The unabridged annotated GMO puffpiece (web exclusive)

By Jim and Allen Richardson

Zenith City Weekly

We here annotate Michael Le Page's nauseating puff piece, "Better World: Learn to Love Genetic Engineering," New Scientist, September 14, 2009.

New Scientist: The challenge…is not just to grow enough food to feed so many people but to do it without wreaking more havoc on the planet...we are going to have to exploit every trick we can.

Gonzo Science: Even ones that wreak havoc on the planet!

NS: Genetic engineering could make matters far worse. For instance...companies are trying to develop microbes [that] could greatly increase greenhouse emissions by making it possible to exploit hard-to-extract reserves of fossil fuels…Like any technology, however, genetic modification could also be put to positive use.

GS: The frame Le Page adopts is that while the technology itself is a safe, known quantity, it may someday perhaps be misused through poor planning or ill intent. But this is a simplistic caricature of what the scientific critics of biotech have actually been saying for years, which is that genetic engineering (GE) is not even a stable, predictable technology.

GE traits are inherently not containable. For instance, the independent scientists at the Institute for Science in Society identify the following four serious concerns either unique to GE or greatly exacerbated by GE:

•Effects due to the exotic genes and gene products introduced into the transgenic organisms;

•Unintended, unexpected effects of random gene insertion and interaction between foreign genes and host genes in the transgenic organisms;

•Effects associated with the nature of the gene-constructs inserted into the transgenic organisms; and

•Effects of gene flow, especially secondary, horizontal spread of genes and gene-constructs from the transgenic organisms to unrelated species.

By failing to deal seriously with any of the science behind the points above, Le Page does a disservice to the public given that consuming engineered food has become unavoidable.

GE crops cannot co-exist with organic crops, which seems profoundly shortsighted since the peer-reviewed science behind organics offers a non-polluting way to feed the world by rebuilding soil, increasing nutrition, and improving food security.

Meanwhile Le Page's presumed-innocent genetically modified organisms (GMOs) contaminate seedstocks worldwide and destroy the livelihood of organic farmers whose markets require their crops to be GMO-free. Not to mention conventional farmers whose crops get contaminated by experimental, unregulated transgenes shunned by foreign markets. All this is accompanied by lawsuits against hundreds of family farms and superimposed on a truly epic abuse of patent law.

Le Page and New Scientist would rather risk all these problems than recognize the peer-reviewed scientific case behind organics, which avoids the problems so pervasive in GE. It's a classic Science-vs.-Science story, with the dominant side calling the other unscientific, all the while committing the logical fallacy of attacking a straw man.

NS: Experimental crop plants that use nitrogen more efficiently provide the same yields as normal crops with less fertiliser. Such crops could reduce both nitrous oxide emissions and the nitrogen run-off that creates dead zones in the oceans. Salt-tolerant crops under development will grow on land contaminated by irrigation or sea-level rise, and drought-tolerant varieties could find even wider use…As pests and diseases evolve and spread, crops genetically modified to resist them could boost production, or at least maintain yields…Last but not least, genetic modification can make existing foods more nutritious.

GS: Le Page can get what he wants without destabilizing genomes and the environment. There is nothing on his environmental wish list that can't be accomplished better with organic agriculture and marker-assisted breeding, neither of which destabilizes or contaminates genomes or the environment.

NS: Many people, especially in Europe, oppose crops like Golden Rice simply because they are genetically engineered…

GS: You decry the ignorance of the public — an easy target — yet, as a science writer, have produced a GMO puff piece which ignores the science that opposes your claims.

Unless we assume you are ignorant of the science, you have committed the logical fallacy of special pleading. Your focus is on the ignorant public, yet there is also informed, scientific opposition to GMOs. That's the case you should be trying to refute.

You either don't understand all the scientific, rational arguments against GMOs or you are ignorant of them or you want to quietly dismiss them. But they exist.

You would rather do the same old thing in an entirely new, risky way! Pollute first; dodge liability later.

