing else, how fiendishly complex this topic is. The page itself confesses that it has “multiple issues.” It has also been suggested that the topic be split up to possibly improve delivery of the proper information.
Way back in 2003, I wrote a five-piece historical article on this topic and how at the time I thought it might affect beekeeping.
My conclusions were:
“In this series of articles, I have provided an outline of the major subjects that constitute the source of the current debate about genetically-modifed organisms or GMOs. With the discovery of the structure of DNA, it has been possible to decode the language of all life. Incredibly, this consists of only four letters. Because the same letters are used by every organism, they can be interchanged using genetic engineering technology. As a consequence it has become relatively easy to create true transgenic individuals, something extremely rare in natural systems. Most of the successes so far in this growing field are with plants. And because plants and honey bees are so closely interlinked, it is logical to ask how the technology of genetic engineering might affect both the insects themselves and their keepers.
“Although the history of the discovery of DNA, and the grand tales that characterize much of genetic engineering are those often of heroic scientific discovery, they bring with them a set of circumstances that promises to irrevocably change both the economic and natural environment. Producing GMOs has transformed much of agricultural research from a public one, based on non-profit institutions with open communication, to a private enterprise filled with competition and secrecy. At the same time, socio-economic shifts in agriculture have created another environment, the corporate farm (agribusiness), which seeks to increase profits often at the cost of the traditional human labor that has characterized the activity in the past.
“The global corporatisation of agriculture, protected by the rights of “personhood” and given legal sanction by the highest courts in the land, has created an environment out of which has come great good. What was once considered a benefit for all (protection by the state), however, appears to be a pendulum that has swung too far toward amassing power by corporate entities at great potential cost to biological persons and the environment.
“History has shown that corporate, like any kind of power, has the potential to corrupt, and the search for profits to the exclusion of all else can bring with it ruinous consequences. There seems to be big potential for this in the current environment, where speed is of the essence in producing and marketing GMOs, and precaution often seems to be an afterthought. GMOs released into the environment, through the Nemesis Effect, are certain to impact the natural biological systems we all depend on in ways we do not yet recognize.
It is now impossible to put the genetic genie back in the bottle. GMOs are a fact of life in most of the developed world and their impact is increasing every day through corporate research and sponsorship. Genetic engineering techniques exist for practically every conceivable cultivated plant species. That does not mean that citizens do not have the power to retake some of the initiative, however, and there are several movements that are attempting to facilitate that. The most important and strident ones are those that are re-examining what “personhood” of biotechnology and agribusiness corporations really means, and demanding that genetically modified food be labeled for what it is. You can see the full articles here.
An update on the crop prospects of GMO technology was published in May 2016, attempting to explain exactly where we were over two years ago:
“Claims and research that extol both the benefits of and risks posed by GE crops and food have created a confusing landscape for the public and policy-makers. Using evidence accumulated over the last two decades, this report assesses purported negative effects and purported benefits of currently commercialized GE crops. The report also assesses emerging genetic-engineering technologies, how they might contribute to future crop improvement, and what technical and regulatory challenges they may present. To carry out its task, the report’s authoring committee delved into the relevant literature (more than 900 research and other publications), heard from 80 diverse speakers at three public meetings and 15 webinars, and read more than 700 comments from members of the public to broaden its understanding of issues surrounding GE crops.
“EXPERIENCES WITH GENETICALLY ENGINEERED CROPS: Since the 1980s, biologists have used genetic engineering in crop plants to alter characteristics, such as longer shelf life for fruit, higher vitamin content, and resistance to diseases. However, the only characteristics that have been introduced through genetic engineering into widespread commercial use are those that provide insect resistance and herbicide resistance. In 2015, GE herbicide resistance, insect resistance, or both were available in fewer than 10 crop species and grown on about 12 percent of the world’s planted cropland (see Figure 1). In its evaluation of experiences with GE crops, the committee examined the long-term data available on the use of insect and herbicide resistance in the most commonly grown GE crops to date: soybean, cotton, and maize. A few other GE characteristics—such as for resistance to specific viruses in papaya and squash and reduction of browning in the flesh of apples and potatoes—have been incorporated into some crops in commercial production as of 2015, but were produced on a relatively small number of hectares worldwide.”
With the above as a background, enter Michaeal Gerson writing for The Washinton Post, concluding:
“In keeping with our era of ideological boycotts, I will no longer be purchasing Kind bars. Or Barilla pasta. Or Triscuit crackers. Or Del Monte diced tomatoes. Or Nutro dog food.
“A one-person boycott, of course, is really just a change in your shopping list. But the companies that produce these brands are guilty of crimes against rationality. All advertise on their packaging, in one way or another, that they don’t contain GMOs — genetically modified organisms. Walking down the aisle of my supermarket, I could have picked many other examples. Some food companies seem to be saying that GMO ingredients are not even fit for your dog.
