GMOs that rely on glycophosphate destroy an ancient metabolic pathway, the shikimate pathway. Corporate science says that we do not need to fear this since mammals do not use the pathway which allows biosynthesis of aromatic amino acids. But we are 90% bacterial. fungal and other organisms that do rely on the shikimate pathway and our mitochondria, the powerhouses of our cells, use it as well.
16
Would I fear for health if eating GMOs? No. Do GMOs cause me concern with the future of agriculture? Yes.
The two biggest problems with GMOs: (1) GMOs go hand-in-hand with patenting life. (2) People don't have a good track record when tampering with nature.
(1) Companies that produce GMOs want to protect their investment, so they patent the genes that they create. However, life is not easily contained. If a farmer plants non-GMO seeds and the wind cross-breeds his plants with GMOs, then Monsanto and their ilk will discover those cross-breeds and FORCE the farmer to pay for the GMO seed. This ignores the premise that one cannot contain or control nature, but does fit the notion of protection of intellectual propery to a "T".
(2) Yes, we've been adapting nature since we became sentient beings - ALL modern crops have been selectively bred over the course of generations and bear little resemblance to their wild ancestors. However, when we've attempted to "improve" nature in the past, our track record has been abysmal - theh gains that we have made have invariably been accompanied by unforeseen consequences. Perhaps GMOs will provide benefits without consequences, but that would be quite the exception to the norm.
The two biggest problems with GMOs: (1) GMOs go hand-in-hand with patenting life. (2) People don't have a good track record when tampering with nature.
(1) Companies that produce GMOs want to protect their investment, so they patent the genes that they create. However, life is not easily contained. If a farmer plants non-GMO seeds and the wind cross-breeds his plants with GMOs, then Monsanto and their ilk will discover those cross-breeds and FORCE the farmer to pay for the GMO seed. This ignores the premise that one cannot contain or control nature, but does fit the notion of protection of intellectual propery to a "T".
(2) Yes, we've been adapting nature since we became sentient beings - ALL modern crops have been selectively bred over the course of generations and bear little resemblance to their wild ancestors. However, when we've attempted to "improve" nature in the past, our track record has been abysmal - theh gains that we have made have invariably been accompanied by unforeseen consequences. Perhaps GMOs will provide benefits without consequences, but that would be quite the exception to the norm.
10
The level of misinformation and hysteria in the comments here is absolutely disheartening. Many commenters who cannot even string together proper grammar and punctuations are joining others who link to "independent science news" instead of journals and NIH databases in this unscientific crusade. Perhaps the Times should restricted comments to people who have passed basic biology in the past 20 years and see what happens - it would sound vastly different.
And here are some actual facts that are easily results of years of research and verified by the NIH and journals instead of "science truths" sites.
1. GMO's have literally save the world from running out of food and starvation - the whole point is to increase yield and production efficiency.
2. GMO doesn't turn people into mutants (I don't even know how this one started...) - every inch of your skin/blood/digestive tract have DNAase that break down genetic material in seconds.
3. Public health funding from the NIH and UN endeavors funded most of the GMO foods out there today - not even the biotech industry.
4. Scientists and biotech industry are not out there to poison you (if they wanted to do evil they they'd go into law school; science pays terrible) - all the pesticide related GMO strains are there to REDUCE pesticide use. Sure, some of them might be patented or require the use of a specific pesticide at reduced dose, they are there to recoup development costs.
This hysteria needs to stop or
And here are some actual facts that are easily results of years of research and verified by the NIH and journals instead of "science truths" sites.
1. GMO's have literally save the world from running out of food and starvation - the whole point is to increase yield and production efficiency.
2. GMO doesn't turn people into mutants (I don't even know how this one started...) - every inch of your skin/blood/digestive tract have DNAase that break down genetic material in seconds.
3. Public health funding from the NIH and UN endeavors funded most of the GMO foods out there today - not even the biotech industry.
4. Scientists and biotech industry are not out there to poison you (if they wanted to do evil they they'd go into law school; science pays terrible) - all the pesticide related GMO strains are there to REDUCE pesticide use. Sure, some of them might be patented or require the use of a specific pesticide at reduced dose, they are there to recoup development costs.
This hysteria needs to stop or
18
Assuming increasing population growth means much greater numbers of humans will need to be fed makes GMOs acceptable even desirable, but if we wish to maintain a habitable planet that will be able to comfortably support us we have to consider the effects of unlimited growth and the developments that facilitate it.
If more time and energy were devoted to curtailing population growth by educating and assisting those who fuel this problem GMOs and their ilk would not be as needed.
Unfortunately there are far too many of us in developed nations who think unlimited growth will bring prosperity to all when in fact as a practical matter the sort of growth now practiced actually benefits only a few at an unseen cost to the many.
We need to accept the fact that our planet is limited in its' ability to support life and if we actually respect ourselves and our home we will become aware of this and act accordingly.
GMOs have their place but it should not be, however unwittingly, to facilitate population growth.
If more time and energy were devoted to curtailing population growth by educating and assisting those who fuel this problem GMOs and their ilk would not be as needed.
Unfortunately there are far too many of us in developed nations who think unlimited growth will bring prosperity to all when in fact as a practical matter the sort of growth now practiced actually benefits only a few at an unseen cost to the many.
We need to accept the fact that our planet is limited in its' ability to support life and if we actually respect ourselves and our home we will become aware of this and act accordingly.
GMOs have their place but it should not be, however unwittingly, to facilitate population growth.
5
" The vast majority ‒ 85 percent ‒ of tampons, cotton and sanitary products tested in a new Argentinian study contained glyphosate, the key ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, ruled a likely carcinogen by the World Health Organization
Meanwhile, 62 percent of the samples tested positive for AMPA, glyphosate's metabolite, according to the study, which was conducted by researchers at the Socio-Environmental Interaction Space (EMISA) of the University of La Plata in Argentina. "
https://www.rt.com/usa/319524-tampons-cotton-glyphosate-monsanto/
“The result of this research is very serious, when you use cotton or gauze to heal wounds or for personal hygiene uses, thinking they are sterilized products, and the results show that they are contaminated with a probably carcinogenic substance,” said Dr. Medardo Avila Vazquez, president of the congress.
“Most of the cotton production in the country is GM [genetically modified] cotton that is resistant to glyphosate. It is sprayed when the bud is open and the glyphosate is condensed and goes straight into the product,” Avila continued.
Meanwhile, 62 percent of the samples tested positive for AMPA, glyphosate's metabolite, according to the study, which was conducted by researchers at the Socio-Environmental Interaction Space (EMISA) of the University of La Plata in Argentina. "
https://www.rt.com/usa/319524-tampons-cotton-glyphosate-monsanto/
“The result of this research is very serious, when you use cotton or gauze to heal wounds or for personal hygiene uses, thinking they are sterilized products, and the results show that they are contaminated with a probably carcinogenic substance,” said Dr. Medardo Avila Vazquez, president of the congress.
“Most of the cotton production in the country is GM [genetically modified] cotton that is resistant to glyphosate. It is sprayed when the bud is open and the glyphosate is condensed and goes straight into the product,” Avila continued.
17
Anti-GMO paranoia in Europe and elsewhere is more than matched by paranois from pro-GMO forces here in the US, notably from Big Ag and Big Chem, that labeling products for GMO content will place a stigma on it.