Golden Rice was exposed as a boondoggle a long time ago. The public is sick of being pissed on and told it's raining. We'd rather try a rational approach that has been proven to work.

And for that, you and your magazine paint GMO critics as irrational, creating a straw man that tarnishes your credentials as a big booster of rationality.

NS: [T]here is no rational basis for drawing an absolute distinction between conventional breeding and genetic modification.

GS: From Living with the Fluid Genome by Mae-Wan Ho (Inside Science, 2003):

Evidence that transgenic DNA is different. There has been only one experiment ever carried out to test the hypothesis that transgenes are the same (or not) as mutants induced by conventional means (mutagenesis), such as exposure to X-rays and chemical mutagens, which cause changes in the base sequence of DNA. Joy Bergelson and colleagues in the Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Chicago, United States, obtained a mutant for herbicide-tolerance by conventional mutagenesis...and created transgenic lines by introducing the mutant gene, spliced into a vector, into host plant cells. The researchers then compared the rate at which transgenic and non-transgenic mutant plants spread the herbicide-tolerance trait to normal, wild-type plants than the same gene obtained by mutagenesis. The results are very intriguing, and difficult to explain in terms of ordinary cross-pollination. Was it because introducing the transgene by means of a vector led to all kinds of unexpected effects?...[Bergelson] said they had no evidence for horizontal gene transfer, but could not rule it out...Regardless of the manner in which the transgenes had spread, the experiment demonstrated that transgenic DNA did not behave in the same way as non-transgenic DNA.

That is the kind of reasoned approach that Le Page and New Scientist are slamming as irrational, yet the one experiment on the matter contradicts the claim.

It is plain, on the face of it, that the use of "no rational basis" is outrageous, whether meant as hyperbole or distortion. The PhDs at independent science outfits like the Rodale Institute and the Institute for Science and Society, as well as universities across the world, are irrational to oppose GMOs?

If it weren't so flip and unthinking, that would actually be a pretty bold claim. In other words, you think this is not a controversy between two groups using the scientific method; you think it is not a true controversy at all because one side is so completely right (conveniently, the side you espouse) that you can exclusively claim the mantle of reason, even in the face of contradictory experiments.

However, contrary to the breathtaking hubris betrayed by your choice of words, there are highly trained scientists publishing critical research about GMOs, against incredible pressures that you do not face. They soldier on - no thanks to you and the considerable water you have carried for the biotech industry with your dismissive puff.

Hate to tell you this, pal, but all the legislation and lawsuits (here in the States and across the world ) that have led to a marginal protection of crops from GMO contamination (including wild rice, Hawaiian Taro and coffee, alfalfa, most recently sugar beets, and, hopefully soon, New Mexico chile peppers) were efforts driven by scientifically literate people. They fully understood what agricultural biotechnology had to offer (including the guaranteed contamination that goes hand-in-glove with predatory patent abuse) and they said, "No, thanks."

You seem to be an advocate for greater safety testing, Le Page. In the spirit of rational compromise, join us in demanding the following, all by independent scientists:

•Highly sensitive, lifelong GMO feeding tests in rats, including those of the variety reported in the November 26, 2005 issue of New Scientist magazine.

The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, Australia's governmental body for scientific research, ended a ten-year project after mice fed genetically engineered peas developed allergic lung damage.

In its unaltered form, the protein (taken from common beans and capable of killing pea weevil pests) does not cause allergic reactions in people or mice. The scientists found that the transgene was structurally different from the original and this change is responsible for the unexpected immune effects seen in mice.

•Follow up on all the health effects already published to date in peer-reviewed scientific literature.

•Follow up on all the non-target effects of GE already published to date in peer-reviewed scientific literature.

•Denounce unfair attacks on critics of GM, including personal and professional attacks, as well as the repeated cyberattacks on groups like GM Watch.

Can you join us in calling for these or are you so "rational" that you already know the results of the tests and follow-ups? When the data comes back and supports our contentions - as the current, independent, peer-reviewed science indicates it will -how much crow will you eat?

We predict you will remain in denial, even in the face of additional peer-reviewed science, because that's what you're doing right now. You paint everybody as irrational, while you float your own beliefs on a raft of logical fallacies.

