Skeptical about GMOs, yet accepting of climate change?

A new column in The Guardian, by Alice Bell, asks if that's possible. I say yes, even as another blog of many, from a GMO defender who says all Green types are anti-science on this issue, gets out the bashing club.

I "love" how everybody who has concerns about the politics and economics of GMOs in some way can be called anti-GMO. I also love that, just because some scientific studies that did have axes to grind have been refuted, it's assumed that there's no more legitimate scientific questions to be asked.

In other words, not every scientific question everybody asks about GMOs is an anti-GMO question. And, people like me also don’t like getting stereotyped over this issue. Call me an anti-GMOer-as-currently-marketed, if you insist on a label.

Some of us do, also, have legitimate science-related questions without believing in "Frankenfoods." I think questions about "degree of separation" of the source of the gene and the target food is a legitimate matter. I think the question of whether food allergies can "transfer" is legitimate, as some research indicates this is possible. And, given that "one gene = one protein" is dead, questions about "gene context" and also about epigenetics are legitimate. These may turn out to not be of huge concern, but some of them may still be of mild, or moderate, concern.

And, let's not trot out the claim the other way around that "we've been manipulating plants for millennia." Because, before GMOs, those manipulations were only within that genus, or often, within a species. But, such changes weren't done at higher biological levels than that of genus.

This all said, I know that nothing I say toutting a reasonable and principled skepticism on this issue can convince some pro-GMOers who want to pose as noble defenders of science and think the case is settled. Well, from what we know and have tested, the case is settled.

But, that cuts both ways.

As I've said before, Monsanto was warned by scientists that RoundupReady genetic engineering would promote Roundup resistance among weeds. And, what happened? It did!

So, Monsanto is doing new genetic engineering for resistance to other herbicides. And here's where the politics and economics come into the picture. New GMOs means new patents, even as the patent expiration clock ticks on old ones.

And, please, folks, don't accuse me of being conspiracy minded.

DuPont willingly got behind the Montreal Protocol to phase out CFCs in part because it had patents expiring and stood to make big bucks on new compounds. And, sadly, we find that some of those compounds are worrisome greenhouse gases.

#WholeFoods ups ante on #GMO foods

A Santa Monica, Calif., Whole Foods Market. AP photo via NYT

America's luxury grocery giant, which had already started some labeling of food containing genetically modified organisms, especially in its "house" line of products, said Friday it will require such labeling in five years.

No matter whether one thinks worry over GMO foods is all-hype, a mix of hype and legit concern, or whatever, Whole Foods has changed the game, and I can't see how food companies can totally resist this at lower-level groceries, i.e., stuff for sale at Safeway and its twins, Kroger, WallyWorld, etc., even if it doesn't cause anything similar to full adoption.

It's drawing praise in some quarters:

Gary Hirshberg, chairman of Just Label It, a campaign for a federal requirement to label foods containing genetically modified ingredients, called the Whole Foods decision a “game changer.” ...

He compared the potential impact of the Whole Foods announcement to Wal-Mart’s decision several years ago to stop selling milk from cows treated with growth hormone. Today, only a small number of milk cows are injected with the hormone.  

But it's certainly not getting praise everywhere.

Predictably, many food manufacturers (hey, manufacture is the right word), and the "conventional" grocers, are both resisting:

The Grocery Manufacturers Association, the trade group that represents major food companies and retailers, issued a statement opposing the move. “These labels could mislead consumers into believing that these food products are somehow different or present a special risk or a potential risk,” Louis Finkel, the organization’s executive director of government affairs, said in the statement. 

Sorry, Charlie, but they ARE different.

As to special risk?

I think it's overblown by hardcore anti-GMO people, but that it's not nonexistent.

Insertion of Brazil nut genes into other food products, specifically soybeans in this case, does appear to cause allergy reactions in persons who suffer Brazil nut allergies when they consume these particular GMOs. And, that's the New England Journal of Medicine saying that, not a Mercola.

As for claims that GMO engineering is just another take on what Mother Nature does? Wrong.

Evolution by natural selection doesn't magically pluck a group of peanut genes and insert them into the rice genome or whatever.

Nor does it operate on anywhere the same speed, even within the same species, such as Monsanto's Roundup Ready crops.

Third, the success of GMO crops isn't always what it's cracked up to be.

Higher protein rice that also produces Vitamin A? I'm all for that, while still noting we need to monitor such crops for potential longer-term issues.

The Roundup Ready stuff? Already, Roundup-resistant weeds can be found throughout the US.

Plus, there's the economic imperialism of a Monsanto with its Roundup Ready crops. That especially plays out in the developing world.

That, in turn, relates to the "speed" issue of rate of genetic change. As I've blogged before, this parallels some climate change minimalists saying that we've had warming before.

So, GMA members on GMO? You need to start your bitching with Monsanto, not Whole Foods.