Maybe the best answer is for more not less transparency and truth, and allow consumers to make up their own minds.
Maybe the best answer is for more not less transparency and truth, and allow consumers to make up their own minds.
9
GMO foods may be safe to eat, but they are not safe to produce. Crispr technology is incredibly controversial and rightly so. More reasonable scientists than the author acknowledge that and are inviting discussion of the implications before it's too late. We've already seen the implications of GMO agriculture here, where GMO goes hand in hand with herbicide use. Where pollinators are being wiped out by knocking out the native plants at the base of their life cycles and by shipping them across the country and spreading disease. Or in India, where farmer's are committing suicide because the GMO crops drive them into bankruptcy. Science thrives on alternative hypotheses and new problems to solve. Corporate greed does not. Ecology is also a science, and the only science that will save us at this point.
13
With an increase in world population from 6 billion to 10 billion by 2050, a reduction in arable land and drastic loss of soil erosion and climate change causing massive migration problem from poor to rich countries, we are rapidly approaching the Malthusian limits. Professor Lynas is right to say that scientific innovation is needed, but bling faith in GMO, or studies funded by GMO sponsors are not the answer. Monosato with their single crop licencing and aggressive litigation, poor public relations and suicides of farmers in India have not help make the case in the court of public opinion. Europe is right to proceed slowly with public consent and transparent labelling. Simple answers to complex problems leads to more problems down stream.
7
GMO has been going on for 10,000 plus years. Nature has developed many species by the natural trading of genes. Farmers, for thousands of years, have selected plants they think are sweeter or bigger etc. There were 100 plus tomato species a hundred years ago and now we are offered few to choose from. So called "natural" vegs such as broccoli and others are hybrids developed by choosing genetic combinations. No definite human health hazards are shown.
There are those who deny science and deny global warming and there are those who deny science and are anti GMO. These are beliefs not factual decisions.
For a complete discussion see fear of genetic engineering at letswakeupfolks.blogspot.com
There are those who deny science and deny global warming and there are those who deny science and are anti GMO. These are beliefs not factual decisions.
For a complete discussion see fear of genetic engineering at letswakeupfolks.blogspot.com
4
The campaign for genetically modified plants that change the nature of the species should not be confused with the processes of natural selection within the species. This distinction should be made more clearly than it is in the article. It is one thing to choose to replant the most productive form of seed but this is quite different from improving on the seed by introducing genes from another species, for example, by attempting to improve the cow by generating calves with the genes of pigs.
5
Thanks Mark, you have a added your "Heft" to the Scientific Takings points that will be presented to the multitudes of "Zombies" that blindly follow the the Ultra Conservative, "Casino Capitalists" mantra in the future.
Going forward this will no longer be presented as" an opinion" (paid for or otherwise) but as an established commandment of truth by the conservative media.
The " creator" gave us this wonderfully intricate machine we refer to as the "The Human Body" and we need to be mindful of how and what we feed it to keep it humming. I would prefer to keep pesticides and genetically modified crops out of my "machine" if at all possible.
if we can't or won't ban GMO's at the very least I would like to know if a product has been genetically modified and is it pesticide free! Guest what, Freedom of information and a Free market would both be at play here!
Going forward this will no longer be presented as" an opinion" (paid for or otherwise) but as an established commandment of truth by the conservative media.
The " creator" gave us this wonderfully intricate machine we refer to as the "The Human Body" and we need to be mindful of how and what we feed it to keep it humming. I would prefer to keep pesticides and genetically modified crops out of my "machine" if at all possible.
if we can't or won't ban GMO's at the very least I would like to know if a product has been genetically modified and is it pesticide free! Guest what, Freedom of information and a Free market would both be at play here!
4
Thanks for making the perfect argument against a Monsanto run world. AND against TTIP as well. Whenever Americans write about GMO, they can't stomach the fact that the European Union is not a wholly owned subsidiary of USA, Inc. Sovereign countries make sovereign decisions, and the European consumer in overwhelming majorities do not want that type of food. For once Brussels and the European citizens are on the same page. Enjoy your meal.
11
Genetic modification is often portrayed by its proponents as simply standard hybridization taken one step further. But, in hybridization, animals or plants that are close enough species-wise to interbreed are bred to bring out already innate qualities in each and suppress undesirable ones. This is within the bounds of natural cross-breeding and does not introduce any alien genetic material. Genetic modification, on the other hand, is mixing the genetic material of vastly different species that are not genetically closely related and could not be interbred naturally. At this early stage of the science, all scientific assurances aside, NOBODY can tell what the longer term effects to the planet's biosphere will be by crossing genes from corn and fireflies or cows and jellyfish. Will we make fertile ground for new diseases we are not evolved to resist? Will we upset the delicate balances of nature that make it possible for flora and fauna to produce oxygen or food for humans and all other species. GMO corn with genetic pest-resistant capabilities are having a dramatic effect on insect populations and other creatures who feed on the corn, which damages the populations that, in turn, feed on these populations. As Mr. Davidson pointed out below, this is already threatening the world's bee population that is necessary to fertilize most of our plant food. Monoculture is also a result and the 19th century Irish potato famine, caused by potato monoculture should be a red flag.
11
In this day and age when one can't tell the paid scientific position from the studied scientific position it is easy to see why people are fearful. Add to that the idea that people who know about a field are not to be trusted, that belief is what matters (and reason never trumps belief) and you come up with crazy ideas and no-nothing candidate.
4
This article's author spent years attacking the science of GMOs, and even took part in the vandalism of GE crops.
He admitted, according to Wikipedia, "... in 2008, I was still penning screeds in the Guardian attacking the science of GM – even though I had done no academic research on the topic, and had a pretty limited personal understanding. I don’t think I’d ever read a peer-reviewed paper on biotechnology or plant science..."
In fact, Mark Lynas had an outsized influence on the GMO debate, and has a corresponding responsibility for the anti-scientific positions he now wants to criticize. But the past doesn't wash off this easily.
He admitted, according to Wikipedia, "... in 2008, I was still penning screeds in the Guardian attacking the science of GM – even though I had done no academic research on the topic, and had a pretty limited personal understanding. I don’t think I’d ever read a peer-reviewed paper on biotechnology or plant science..."
In fact, Mark Lynas had an outsized influence on the GMO debate, and has a corresponding responsibility for the anti-scientific positions he now wants to criticize. But the past doesn't wash off this easily.
2
Which adds tremendously to his credibility, in my view. When he actually examined the science, he discovered no support for his prior position. You might consider doing the same.
7
Mr. Lynas is mentioned in the draft letter from EuropaBio to potential GM ambassadors seeking their involvement in the outreach programme.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/interactive/2011/oct/20/gm-food
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/interactive/2011/oct/20/gm-food
2
Mr. Lynas overstates his case.
The current state of play is that no study has yet found a correlation between any GMO food and negative health consequences. As we all remember from Statistics 101, however, failure to find correlation never proves lack of relationship; it may simply result from inadequate research design. In addition, only past GMOs have been studied. To claim this means that all future GMOs will also be safe would be unscientific. There are a priori reasons to worry: we were evolved to eat non-GMO foods; evolution has not yet secured us against all possible future genetic modifications.
The difficult question is: When should we believe the experts? Here, most of the experts have been paid by GMO manufacturers. Please forgive my skepticism. Expert European regulators pronounced thalidomide safe; only a newly-hired FDA naysayer saved the US from the horrible consequences of that drug. For decades, experts retained by the tobacco industry swore there was no firm evidence that smoking caused cancer. They were technically correct; there were studies that found no correlation; even studies that did could not prove causation.