“My boycott is rooted in the fact that there is no reputable scientific evidence that direct genetic modification — instead of slower genetic modification through selective breeding — has any health effects of any kind. None.” Mr. Gerson summarizes the 2016 report referenced above by the Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources, Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources, National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine.
A reply to this in Letters to the editor, provided a dose of potential humility:
“Michael Gerson made a good point about belief vs. science in his op-ed, but he missed something important. He compared “direct genetic modification — instead of slower genetic modification through selective breeding,” more or less equating the two as simply variations on a theme. Counterexamples are fish that glow because a gene from a luminescent jellyfish was inserted into the genes of the fish. This could never happen through selective breeding.
“Genetically modified organisms may be modified in ways that are simply not possible in nature. Despite the desirable traits Mr. Gerson listed, he omitted two that are important to the companies selling GMO crops: increased resistance to insecticides that actively encourage use of more pesticides, with all the associated risks, and crops that produce only sterile seeds so the farmer must buy new seeds from the producer each season.
“I agree with Mr. Gerson that there are many potential benefits to GMOs. As long as commercial interests are driving the process, it behooves us to approach GMOs with a bit of caution. Labeling GMO products and allowing consumers to make their own choice seems a good approach.”
Mr. Gerson also refers to the recent book Seeds of Science: why we Got It So Wrong on GMOs. https://www.amazon.com/Seeds-Science-Why-Wrong-GMOs/dp/1472946987
“Lynas was an early anti-GMO activist in Britain — participating in everything from late night crop destruction to delivering a pie in the face of Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg. The logic of Lynas’ conversion is an implicit challenge to both the American right and the left. In an earlier book, ‘Six Degrees,’ Lynas took a deep dive into climate science (winning the Royal Society’s 2008 Science Book Prize in the process). He found the scientific consensus on climate change to be compelling. But he found the evidence for the safety of GMOs to be at least as strong. “I couldn’t deny the scientific consensus on GMOs,” he writes, “while insisting on strict adherence to the one on climate change, and still call myself a science writer.”
“It was, he says, ‘a decisive turning point in my life.’ But the public debate on GMOs turned in exactly the opposite direction. Just as scientists were becoming more confident in the safety of GMOs, global anti-GMO activists, led by Greenpeace, were making the issue a hot potato (including a genetically modified insect-resistant potato cultivated in Canada). On the strength of myths (that using genetically modified seeds somehow resulted in suicides among Indian farmers) and deception (tying GMOs to autism or cancer), supermarket chains, food companies and eventually governments were frightened into anti-GMO stances. In the developing world, anti-GMO activists spread rumors that GMO consumption resulted in homosexuality and infertility.
“Lynas has carefully avoided writing a screed. He shows considerable patience for the worldview of his former allies: a preference for the small and natural, a fear that agricultural technology results in centralization and increased corporate power.
“I have less patience. There is more than a hint of cultural imperialism when Westerners — grown fat on the success of modern farming — lecture subsistence farmers on the benefits of heirloom breeds and organic methods. The greatest need among farmers who spend part of the year hungry is increased productivity. Plant varieties engineered to resist cassava brown streak, banana bacterial wilt or maize lethal necrosis can be a matter of life or death. New, drought-resistant crops will be essential as the climate continues to change. And crops designed to resist insects require the use of far less insecticide — which reduces the risk of pesticide poisoning.
“Like with the anti-vaccination movement, a contempt for science can have a human cost. The risks are very real when societies become detached from reality.
“The anti-GMO movement is best described as a religious belief. Such beliefs have their uses. Theology can determine the values we bring to the world, but it can’t be allowed to dictate our facts. The anti-GMO packaging of Triscuits has the same factual basis as the claim: ‘No plants or animals produced by evolution were used in the production of this product.’ “
Time Magazine concludes from all of this that, “We tend to worry about the wrong things—Ebola, airplane crashes, and chemicals in food—while ignoring real dangers—car crashes, obesity, and climate change. Food companies capitalize on our risk blindness. It’s cheaper to make a superficial shift. As a Chipotle executive noted the cost of eliminating GMOs was ‘de minimis.’ Real change, like eliminating antibiotics, affects the bottom line. If consumers can’t differentiate between real and token changes, which do you think companies will choose?” Again all this brings home the point that it’s not the technology that is often the issue, but who is using it and for what purpose.
GMOs, like climate change, appears to have two major silos of people, skeptics and deniers. The best strategy for confronting both these hot topics head on is critical thinking.
“The goal of critical thinking is to arrive at the most reasonable beliefs and take the most reasonable actions. We have evolved, however, not to seek the truth, but to survive and reproduce. Critical thinking is an unnatural act. By nature, we’re driven to confirm and defend our current beliefs, even to the point of irrationality. We are prone to reject evidence that conflicts with our beliefs and to attack those who offer such evidence.