Anyway, how will this play out elsewhere? Given that WallyWorld actually helped lead the charge on bovine growth hormones and milk, if it even partially follows suit here, that's it. Game over.

And, here in Texas, I can offer more specifics. Whole Foods' luxe competitor, Central Market, will find no choice but to match this move. But because Central Markets' house-brand products also sell in its parent company's H-E-B mass-market grocery stores, this will affect larger H-E-B product display.

My thoughts on such labeling? 

At a bare, bare minimum, I think any GMO that has genes from an original species known to produce human allergens (such as the insertion of Brazil nut genes into other plant genomes) needs to be labeled across the board. 

Expect this all to be HUGELY resisted. That's because at least one former federal employee turned lobbyist has lied about the GMO allergen issue and related matters, the Department of Agriculture has repeatedly shown itself to be in bed with the likes of Monsanto and more.

That said, if there's really nothing wrong with GMOs in general, or some particular modification in specific, tell us! It's not like the GMA, let alone Archer Daniel Midlands, Monsanto or others don't have bazillions of dollars of marketing money to tell us that.

As for my personal take?

I view GMOs somewhat like nuclear power.

In the abstract, it sounds great, and I'm generally for it. When it comes to a specific issue, that's when the rubber hits the road, and often, in my opinion and to complete the analogy, the result is a flat tire or a blowout.

#Monsanto #GMO — yet another reason not to vote for ... #Obummer

Field of soybeans/Image via Wired

Yeah, yeah, it’s a conservative name-calling word in the header. And, I hashtagged it for Twitter purposes etc. So sue me.

Let’s get to the meat behind the sizzle.

There is indeed yet ANOTHER reason not to vote for Obama — Dear Leader shows that Monsanto's lobbying dollars have paid off indeed. Team Obama has asked the Supreme Court not to intervene in a patent case that involves Monsanto Roundup Ready GMO seed.

Sadly, the appellate court already agreed with Monsanto, showing just how badly corporate-tilted our court system is becoming.

Think about it.

If Monsanto wins this case, it could not only sue any farmer ever found with Roundup Ready seed in his field, even if it was “commodity seed,” it could also sue the grain elevator from which that farmer bought the seed.

In short, the ruling Obama appears to want (Congress is NOT going to change this law, even if it is “better equipped than this court” to decide such things. That’s not to mention this argument is itself specious.

The administration told the Supreme Court in a filing that the justices should not concern themselves with the possibility that such rigid patent protectionism could undermine traditional farming techniques, where parts of one harvest are often used to produce the next. The administration said Congress “is better equipped than this court” (.pdf) to consider those concerns.

If the farmer’s view were adopted, the government argued, “the first authorized sale of a single Roundup Ready soybean would extinguish all of [Monsanto's] patent rights to that soybean and to its progeny.”

The result, if Monsanto wins this? It would be essentially to put farming areas of the country into a potential corporate-run serfdom.

That said, this isn’t all about Obama. Romney, or any other typical Republican, and many a typical Democrat, would probably mouth the same sentiments.

And, with that, a note to the normally skeptical Bob Carroll of Skeptic’s Dictionary fame, too. This is reason indeed to support more skepticism of GMO food and more regulation of it in general, including California’s Prop 37, even if it’s only slightly tangential to the patent suit at hand.

That’s despite Carroll saying he’ll vote no.

And, yes, Bob, I’m going to keep hammering you on this. It’s said that too many skeptics think too many people worried about GMO issues are tin-foil hat wearers, first of all. Second, it’s sad that this issue isn’t more carefully parsed into how it involves attempts by Big Ag to extend corporate control, whether or not we should be concerned about actual (transgenic allergy transfer, with good statistical correlation, if not yet the most solid causal correlation) and potential health issues, as well as lack of investigation, inspection and regulatory control.

It’s more than sad that Carroll puts his “vote no” statement under a subheader called “science as propaganda” and calls the measure “fear-mongering.”

USDA in bed with Monsanto, again and always

The government's approval of GMO alfalfa is just the latest case of this ongoing "relationship." Again, what a shock. That's why, again, Hillary Clinton and Condoleezza Rice's former science adviser, now at AAAS, is such a liar when she discussed how there's no danger from GMO crops.

Now, with the approval of GMO alfalfa, and the "guilty until you're proven innocent" attack on non-GMO farmers if GMO crops show up in their fields, what happens with organic milk and cheese? The USDA is likely lying about what it says is a low chance of cross-pollination.

It's also likely lying when it says glyphosphate-resistant weeds will be slow to evolve.

Another good point in the story? Only 7 percent of alfalfa is currently treated with herbicides. Why do we need Monsanto's crap?

Of course, we don't.

Monsanto reaps profits from bad Roundup

Big Ag, which wants to offer us herbicide-resistant crops, or genetically-modified organisms without adequate testing, is ultimately interested in the big bottom line and little else.