I eat GMO foods without hesitation and tend to believe Mr. Lynas's position. But I do not conclude that anyone who believes otherwise is irrational or anti-scientific.
The current state of play is that no study has yet found a correlation between any GMO food and negative health consequences. As we all remember from Statistics 101, however, failure to find correlation never proves lack of relationship; it may simply result from inadequate research design. In addition, only past GMOs have been studied. To claim this means that all future GMOs will also be safe would be unscientific. There are a priori reasons to worry: we were evolved to eat non-GMO foods; evolution has not yet secured us against all possible future genetic modifications.
The difficult question is: When should we believe the experts? Here, most of the experts have been paid by GMO manufacturers. Please forgive my skepticism. Expert European regulators pronounced thalidomide safe; only a newly-hired FDA naysayer saved the US from the horrible consequences of that drug. For decades, experts retained by the tobacco industry swore there was no firm evidence that smoking caused cancer. They were technically correct; there were studies that found no correlation; even studies that did could not prove causation.
I eat GMO foods without hesitation and tend to believe Mr. Lynas's position. But I do not conclude that anyone who believes otherwise is irrational or anti-scientific.
6
No study has yet found a correlation between riding blue bicycles and negative health consequences. But this may be due to inadequate research design.
Also, only past blue bicycles have been studied. To claim this means all future bicycles will be safe would be unscientific. Therefore, on the precautionary principle, we should avoid blue bicycles.
Also, only past blue bicycles have been studied. To claim this means all future bicycles will be safe would be unscientific. Therefore, on the precautionary principle, we should avoid blue bicycles.
8
In a democracy, consumers have the right to refuse to buy and eat whatever the food corporations are peddling for profit that day, that year, or that century. The "science" is irrelevant -- we have the freedom to say "no" even if our decisions are "irrational." There is no obligation for anyone to accept GMOs because that choice interferes with Monsanto's plans to make a profit for their shareholders. Get it?
12
This editorial brought to you by Monsanto Corporation.
18
I am a chemist; not a biologist and therefore can not produce an educated opinion on the safety or wisdom of GMO thmeselves.
But here is the catch: By making these living organisms more resistant to herbicides and pesticides, more aggressive chemicals will find their way into the food chain. Are we the consumers more resistant to those? Certainly not. Unless we start playing with our DNA too.
I remember when Chlordane was found unsafe and Dow came up with Dursban which was deemed safe, or safer. Years later the safer was found not so safe. Industry is never short of claims and supporters among scientists; it is just too much money.
In my opinion, Europe is not the fool for banning GMO; we are for allowing them.
But here is the catch: By making these living organisms more resistant to herbicides and pesticides, more aggressive chemicals will find their way into the food chain. Are we the consumers more resistant to those? Certainly not. Unless we start playing with our DNA too.
I remember when Chlordane was found unsafe and Dow came up with Dursban which was deemed safe, or safer. Years later the safer was found not so safe. Industry is never short of claims and supporters among scientists; it is just too much money.
In my opinion, Europe is not the fool for banning GMO; we are for allowing them.
21
The tone of this piece is one of name-calling, which calls the author's credibility into question by the end of the first sentence. Mr. Lynas starts with name-calling and moves on to an assumption that whatever science produces makes the world a better place, which is obviously not true. So a few countries in Europe do not want to grow GMO crops; good for them! Consider them a control group is a global experiment.
13
The Precautionary Principle will truly be the death of us all. No progress can be made with absolutely zero risk. And to demand adherence to that stance, it will be destructive to any & all attempts to solve most current & future problems in our modern world.
And that may be the problem. The issue isn't anti-science so much as anti-modernity. Global warming is caused be modern life, so ban it. GMO's are an extension of our use of nature to benefit humanity, So ban it.
I've wondered sometimes how many hundreds or thousands of years we'd have to go back, to find an "acceptable" state of nature with human beings. Mankind has been manipulating crops and domesticating animals for millennia. GMO's are no different. Indeed, so much of the beneficial mutations in non-GMO crops have been brought about by quite unnatural processes.
But the most specious argument is "corporations" or "profits". I hope all those using that argument are wearing handmade shoes & clothing. Otherwise, some corporations are making a profit on all of those items..
And that may be the problem. The issue isn't anti-science so much as anti-modernity. Global warming is caused be modern life, so ban it. GMO's are an extension of our use of nature to benefit humanity, So ban it.
I've wondered sometimes how many hundreds or thousands of years we'd have to go back, to find an "acceptable" state of nature with human beings. Mankind has been manipulating crops and domesticating animals for millennia. GMO's are no different. Indeed, so much of the beneficial mutations in non-GMO crops have been brought about by quite unnatural processes.
But the most specious argument is "corporations" or "profits". I hope all those using that argument are wearing handmade shoes & clothing. Otherwise, some corporations are making a profit on all of those items..
4
GMO's are to progressives as climate change is to the right wing. Loonies baying at the full moon in support of non GMO haggis
4
"The concerted PR assault on me for the last two years from Lynas... is a sign that the global outrage against the control over our seed and food, by Monsanto through GMOs, is making the biotech industry panic." Seeds of Truth http://vandanashiva.com/?p=105
9
Vandana Shiva's entirely unscientific propaganda has been criticized, rightly, by thousands of scientists. Lynas is far from alone on that count.
9
I've always found it amusing how the Left (completely justifiably) bemoans the Right's willful (climate science) or ignorant (evolution) denial of science. Yet at the same time they (full disclosure: actually "we") have a strong tradition of anti-science bias (e.g. the pillorying of E.O. Wilson for promoting Sociobiology) and the current anti-GMO and anti-vaccination (at least among a vocal minority) positions. Depends on whose ox is being Gored.
8
Human beings have been eating good old fashioned plants since the dawn of time. GMO food has been around for only a few decades. I'm siding with history. I'm going to make the presumption that evolution trumps engineering when it comes to my health and the health of the environment.
As a vegetable gardener I that organic gardening works!
As a vegetable gardener I that organic gardening works!
15
All of those good old fashioned plants have been genetically modified since the dawn of time. You think kale just grew out of the ground one day? Do some research, you just contradicted yourself in first two sentences.
1
"good old fashioned foods'? There are none. At you produce stands all vegs are hybrids made by using chemicals, radiation and other ways to modify the genes. Nature is constantly adding new genetic changes by the winds spreading pollens throughout the land. You are eating what has been genetically modified for many years. Your choice of food is determined by which hybrid is thought to be desirable. There is no constant in nature,its changing all the time, that's what nature does.
Sure, organic farming works to feed you. How about the rest of the world's population?
1
This article really misses the main point, which is that this type of agriculture which relies on chemicals like glyphosate is bad for the ecosystem as well as for the people who eat the food. Read this interview with a scientist who actually knows something about it. I know there are many Mercola haters out there but this interview really spells out what is worrying about widespread glyphosate use. Over a billion pounds of it used worldwide every year.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2015/10/25/gmo-glypho...
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2015/10/25/gmo-glypho...