“The items below are listed in alphabetical order. For someone new to the subject, I suggest the following order of reading:
“1) several essays I’ve written on the difficulty of changing minds:Belief Armor, Evaluating Personal Experience, Why Do People Believe in the Palpably Untrue?, Defending Falsehoods, and Why Woo-woo Wins.
“2) the following entries: confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance, communal reinforcement, motivated reasoning, backfire effect, memory, and perception deception.
This essay on proper criticism was published in 2001, on the occasion of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry’s 25th anniversary :
“The skeptic finds more ways to state his or her case. The broadcast and print media, along with other forums, provide more opportunities for us to be heard. For some of these occasions, we have the luxury of carefully planning and crafting our response, but most of the time we have to formulate our response on the spot. But regardless of the circumstance, the critic’s task, if it is to be carried out properly, is both challenging and loaded with unanticipated hazards.
“Many well-intentioned critics have jumped into the fray without carefully thinking through the various implications of their statements. They have sometimes displayed more emotion than logic, made sweeping charges beyond what they can reasonably support, failed to adequately document their assertions, and, in general, failed to do the homework necessary to make their challenges credible.
“Such ill-considered criticism can be counterproductive for the cause of serious skepticism. The author of such criticism may fail to achieve the desired effect, may lose credibility, and may even become vulnerable to lawsuits. But the unfavorable effects have consequences beyond the individual critics, and the entire cause of skepticism suffers as a result. Even when the individual critic takes pains to assert that he or she is expressing his or her own personal opinion, the public associates the assertions with all critics.
Unfortunately, at this time, there are no courses on the proper way to criticize paranormal claims. So far as I know, no manuals or books or rules are currently available to guide us. Until such courses and guide books come into being, what can we do to ensure that our criticisms are both effective and responsible?
“We can make enormous improvements in our collective and individual efforts by simply trying to adhere to those standards that we profess to admire and that we believe that many peddlers of the paranormal violate. If we envision ourselves as the champions of rationality, science, and objectivity, then we ought to display these very same qualities in our criticism. Just by trying to speak and write in the spirit of precision, science, logic, and rationality-those attributes we supposedly admire-we would raise the quality of our critiques by at least one order of magnitude.
“The failure to consistently live up to these standards exposes us to a number of hazards. We can find ourselves going beyond the facts at hand. We may fail to communicate exactly what we intended. We can confuse the public about what skeptics are trying to achieve. We can unwittingly put paranormal proponents in the position of the underdogs and create sympathy for them. And, as I already mentioned, we can make the task much more difficult for other skeptics.
What, then, can skeptics do to upgrade the quality of their criticism? What follows are just a few suggestions. It is hoped they will stimulate further thought and discussion.
- Be prepared.
- Clarify your objectives.
- Do your homework.
- Do not go beyond your level of competence.
- Let the facts speak for themselves.
- Be precise.
- Use the principle of charity.
- Avoid loaded words and sensationalism.
“
All the above principles are interrelated. The ones previous stated imply that we should avoid using loaded and prejudicial words in our criticisms. If the proponents happen to resort to emotionally laden terms and sensationalism, we should avoid stooping to their level. We should not respond in kind.“This is not a matter of simply turning the other cheek. We want to gain credibility for our cause. In the short run, emotional charges and sensationalistic challenges might garner quickly publicity. But most of us see our mission as a long-run effort. We would like to persuade the media and the public that we have a serious and important message to get across. And we would like to earn their their trust as a credible and reliable source. Such a task requires always keeping in mind the scientific principles and standards of rationality and integrity that we would like to make universal.
Finally language matters, as the Fellows of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry conclude: “We are concerned that the words ‘skeptic’ and ‘denier’ have been conflated by the popular media. Proper skepticism promotes scientific inquiry, critical investigation, and the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims. It is foundational to the scientific method. Denial, on the other hand, is the a-priori rejection of ideas without objective consideration.
“Real skepticism is summed up by a quote popularized by Carl Sagan, ‘Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.’ Inhofe’s belief that global warming is ‘the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people’ is an extraordinary claim indeed. He has never been able to provide evidence for this vast alleged conspiracy. That alone should disqualify him from using the title ‘skeptic.’
“As scientific skeptics, we are well aware of political efforts to undermine climate science by those who deny reality but do not engage in scientific research or consider evidence that their deeply held opinions are wrong. The most appropriate word to describe the behavior of those individuals is ‘denial.’ Not all individuals who call themselves climate change skeptics are deniers. But virtually all deniers have falsely branded themselves as skeptics. By perpetrating this misnomer, journalists have granted undeserved credibility to those who reject science and scientific inquiry.
“We are skeptics who have devoted much of our careers to practicing and promoting scientific skepticism. We ask that journalists use more care when reporting on those who reject climate science, and hold to the principles of truth in labeling. Please stop using the word ‘skeptic’ to describe deniers.’
Amen!