NS: Thousands of years of selective breeding have produced extensive genetic changes in the plants and animals we eat, not all of them good. Many "natural" crops like potatoes are poisonous to varying degrees, and conventional breeding can make them more toxic.

GS: Eek! Potatoes! Like many raw foodstuffs worldwide, the mildly toxic properties are processed out when you cook them.

The conventionally bred, "more toxic," Lenape potato you cite is being properly withdrawn from circulation and, unlike GE, will not result in the destabilization of any genomes, loss of organic markets due to GM contamination, environmental degradation, or creation of novel viruses.

On the other hand, you cannot withdraw GMO contamination quite as easily, can you? How about that Mexican landrace corn, thoughtlessly contaminated by GMOs? How are you going to withdraw that?

It just seems like you're missing the point, which is that there is a scientific case against GMOs. Address it — with more than a one-page opinion piece disguised as objective reporting.

NS: Transgenic organisms are nothing new either: the swapping of genes between separate species is as old as life itself.

GS: Those processes are regulated by the whole organism, whereas GE is not; that leads to instability, which leads to unexpected effects.

Purporting to demonstrate that "transgenic organisms are not new," you link to an example of two tobacco strains being grafted and sharing genes. This is the example you point to of how GE is "nothing new"? A graft?

You are equivocating (another logical fallacy). No one suggests that conventional plant breeding produces "transgenic organisms," as the term is widely understood. These tobacco plants in your example are not in separate natural kingdoms. They are not even distant cousins; they are the same species.

Yet you suggest an equivalency to, say, GE tomatoes with fish genes. It is not a difference of degree, but of kind. We are aware of the horizontal gene transfer that is "as old as life itself."

The real question is why you would believe GE technology is worth the known risks, which include unpredictable and uncontrollable horizontal gene transfer, creation of novel viruses, genomic instability, and environmental degradation. The alternatives we favor carry none of these risks.

NS: As for GM crops making farmers dependent on multinational companies, it was the introduction of non-GM hybrid seed back in 1924 that first persuaded farmers to give up saving seed each year in favour of buying it.

GS: How about the trend of farmers being sued by biotech companies after contamination by GMOs against their will? Just the price of doing business? Or, like hybrid seed, is it Big Ag who's "wresting control of seed from farmers" ?

NS: With a third of species facing oblivion, environmentalists need to embrace a technology that could help to save many of them - and many of us.

GS: So, you're not an environmentalist…wouldn't brag about that…

Environmentalists do not need to embrace an unstable technology that is poorly understood by those who practice it and those who uncritically boost it. There are proven methods that do it all, better and at less cost.

Get your facts straight before lecturing environmentalists about the technology they "need" to embrace. There is no evidence in your "get-used-to-it" article that you understand the scientific case against GE. If you did, you would address its instability and uncontrollability instead of dismissively acting like GE is safe to use as directed.

If you understood the scientific case against GE, you would not mischaracterize your opponents as irrational and you would not be writing this weak shit about potatoes.

Annotated Le Page comment from our website

Le Page: For the record, I think it's shocking that GM food doesn't have to be labeled in the US. People should have the right to know what they are eating.

Gonzo Science: Le Page is shocked (shocked, we say!) that GMOs do not have to labeled, yet he has also asserted that it is irrational to draw a distinction between GMO and non-GMO.

Le Page, if there's no difference, as you say, then why the strong feelings about labeling? Why is it so "shocking" to you that our government and industry have adopted the very point of view that you and New Scientist continually express?

What would your labels say? Attention: You are eating food it is irrational to believe is any different from other food? Have you no sense of irony, sir?

You are quite handily giving the US government the cover they need to avoid labeling: Hey, mainstream science rags love GMOs and say there's no difference, so who needs labeling?

Why are you so shocked that your characterization of the opposition as irrational is used to dismiss the need for labeling? You've thrown the labeling movement an anchor! Good thing you're a science writer so you can use logic and stuff to do it.