9
If anyone was concerned about people profiteering on the back of public health, Mercola should be one of the last people they choose to represent their position. In answer to your question; before modern farming techniques evolved most of the people lived and worked on farms. Organic farming and related methods are very highly labor intensive. Unless 3/4 of the people now living in the city are willing to go back to work laboring on a farm, it will be impossible to feed the population absent modern methods. I am a chemist by trade, an environmentalist by avocation, and I was raised with farmers in farm country. Yes, damage to the eco system through modern farming (or any farming for that matter) presents issues for ecosystem. Gyphosate happens to be one least damaging herbicides and pesticides available. Much can be done to ameliorate existing problems by planting native plants in water ways, road side ditches, under power lines, on poor ground, and in back yards in farm country. Pesticides and herbicides should not be used for suburban lawns. People need to understand that most farmers have been working the land for a long time. They do not deliberately do things that would damage their land. If your goal is to improve the environment you need to work with the farmers toward that goal. If you just want to make noise it is easier to sit on you butt and make uneducated complaints about GMOs.
2
Yes the pesticides can be dangerous. Using genetic engineering in this area is suspect. However, most of genetic engineering has b nothing to do with this. it has become a smoke screen to hide the many benefits of the use of GMO to improve crops and nutrition. By the way, glyphosate is much safer then the other types that would be used if glyphosate was not available.
1
Except glyphosate is much safer than the pesticides it replaced, and GMOs reduce overall pesticide use.
1
Foods that contain GMOs should be labeled as such, and let the consumer decide whether to buy the product or not.
10
A tomato should taste like a tomato-bright sweet acidic. European markets display plump purple figs that split open to vibrant burgundy flesh. The juice from a just bought pear at first bit runs down your hand. Salads ordered in any restaurant are always crisp and lively.
My husband and me are vegetarians. Here in NYC, I can only find make do produce regardless where I shop, even at the Farmer’s Market. I yearn to return to Europe (especially Italy) to taste the true unadulterated flavors of nature. Scientifically engineered food is as tasty as eating cardboard.
My husband and me are vegetarians. Here in NYC, I can only find make do produce regardless where I shop, even at the Farmer’s Market. I yearn to return to Europe (especially Italy) to taste the true unadulterated flavors of nature. Scientifically engineered food is as tasty as eating cardboard.
12
You don't have to go to Europe to find good fruits and vegetables. Perhaps you simply need to move out of New York City. Here in California, we have access to plenty of organically grown produce. But, in my opinion, GMO foods are just as tasty as anything grown organically. If the fruits and vegetables that I grow in my yard are sweeter, juicier, or more crisp than what I buy at the store, it is not because they are organically grown, but rather because I harvest at the optimal time.
1
There are no GMO tomatos on the commercial market. There has not been a GMO on the commercial market for 18 years and even then it was on the market for 2 years and sold to food processors so you never actually ate a GMO tomato outside of tomato sauce or pizza source or similar.
1
I once read an interview by an Indian farmer who had switched to planting Bt Cotton. When asked why he had made the switch, he said that the reason was that it made his family healthier. Growing conventional cotton, every year he had to spray with dangerous pesticides that made his family sick - since Bt plants are naturally insect resistant, he no longer had to put his children through this every year.
And while there are legitimate concerns about food safety (albeit ones which are dramatically overstated - while it is hypothetically possible that GMOs produce food safety concerns, not a single peer reviewed study provides evidence that this is the case in practice), these do not apply in all cases. Who cares if our cotton is safe to eat or not?
As for the problem with cross-pollination, most domesticated plants are not capable of surviving on their own, so this is only a problem where diverse gene pools of "normal" seeds occur. For example, American corn farmers buy new seeds every year, so it makes no difference how their corn is being pollinated, although it certainly could be a problem in Mexico, where there are ancestral corn breeds which have been preserved for generations.
In short, while there are some legitimate concerns about GMOs (some more legitimate than others), none of them apply uniformly to all GM crops. And this is the reason why a blanket ban is a mistake - it makes far more sense to weigh the risks and benefits for each crop on a case-by-case basis.
And while there are legitimate concerns about food safety (albeit ones which are dramatically overstated - while it is hypothetically possible that GMOs produce food safety concerns, not a single peer reviewed study provides evidence that this is the case in practice), these do not apply in all cases. Who cares if our cotton is safe to eat or not?
As for the problem with cross-pollination, most domesticated plants are not capable of surviving on their own, so this is only a problem where diverse gene pools of "normal" seeds occur. For example, American corn farmers buy new seeds every year, so it makes no difference how their corn is being pollinated, although it certainly could be a problem in Mexico, where there are ancestral corn breeds which have been preserved for generations.
In short, while there are some legitimate concerns about GMOs (some more legitimate than others), none of them apply uniformly to all GM crops. And this is the reason why a blanket ban is a mistake - it makes far more sense to weigh the risks and benefits for each crop on a case-by-case basis.
8
The most ludicrous part of this article is the attempt to demonize anti-GMO policies on grounds that Russia has also adopted them. Russia and Zimbabwe unsavory? Not compared to Monsanto.
14
Science is not the reliable when billions are at stake. Science always says things are safe when their are billions at stake. Science is often propaganda meant to make us make unhealthy dangerous choices that lead to profits for corporations. Big Tobacco comes to mind or Exxon mobile's climate change denial. Companies are not even required to label weather food is gmo in the US whats so scientific about that?
11
By your argument, we shouldn't believe science on climate change either, since it may be propaganda enabling billions in profits for green energy corporations - right?
Most people opposed to GMO's are not anti-science, but anti-capitalism, or at least anti-capitalism as it's practiced today by huge trans-national corporations.
GMO's are not being used to feed the hungry or to lower food costs for the rest of us - They're being used to further entrench the worst practices of our industrial food system, all while enriching bad corporate actors with abysmal track records on public safety.
Opposing that is no more anti-science than opposing nuclear weapons is.
GMO's are not being used to feed the hungry or to lower food costs for the rest of us - They're being used to further entrench the worst practices of our industrial food system, all while enriching bad corporate actors with abysmal track records on public safety.
Opposing that is no more anti-science than opposing nuclear weapons is.
16
Mr Lynas, no need to look as far as scientific concern, agricultural innovation and so on. It's simple, the European consumer does not want to buy and eat genetically modified foods. So, while you are amazed about European ignorance, i wonder why, when travelling over the Atlantic, I must leave my European apple on the plane because it is forbidden to bring it into the U.S.
8
Then why is Europe importing genetically modified grains from the US?
I haven't yet read a single cogent argument in favor of the Long-Term Safety of Genetically Modified Organisms in food. As soon as I do, I will support their use.
9
Lynas' opinions were acquired by EuropaBio, whose members include Monsanto, Bayer, Dow, BASF, Eli Lilly, and Dupont. A leaked draft letter from EuropaBio to potential GM ambassadors seeking their involvement in the outreach program:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/interactive/2011/oct/20/gm-food
There is a much better way to grow food that doesn't harm the soil, kill the bees, and expose us to massive amounts of dangerous chemicals A way that also produces nutrient dense crops.
"The Amish Farmers Reinventing Organic Agriculture"
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/10/the-amish-farmer-repla...
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/interactive/2011/oct/20/gm-food
There is a much better way to grow food that doesn't harm the soil, kill the bees, and expose us to massive amounts of dangerous chemicals A way that also produces nutrient dense crops.
"The Amish Farmers Reinventing Organic Agriculture"
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/10/the-amish-farmer-repla...