No surprise that overuse of Roundup herbicide, a BIG Monsanto money-maker, in combo with its own Roundup-resistant soybeans (which, unlike the weeds, don't stay around to develop resistance) has badly backfired.

“What we’re talking about here is Darwinian evolution in fast-forward,” Mike Owen, a weed scientist at Iowa State University, said.

The result? Low- and no-till farming are going by the wayside again. That means more soil erosion.

Farmers are reverting to other herbicides, which may in turn be even more toxic than Roundup.

If Monsanto really cared about the environment rather than profits, it would have taught farmers low-spray techniques to go along with low-till plowing.

Meanwhile, Monsanto is now genetically engineering crops to be resistant to Roundup AND other herbicides.

Until weeds become multiple-resistant, too? Anyone see where this is headed? Monsanto wants you, the farmer, to overspray so it can engineer a new crop.

No recession at Monsanto!

And, the federal government would like to know why not; just why are seed prices skyrocketing?

That said, Monsanto's increasing monopolization of the field's been going on since Clinton years and it, like ADM, pays out cash well to farm-state Representatives and Senators on both sides of the aisle.

In other words, if you expect Team Obama and Big Ag feeder Ag Secretary Tom Vilsack to actually do anything, think again.

Monsanto: Another reason to fear GMO

I've talked in the past about how the push for more and more GMO crops not only risk dangerously decreasing food genetic diversity, it also threatens further impoverishment for developing nations' agriculture.

Well, the 800-pound GMO gorilla of Big Ag, Monsanto, offers more proof of that. And, if you don't care about sub-Saharan Africa, what if GMO crops wind up costing you and I in the USofA MORE for food here, too? Eh?

Monsanto increased some corn seed prices last year by 25 percent, with an additional 7 percent hike planned for corn seeds in 2010. Monsanto brand soybean seeds climbed 28 percent last year and will be flat or up 6 percent in 2010, said company spokeswoman Kelli Powers.

Nice, eh?

Monsanto is using its same financial power here in the US to run more and more independent seed companies out of business. Which means developing countries don't even stand a chance.

And, that's the reality of today's GMO agriculture.

GMO crops reduce environmental impact? Further impoverish Africa?

Boy, a Royal Society report on the future of agriculture, and the chair, Cambridge University’s David Baulcombe, come close to doublespeak, in claiming GMO crops will reduce farming’s environmental impact.

Actually, in a number of ways, GMO crops could increase environmental problems:
1. Accelerated bug resistance to pesticides;
2. Accelerated mutation of plant infections;
3. Intensification of effect of bugs or infections.
That’s not all, either. By continuing to lessen the diversity of crops, and increasing the possibility of 1, 2 or 3 happening, too much GMO crop usage could increase the vulnerability of modern farms and farmers. Also, who in places like sub-Saharan African can afford GMO seed?

The Royal Society’s ideas would likely drive a lot of peasant farmers off the land and thereby increase urban poverty, possibly destabilizing more governments in the process.

Beyond that, the program the Royal Society calls for doesn’t sound totally realistic:

The world must develop over the next 16 years through genetic modification and conventional breeding varieties of crops resistant to disease, drought, salinity, heat and toxic heavy metals, the report said.

Right now, crops are genetically modified for just a couple of characteristics. Doing all of the above on a 20-year time frame sounds highly ambitious.

Plus, getting back to a point above, if Monsanto or whomever could design GMO crops to meet all of those issues within 20 years, you know what the asking price would be, compared to today’s GMO prices, let alone those for non-GMO seed.

In short, the Royal Society appears to have tackled this issue solely from a Western technology and capitalism point of view.

Obama plans to cut Big Ag subsidies

President Barack Obama wants to put a $500,000 income cap on farm subsidies and phase out direct payments to the largest farms as part of his new budget.

Amen to that.

Now, if Farm Belt state governments would only follow suit and stop giving the Monsantos of the world tax credits.

The only thing Monsanto dryland corn will really grow well …

Is gullible dryland farmers’ indebtedness to Monsanto. It grows only properly interpreted your own rulebook before making decisions about its applicability.

That said, a new post by Audrey on her blog Jan. 6, marginally better in drought, in exchange for which it performs well below average in normal conditions. And, yes, it’s pricey.

Monsanto’s latest slice of alleged brilliance

Genetic engineering drought-resistant corn surely isn’t as simple as Monsanto would have us believe.. Much simpler genetic engineering has often had unanticipated, sometimes unwanted, side effects.

To believe you could re-engineer the New World’s signature grain, which has been grown in dry conditions by Ancestral Puebloans for what, around 3,000 years, and do so with bumper yields, is just ridiculous.

And, it’s the technology-driven part of American exceptionalism. Rather than focus on better water use by farmers right now, the attitude is, let’s just “tech our way out of this”!