Let's not forget the contradiction between labeling and patent law. On the one hand, GM is supposed to be so similar that it doesn't need to be labeled, but, on the other hand, so different they can slap a patent on it.

For someone who agrees that corporations are set to screw us with this technology, you sure are using a lot of their talking points. Way to be an independent and objective science writer!

Annotating Le Page's second comment, "A [sic] open reply to your open letter"

Le Page: The health risks: This long list can be divided in two - supposed examples of GM crops harming health and theoretical reasons why GM is bad.

Gonzo Science: That the list is long is, indeed, disquieting. Many of the items on the long list are from peer-reviewed journals. So, you may dismiss them as "supposed" examples, but it's science that has been peer reviewed, albeit against crazy pressures not to do so.

Right there, your public stance that biotech critics are irrational is exposed. There is a scientific case against GMOs and it has been made despite an uphill battle.

LP: If [true], there is clearly a failure of the testing and regulatory system supposed to make sure GM food is safe - but this is not an argument against GM crops per se. You don't ban all medical drugs because some turn out to be harmful, any more than you would ban all conventional crops because some turn out to be harmful (look up the Lenape potato).

GS: Right - but you do ban all unsafe medical drugs and all unsafe crops. If all GM crops turn out to be unsafe, as some scientific evidence suggests, then they should be banned.

And, yes, because this scientific evidence has been suppressed and ignored, the food safety regulations have failed. On the other hand, the Lenape potato is a great example of a dangerous food that has been banned, a regulatory success story.

Scientists probably even had some access to this conventional potato for testing, unlike the corporate restrictions scientists face when trying to test GMOs. And the genes of the Lenape potato are not transgenes with promoters. You have here committed the logical fallacy of the faulty analogy.

LP: As for the idea that GM is inherently dangerous, genetic studies have revealed that the genomes of all species are constantly being "genetically engineered." Hundreds of mutations can occur in each new individual, jumping genes (transposons) can cause havoc, viruses insert foreign DNA all over the place, etc., etc. If you think these processes pose a risk to food safety then all crops need better safety testing, not just GM crops.

GS: The scientific information you ignore and dismiss has shown that all GM is inherently dangerous.

No one suggests that normal biological mutations should be banned. In fact, there is an emerging case to be made that normal mutations are not as random, taking place in closer concert with environmental pressures than previously supposed.

"Horizontal gene transfer," the phenomenon of jumping genes and foreign DNA imported by viruses, was not even scientifically acknowledged when genetic engineering was getting off the ground. The risk of horizontal gene transfer from GM crops was, therefore, dismissed as impossible.

When the phenomenon became widely acknowledged (and, subsequently, widely acknowledged as a feature of GM crops), it was spun as evidence that GM crops are perfectly natural because of all the horizontal gene transfer in nature. So, not everything was known about the features of GM crops before they were widely grown in the open air.

As has been rationally argued, the risks of horizontal gene transfer from GMOs are greatly increased versus the risks from non-GMOs, since GM genetic material is specifically designed to easily enter genomes and express itself like crazy. Non-GM genetic material that is crossbred conventionally does not share this quality in abundance and is "GRAS" (a Food and Drug Administration designation of Generally Recognized As Safe).

Partly because gene insertion is random in the GM process, GMOs are inherently unstable in a way that non-GMOs are not. That is a rational distinction to make and, by arguing that the distinction does not exist, you have committed another logical fallacy.

Consider a case that caused an uproar in the UK and around the world. The project, funded by the Scottish Office of Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries, remains the only comprehensive study focused explicitly on health and environmental hazards of GM food.

By introducing a gene from snowdrop bulbs, the study revealed that two lines of GM potatoes (resulting from the same transformation experiment to confer pest resistance) caused malformation of vital organs and weakened immune systems in lab rats. Rats fed from the unaltered parent line showed no such effects.

Multivariate statistical analysis, independently carried out by the Scottish Agricultural Statistics Service, suggest that snowdrop lectin transgenes were only partially responsible for these effects. Disturbances to the potato genome and the process of genetic transformation itself both contributed to the health effects.