20
As has been stressed repeatedly, opposition to GMOs is primarily linked to entirely valid concerns about impact of GMOs upon the wider ecosystems into which they are inevitably introduced, and equally about the patenting of food supplies and concentration of power and profit in the hands of a handful of multinational corporations whose ultimate objectives do not include feeding the most people the healthiest food possible, indigenous control over food supplies, or ecological balance and preservation. With regard to these concerns, concern over climate change and concern over GMOs line up. Opposition to or support for science has nothing to do with it. To suggest otherwise is obfuscation—which, of course, is of great help to those wishing to maximize their profit from GMOs.
19
Science and scientists are ultimately engaged in the search for the truth. They accept ideas as valid only when they are supported by facts. In that manner scientists generally believe that CO2 causes global warming and that GMOs are generally safe.....and a greater percentage of scientists support the latter.
2
Profit effectively erases the validity of any "scientific studies" done by corporations. Profiteering corporations don't care who, or what, they kill, as long as the money keeps rolling. Surely, you don't believe corporations would stop producing such products if they knew they had the potential to kill.
3
I have heard this argument before and it's neither true nor logical.
There are many different kinds of scientists and climatologist are not biologist. There are scientist who deny man made climate change and there are many scientist who have studied GMO's extensively and are very much against them.
There is huge amount of (you may say anecdotal) evidence that autistic or asthmatic children when recommendation by their doctors, are fed exclusively organic food show dramatic improvements within weeks.
The science backing GMO's has been largely produced by groups that have significant conflicts of interests. Biotech is a huge Industry that can afford to buy scientists and politicians and journalists as this one.
There are many different kinds of scientists and climatologist are not biologist. There are scientist who deny man made climate change and there are many scientist who have studied GMO's extensively and are very much against them.
There is huge amount of (you may say anecdotal) evidence that autistic or asthmatic children when recommendation by their doctors, are fed exclusively organic food show dramatic improvements within weeks.
The science backing GMO's has been largely produced by groups that have significant conflicts of interests. Biotech is a huge Industry that can afford to buy scientists and politicians and journalists as this one.
1
Science, in the hands of companies like Monsanto, is no longer science and shouldn't be trusted. We've seen too many cases where scientific "results" reflect commercial interests of the companies who fund the "research".
26
However the EU countries do not ban Monsanto, they ban the technology and the science behind it as it is.
1
I have no particular concerns about GMOs per se. I do have substantial concerns about increased personal consumption of pesticides, whether as a GMO-installed component of the plant itself, or sprayed on with abandon because the plant is 'Roundup-resistant'.
If the actual components in the food, including pesticides, were labelled, there would be no need for GMO labelling or prohibitions. This does not seem to be on anyone's public agenda, perhaps because nobody would trust the food companies reporting the results truthfully.
The excuse often provided is that the pesticides don't have any effect on people (or more likely mice were tested) or that there is no 'evidence' of harm. You will never find evidence if you don't want to, and Monsanto has nothing to gain.
However, the WHO found Roundup a probable human carcinogen, and Colombia stopped spraying coca fields with it. Can anyone assure us that they were wrong?
If the actual components in the food, including pesticides, were labelled, there would be no need for GMO labelling or prohibitions. This does not seem to be on anyone's public agenda, perhaps because nobody would trust the food companies reporting the results truthfully.
The excuse often provided is that the pesticides don't have any effect on people (or more likely mice were tested) or that there is no 'evidence' of harm. You will never find evidence if you don't want to, and Monsanto has nothing to gain.
However, the WHO found Roundup a probable human carcinogen, and Colombia stopped spraying coca fields with it. Can anyone assure us that they were wrong?
9
When we lose the honey bees, and other pollinators, it will no longer matter whether the food is engineered or not.
5
A French study that tried to link GMOs and Roundup to rat tumors accidentally showed the opposite: Male rats that ate GMOs and drank roundup laced water lived longer than the controls.
Cacao is grown on a tree, and you would not spray those with herbicides. You might however (carefully) use herbicides like Roundup to control weeds around the trees. (We do this in the orchard, to create a weed free zone near the tree trunk where the mower can't go). The herbicide would not end up in the cacao, as it would kill the tree before harvest in case of overspray. There are a lot of things wrong with cacao production (child labor, slavery), but GMO/herbicide use is not a major concern.
When you ask for assurances, why do you not read/study yourself, or rely on scientists in the field who do so? Why do you prefer the assurances of people who base their 'knowledge' on faith rather than science? Those people do have an agenda, often just as financially motivated as the often-maligned biotech industry.
Where I live people use/grow GMO crops. They live near their fields, eat the crops, eat the animals they feed with the crops, raise their children on the farm, drink water from the well. None of my neighbors has two heads, and most live to their mid-eighties or more, (not considering accidents), in spite of lower than average access to doctors/medical care.
No, I do not work for Monsanto/any Biotech company, and our land is too poor for cropping, so it is pasture.
Cacao is grown on a tree, and you would not spray those with herbicides. You might however (carefully) use herbicides like Roundup to control weeds around the trees. (We do this in the orchard, to create a weed free zone near the tree trunk where the mower can't go). The herbicide would not end up in the cacao, as it would kill the tree before harvest in case of overspray. There are a lot of things wrong with cacao production (child labor, slavery), but GMO/herbicide use is not a major concern.
When you ask for assurances, why do you not read/study yourself, or rely on scientists in the field who do so? Why do you prefer the assurances of people who base their 'knowledge' on faith rather than science? Those people do have an agenda, often just as financially motivated as the often-maligned biotech industry.
Where I live people use/grow GMO crops. They live near their fields, eat the crops, eat the animals they feed with the crops, raise their children on the farm, drink water from the well. None of my neighbors has two heads, and most live to their mid-eighties or more, (not considering accidents), in spite of lower than average access to doctors/medical care.
No, I do not work for Monsanto/any Biotech company, and our land is too poor for cropping, so it is pasture.
1
In my experience chemists and geneticists think they understand things and the way they work. And of course to a limited extent they do. As do we all. Ecologists on the other hand seem to be immersed in the complexity of the earth's functionality and as a consequence tend to have the humility to realize that capabilities arising from the development of new tools is not the same thing as understanding. Add irrational market forces to a false sense of confidence and you have got dangerous circumstances wherein we tamper with the systems which support our existence. Bertrand Russell's to often apt remark comes to mind: "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." Diversity is the root of resilience. Engineered herbicide resistance is the root of profit.
21
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves." ....Hmmm. Are arguing for or against?
4
I stopped reading when you said banning GMO is like banning the car or the printing press. Is it REALLY? After that, I can't trust a word you say.
23
I reside in the middle of America's corn belt, where GMO corn is grown in a vast monoculture. Since the farms went over to GMO seeds, there has been a collapse in the insect population, most visibly, to honey and other kinds of bees. For those of us. For those of us who live here, it is plain to see.
In addition, GMO seeds have encouraged farmers to plow up native grasslands and grow corn in terrain with thin topsoils, leading to erosion of soils as well as collapse of bird populatioins which depend on native grasses.
My empirical observation leads me to say that the Europeans have it right.
In addition, GMO seeds have encouraged farmers to plow up native grasslands and grow corn in terrain with thin topsoils, leading to erosion of soils as well as collapse of bird populatioins which depend on native grasses.
My empirical observation leads me to say that the Europeans have it right.