The two lines of GM potatoes were not "substantially equivalent" to their unaltered parent line or to each other (The Case for a GM-Free Sustainable World, Institute of Science and Society and Third World Network, 2003, pp. 20-21).

LP: The contamination: Yes, there are plenty of examples as New Scientist has reported over the years but this problem is not unique to GM crops - it's just that no one is looking for non-GM contamination. How is GM contamination worse than food being contaminated by, say, peanuts - a proven danger?

GS: Funny you should mention an example of nut allergens popping up in unwanted places since that is a well-known case of GM gone predictably wrong.

But, to answer your point, GM contamination is worse because, while peanut contamination is difficult to remove from production lines, no one seriously fears that conventional peanut genes are slipping into the corn genome. Plus, peanuts are a proven danger, in part, because the science is open. As well, common sense precautions may be taken to avoid contamination with peanut butter.

We know the opposite is true of GMOs. The science is not open; the critical science that has been done faces immense pressures; and GM contamination is impossible to clean up.

You act like GM contamination can be scrubbed from crops like a smudge of peanut oil can be wiped off the sink. Your analogy is faulty.

LP: Companies are now producing conventionally bred plants with the same properties as some GM plants, such as herbicide resistance, so why no fuss about contamination by these plants?

GS: Besides the peer-reviewed evidence that GM crops hurt biodiversity, we'd say it's because conventional crossbreeding is GRAS. Are you suggesting we defend the safety record of conventional crossbreeding? Fallacy of the continuum.

LP: As for the idea that canola was somehow natural before the genetic engineers got involved, look it up on Wikipedia - its oil content has been dramatically altered.

GS: Conventional crossbreeding is GRAS and products that are so dramatic as to be unsafe are withdrawn from the market. Look up the Lenape potato.

LP: Finally, those worried about gene flow should support the use of GURTs (genetic use restriction technology) such as Terminator.

GS: Terminator technology is not reliable and introduces hazards of its own. GURTs lack all credibility.

LP: The non-target effects: The vast majority of examples cited are trivial and could result from [conventional breeding] or genetic engineering.

GS: It's the non-trivial examples we wish to hear you respond to.

LP: That's not to say some GM plants couldn't become problematic in the future…

GS: Only if we release them into the environment.

LP: [S]o far "100 percent natural" species such as Japanese knotweed are wreaking far more havoc than any GM product when introduced to new areas, and "100 percent natural" proteins.

GS: Including herbicide-resistant superweeds?

Your environmentalist zeal against invasive species is commendable, but only serves to demonstrate that the utmost care — " precaution," you might say - must be taken when introducing novel organisms into the environment.

LP: Bottom line: like it or not, genetic engineering is here to stay.

GS: Specifically because the contamination is permanent. You sound like the Borg saying, "You will be assimilated."

LP: It does have its dangers, and at the moment, the main aim of those producing GM crops is to make money for multinationals.

GS: Well, this at least seems to be a statement somewhat based in reality.

LP: But it really could help us produce more food, and healthier food, with less damage to the environment, if only there were public support and public funding for such work.

GS: It's a technology that's neither wanted nor needed. Genetic engineering represents one of the most crystal-clear examples of science co-opted by market forces.

The patent abuse and the widespread, unwanted contamination of untested transgenes into the food supply by biotech interests are moral abominations made possible, in part, by toadies like yourself. So convinced of your objectivity and neutrality, you cannot see how the values and agenda of your funders shape your worldview and the direction of biotech research.

We do not believe that the only way to meet the world's food demand is to surrender control of all germplasm to rapacious biotech companies. Most importantly, it's not just how the technology is used, but the technology itself. You are flatly wrong to claim there is no rational basis to distinguish between conventional plant breeding and transgenics.

Moreover, you have yourself committed several logical fallacies in arguing your case (namely, the straw man, special pleading, equivocation, faulty analogy, and the fallacy of the continuum). New Scientist should have higher standards.

Back to top

Become a fan of Gonzo Science on Facebook.