29
You know, people used to think that tuberculosis ran in families, because it did kill whole families. They didn't realize it was a contagious disease, because evidence to the contrary was right before their eyes.
Roundup has been demonized to the extent that people in my neighborhood forum have been discussing alternatives that would actually be much more toxic, but are perceived as better because they are natural. Ricin is natural. So is hemlock. Some of the pest-control people who've come to my door try to win me over by telling me that the product they use is natural. That is not really the best argument to use, particularly as many natural substances have not been tested, and some that have have lately been linked to Parkinson's Disease.
It is so sad that people even today draw ungrounded conclusions based upon empirical evidence, e.g., those concluding that vaccines cause problems to which they have never been scientifically linked. As with failure to accept GMOs, this has negative consequences for society as a whole.
Roundup has been demonized to the extent that people in my neighborhood forum have been discussing alternatives that would actually be much more toxic, but are perceived as better because they are natural. Ricin is natural. So is hemlock. Some of the pest-control people who've come to my door try to win me over by telling me that the product they use is natural. That is not really the best argument to use, particularly as many natural substances have not been tested, and some that have have lately been linked to Parkinson's Disease.
It is so sad that people even today draw ungrounded conclusions based upon empirical evidence, e.g., those concluding that vaccines cause problems to which they have never been scientifically linked. As with failure to accept GMOs, this has negative consequences for society as a whole.
6
Indeed, they do have it right. That's why I will continue to pursue food that is GMO free.
4
Can't confirm your observations, as in Kansas the opposite is true. This year alone we increased our bee yard by 500 percent! Bees are thriving. And in the last 5 years the monarch butterflies have returned in huge swarms in the fall. I stand in monarch tornadoes for the sheer fun of it. As for plowing... hardly anyone who uses biotech seeds needs to plow, it is mostly no-till around here. Because of herbicide resistant crops you get better topsoil, water retention, as you don't need to plow. I would not want to have to spend as much as Europeans spend on food. I don't waste my money on 'organic' foods, and have not for the last quarter of a century. To each their own, but I am proudly PRO-BIOTECH, including GMO or better, GEO (genetically engineered organisms). (Heck, a poodle is a GMO-wolf).
4
Haven't we seen this argument before a thousand times? Substitute "tobacco" or "climate change" for GMO in this article and it all still hangs together as a ghastly re-run of a familiar smokescreen.
9
The analogy to climate change is not really apt. With respect to that issue, most scientists believe that the problem really does exist, with only a few dissenters, and laypeople who also believe it is a real problem point to the preponderance of like-minded scientists as justification for that view. With respect to GMOs, however, people are choosing to ignore the lack of scientific evidence that these crops are harmful, pointing to the opinions of just a few, if any, professional scientists to the contrary as justification for their view that GMOs are destructive and dangerous. So basically they are hypocrites who accept science only when it agrees with their preconceived point of view.
You are correct in pointing out that, for a time, the dangers of tobacco smoking were not recognized, but tobacco is not the same as food. No one really needs tobacco to live, but we all need food, and we all need a minimum quantity of it. We used to know someone who worked at a tobacco company because he had to make a living, but neither he nor anyone else in his family smoked. The difference is that the people who work at the agri-biotech giants also have families who consume the food that is made possible by those companies.
You are correct in pointing out that, for a time, the dangers of tobacco smoking were not recognized, but tobacco is not the same as food. No one really needs tobacco to live, but we all need food, and we all need a minimum quantity of it. We used to know someone who worked at a tobacco company because he had to make a living, but neither he nor anyone else in his family smoked. The difference is that the people who work at the agri-biotech giants also have families who consume the food that is made possible by those companies.
2
In all due respect, or perhaps with no due respect, just because Big Science produces it, invents it, promotes it, does not mean the thoughtful consumer has to buy it, invite into their culture, place it on their table—feed it to their children.
I do not buy GMO, will not buy GMO, and I am not ignorant—nor are these European Countries.
The New York Times should retract this self-serving article; it is academic arrogance and academic scare mongering of the most vehement degree.
People and cultures have a right to think and act for themselves without Bug Science or Cornell University telling them, or me, how to live—or eat—thank you.
“Modern Science” has plenary of wrongs to worry about before blaming any human for not wanting to place the fruits of Big Science, as Fiat, on their table or in their bodies.
Michael Bain
Glorieta, New Mexico
I do not buy GMO, will not buy GMO, and I am not ignorant—nor are these European Countries.
The New York Times should retract this self-serving article; it is academic arrogance and academic scare mongering of the most vehement degree.
People and cultures have a right to think and act for themselves without Bug Science or Cornell University telling them, or me, how to live—or eat—thank you.
“Modern Science” has plenary of wrongs to worry about before blaming any human for not wanting to place the fruits of Big Science, as Fiat, on their table or in their bodies.
Michael Bain
Glorieta, New Mexico
8
Some of the most powerful arguments against GMO Corn were made by Mexico’s Union of Scientists Committed to Society (ACCS) and the Cellular Neurobiologist David R. Schubert. They warned GMOs would drastically diminish the crop diversity of both Mexico and the world at large; would increase the costs throughout the Mexican food chain, putting millions of smallholders out of business; transnational corporations would dominate the seed market increasing the social and political dependence on oligopolies; herbicide resistance and the chemicals required for their cultivation would pose a serious health hazard to those who consume it – especially on the scale at which it is consumed in Mexico (Corn accounts for a staggering 53% of the average calorie intake and 39% of protein consumption in Mexico.); and finally - once the GM seeds are planted, they’ll be no going back. The country’s native varieties, which are the result of thousands of years of careful selection and breeding, will be irreversibly contaminated – even if the GM seeds are introduced on a modest scale.
Research on genetically modified seeds is still published, of course. But only studies that the seed companies have approved ever see the light of a peer-reviewed journal. Lynas knows that. He knows that Cornell and the other land grant universities are threatened by the biotech industry: Monsanto, Syngenta, Dow, Dupont Pioneer and a host of others.
FOLLOW THE MONEY FOLKS. Lynas, the political director, likes it.
Research on genetically modified seeds is still published, of course. But only studies that the seed companies have approved ever see the light of a peer-reviewed journal. Lynas knows that. He knows that Cornell and the other land grant universities are threatened by the biotech industry: Monsanto, Syngenta, Dow, Dupont Pioneer and a host of others.
FOLLOW THE MONEY FOLKS. Lynas, the political director, likes it.
16
Here is my pet theory: GMO food has an effect on the body and is part of the OBESITY Problem in USA. Just as certain medicines will make you bloat. More and more farmers and consumers are turning to BIO food in France. My salad has spots on it, but I can eat it safely! Monsanto and its like are not wanted here. We have become one of the largest exporters of Grains in Europe , as well as other foods without MONSANTO. What will they bring us except financial slavery, poison and more American hegemony ? Pity the poor farmers in Africa and South America who will have no choice but become sharecroppers to Monsanto and their ilk.
5
GMOs are utterly safe for human consumption ? Who issued the proclamation? Is there a World Food Court somewhere we don't know about?
3
This article is amazingly uninformed - or, more probably; it is paid for by Monsanto. "Why would anyone spend years developing genetically modified crops in the knowledge that they will most likely be outlawed" ?? Duh. Because, said GMO Companys want to (A) make money, and (B) control all agriculture from it's seed to it's cellophane wrapper.
"Science" told us that Agent Orage was safe for our GI's to handle, dump and spray without protection. So many pharmacuticles from the 1950's and 60's have been proven poisonous, even causing cancer. GMO crops, like artificial fertilizers, seem to "work" great, in the beginning of their use. Then, you need MORE fertilizer, and the "harmful insects" that you intend to kill develope immune systems to block the genetic crud in the soil and air, while beneficial insects (and, there are many) are killed. Also killed are birds, pollinatiing bees, and butterflys.
Eat your plastic, rubber-food if you want, but 100% ORGANIC is the best food, now - and always. Why? Taste. Over-all health. And, better Nutirition.
Small scale farms run circles around huge, GMO Agri-businesses in their protection of stewardship of the Land.
The entire GMO sales pitch/onslaught has NOTHING to do with "feeding the hungrey". It has everything to do with controlling where food comes from, and it's market price.
Take your Frankenstein Tomato, from the store - and then taste a fresh organic one from a neighbor's garden. Mr. Lynas "research" is poisoned.
"Science" told us that Agent Orage was safe for our GI's to handle, dump and spray without protection. So many pharmacuticles from the 1950's and 60's have been proven poisonous, even causing cancer. GMO crops, like artificial fertilizers, seem to "work" great, in the beginning of their use. Then, you need MORE fertilizer, and the "harmful insects" that you intend to kill develope immune systems to block the genetic crud in the soil and air, while beneficial insects (and, there are many) are killed. Also killed are birds, pollinatiing bees, and butterflys.
Eat your plastic, rubber-food if you want, but 100% ORGANIC is the best food, now - and always. Why? Taste. Over-all health. And, better Nutirition.
Small scale farms run circles around huge, GMO Agri-businesses in their protection of stewardship of the Land.
The entire GMO sales pitch/onslaught has NOTHING to do with "feeding the hungrey". It has everything to do with controlling where food comes from, and it's market price.
Take your Frankenstein Tomato, from the store - and then taste a fresh organic one from a neighbor's garden. Mr. Lynas "research" is poisoned.
11
In addition to genetic engineering (GMOs). Science also brought us antibiotics, a successful treatment for AIDs, the Computer, Airplanes, etc, and etc......I would be more careful about attacking scientists.
4
I am not "attacking scientists". Where in my comment do you get that? I am concerned with blatant Corporate Profit over Public Health.
The author, Mr. Lynas, is a PAID LOBBYIST for Monsanto. Europe, and small Organic Farms in America are correct here. And why is Agri-Business so afraid of accurate GMO labeling on food products?
"Science" has indeed brought many wonderful things, but, the Monsanto Corporation is not one of them. To have their lobbyist write a "Opinion", like he's just a "regular citizen", is complete garbage - just like the Frankenstein food Monsanto creates.
Accurate journalism deserves better than some corporate goon spouting the company line like it's Gospel. I look at all of the comments, and I am not alone in this opinion, or in the "recommends" around it.
And you got a "Reader's Pick"?? I don't see why.
The author, Mr. Lynas, is a PAID LOBBYIST for Monsanto. Europe, and small Organic Farms in America are correct here. And why is Agri-Business so afraid of accurate GMO labeling on food products?
"Science" has indeed brought many wonderful things, but, the Monsanto Corporation is not one of them. To have their lobbyist write a "Opinion", like he's just a "regular citizen", is complete garbage - just like the Frankenstein food Monsanto creates.
Accurate journalism deserves better than some corporate goon spouting the company line like it's Gospel. I look at all of the comments, and I am not alone in this opinion, or in the "recommends" around it.
And you got a "Reader's Pick"?? I don't see why.
2
Unless you can come up with legitimate scientific proof that GMO crops are actually harmful they should be allowed.
Just because you don't understand something does not give you the right to deny others the right to feed their families.
Just because you don't understand something does not give you the right to deny others the right to feed their families.
7
no one is being "denied the right to feed their families" by a ban on gmo crops...people who are hungry or starving are in that condtiton because they cannot afford to buy food, which is so plentiful we spend billions on it for our pet animals, let alone the ones we feed in order to later eat..this corporate academic excuse for capitalism's continued private profits simply continues the old parson's apologia for wealth in the face of poverty. malthus may not have been the first to say there were too many people but his tradition of excusing rich excess by blaming poor numbers is obviously still strong, only now the party line is to create more chemical food as a supposed answer to declining profits in the artificial food business. wake up and smell the stench from the lab before the billions who go hungry while we overeat decide to make a meal of us.
For some of us the concern about GMO is more about Monsanto and the extended use of RoundUp.
11
Mr Lynas you have been Roundup Ready most of your career.
Could you disclose your consulting assignments in the last ten years?
When someone uses terms like "phobia" to describe legitimate scientific issues you know there is propaganda in the piece. As you know there are many in the academic community you need a private investigator to get their real agenda.
Could you disclose your consulting assignments in the last ten years?
When someone uses terms like "phobia" to describe legitimate scientific issues you know there is propaganda in the piece. As you know there are many in the academic community you need a private investigator to get their real agenda.
19
mr. lynas-how about we dig you up in about 60 years and slap you around a little, once the world sees how short sighted your good intentions are.
2
"CALL it the “Coalition of the prudently cautious.”
And call GMOs Science in the Corporate (rather than the Public) Interest, where the Patent is the only advantage GM crops offer - but only to the patent holder and their allies; certainly NOT to either farmers or consumers.
A far more objective review of the issue can be found here:
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Continuing_Demise_of_GMOs.php
Continuing Demise of GMOs
More than two-thirds of EU nations opted for bans on growing GM crops; Monsanto stocks fell 25 %, losses deepen, and 12 % of workforce slashed Dr Eva Sirinathsinghji and Dr Mae-Wan Ho
"GM crop bans swept across the EU
The majority of EU member states (two-thirds) have decided to “opt-out” of genetically modified (GM) food cultivation after new legislation brought into force this Spring gives individual member state the power to restrict GM cultivation in their own territories....
Concerns over safety, conflict of interest, corrupt regulation, and lack of demand
And call GMOs Science in the Corporate (rather than the Public) Interest, where the Patent is the only advantage GM crops offer - but only to the patent holder and their allies; certainly NOT to either farmers or consumers.
A far more objective review of the issue can be found here:
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Continuing_Demise_of_GMOs.php
Continuing Demise of GMOs
More than two-thirds of EU nations opted for bans on growing GM crops; Monsanto stocks fell 25 %, losses deepen, and 12 % of workforce slashed Dr Eva Sirinathsinghji and Dr Mae-Wan Ho
"GM crop bans swept across the EU
The majority of EU member states (two-thirds) have decided to “opt-out” of genetically modified (GM) food cultivation after new legislation brought into force this Spring gives individual member state the power to restrict GM cultivation in their own territories....
Concerns over safety, conflict of interest, corrupt regulation, and lack of demand
7
New variety of a crtop can be either patented (USA) or protected with a specific IP instruments similar to patent (EU) irrespective of whether it has been developed by transgenesis (ie GMO) or any other more traditional breeding method such as crossbreeding or high doses of chemical mutagen. The only difference with GMO is that the patent can protect some of the methods needed to create transgenic organism because of their relative novelty, however most of these patents has expired already. From farmers point of view there is no difference whether the crop is GM protected variety or non-GM protected viariety.
I will forgive Mr Lynas, since he is published in the New York TImes, for the assertion that it's the rest of the world that is wrong, not the U.S. Big Agri Lobby. I'll just assume he missed the World Health Organization's finding that Glyphosate is "probably carcinogenic," and this piece from the, admittedly obscure New England Journal of Medicine. I mean, what do THEY know anyway. Keep up the good work Mark! http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1505660
18
@H Roark
Thank you for this link to the NEJM article. Every reader of this article ought to take at least a glance at it.
Thank you for this link to the NEJM article. Every reader of this article ought to take at least a glance at it.
2
There are probably many things GMO research can teach us about plants. But if the conclusion is to pour more Roundup and 2,4-D on the food we eat, the investigations have gone off track.
Mr. Lynas may have some valid points, but it's hard to tell as his arguments echo what we heard from tobacco companies for decades. What is the effect on human health and the environment of increasing glyphosate use 250 times, or 2,4-D 10 times? These are dangerous chemicals and one would think throughly investigating
their effects would take place before massive use in the field.
Producing plants that can thrive in a chemical free environment should be the goal. Instead we get crops that are only viable if billions of dollars are spent on pesticides and herbicides, a failure unless the goal is not food but padding the bottom line of chemical companies and agricultural conglomerates.
Mr. Lynas may have some valid points, but it's hard to tell as his arguments echo what we heard from tobacco companies for decades. What is the effect on human health and the environment of increasing glyphosate use 250 times, or 2,4-D 10 times? These are dangerous chemicals and one would think throughly investigating
their effects would take place before massive use in the field.
Producing plants that can thrive in a chemical free environment should be the goal. Instead we get crops that are only viable if billions of dollars are spent on pesticides and herbicides, a failure unless the goal is not food but padding the bottom line of chemical companies and agricultural conglomerates.
2
Planting seedless grapes should be banned. Talk about a frankenfood, the genetic material of seedless grapes has been so severely altered that they can no longer reproduce naturally. If they have mutated so they can't produce seed, who knows what other mutations might have occurred. But they have never been tested for safety and the FDA has never approved them for human consumption. Even worse, what would happen if pollen from the seedless grapes transferred their genetic mutation to other plants growing nearby, thus preventing them from being able to reproduce - all plant life on earth could be threatened.
4
LOL! And don't forget the seedless watermelon ! Seedless fruits are also denying hard working dentists of much needed tooth reconstruction work !
First of all: science has turned against nature. Secondly: science has betrayed humanity, because science has become infiltrated by capital and enslaved by capitalism. Keep up the ban, Europe! Monsanto shall not pass the Atlantic! Therefore we MUST say no to the TPP!
6
Oh my gosh, REALLY? Is this a joke? I mean, you see 9 year old kids in the US with puffy faces and fat bellies. It's almost the rule, and slim and healthy is the exception. When you travel to Europe, the people there don't seem puffy, bloated, and unwell like the Americans. I'm sure this has something to do with keeping their food supply unadulterated. Now...if only the US would take on the GMOs...wishful thinking!
7
To some extent, this hostility to GMOs may be a negative reaction to the harsh, monopolistic practices by Monsanto. Can you blame them?
4
If that was true, then why do so many farmers, the direct customers of GM seeds, continue to choose to use them year in and year out?
Who sponsored this propaganda article. Shame on you NYT. Really? Has anyone looked at the research that Monsanto and the other biotech companies have tried to destroy? Why would anyone think poison in/on our food is what is best for us? Mark Lynas... You are free to eat GMOs and serve them to your family. We want not only to know what is in our food, we want GMOs banned here. We choose clean, organic food free of pesticides and unknown reorganization of various species.
8
When an article begins with "Call it the “Coalition of the Ignorant”, to describe those who have a different opinion, it is hard to expect an objective discussion.
5
Where do GMO seeds come from? What if Monsanto had a crop failure one year?
1
Oh, please.
Good old-fashioned non-GMO seed is free for the taking; one can collect and save some seed from each year's crop for planting the following year. GMO seed must be purchased new every year from the giant biotech corporations. Talk about owing your soul to the company store...
Go European Union. Lead the way on this one.
Good old-fashioned non-GMO seed is free for the taking; one can collect and save some seed from each year's crop for planting the following year. GMO seed must be purchased new every year from the giant biotech corporations. Talk about owing your soul to the company store...
Go European Union. Lead the way on this one.
11
So, your argument is that Farmers are too dumb to realize this? Or could it just possibly be that farmers know what they are doing and find GM crops' benefits outweigh the increase cost in seed? The cost of seed, by the way, is a relatively minor cost of farming.
1
“This decision of a ...Paris talks on climate change”….
Comparing evidence for human-induced climate change and evidence for the lack of health hazards for GMO is nonsense. The difference in the "scale" of these two events are so huge that a comparison makes no sense.
“In essence, Europe has chosen chemistry over biology...crops to be grown”
One of the most feared pests (the “billion dollar bug”), the western corn rootworm, has already (i.e., much before expected) developed resistance to the Bt corn in USA (I think EPA has even withdrawn certain Bt varieties) that makes the technology useless, prompting increased use of pesticides. It is a no-brainer that increased selection would result in development of resistance to any Bt product. We are essentially loosing a natural defense against these pests.
“The data is clear: One study found that G.M.O. cultivation has led to a 40 percent reduction in insecticide spraying worldwide”.
If the data is clear show us a link to that: what is the time frame?
“Shielded from the winds of change...world farming.””
As if American farmers receives no subsidies from US federal government!!
Finally: 1)
Europe is not so important (and so they can afford non-GMO!) for food; and 2) what is Cornell Alliance for Science at Cornell University?
Comparing evidence for human-induced climate change and evidence for the lack of health hazards for GMO is nonsense. The difference in the "scale" of these two events are so huge that a comparison makes no sense.
“In essence, Europe has chosen chemistry over biology...crops to be grown”
One of the most feared pests (the “billion dollar bug”), the western corn rootworm, has already (i.e., much before expected) developed resistance to the Bt corn in USA (I think EPA has even withdrawn certain Bt varieties) that makes the technology useless, prompting increased use of pesticides. It is a no-brainer that increased selection would result in development of resistance to any Bt product. We are essentially loosing a natural defense against these pests.
“The data is clear: One study found that G.M.O. cultivation has led to a 40 percent reduction in insecticide spraying worldwide”.
If the data is clear show us a link to that: what is the time frame?
“Shielded from the winds of change...world farming.””
As if American farmers receives no subsidies from US federal government!!
Finally: 1)
Europe is not so important (and so they can afford non-GMO!) for food; and 2) what is Cornell Alliance for Science at Cornell University?
1
Anti-GMO paranoia on the left is no different than climate and evolution denial on the right. Both stem from ignorance.
2
I believe the left is saying prove that it's harmless first, then feed it to us. In the US we always allow corporations to do what they want and then when it starts hurting people, some brave souls start doing research. Climate change has been proved.
Fracking is an outstanding example of hurt first, they we have to prove that is what's hurting us. The process is backwards but a few people get very rich this way.
Fracking is an outstanding example of hurt first, they we have to prove that is what's hurting us. The process is backwards but a few people get very rich this way.
5
This rush to embrace a diet altered by chemical companies is not only unwise, but potentially deadly.
The rise in autism for one coincides almost directly with the introduction into the food supply of GMO's.
Anyone who blindly accepted the assurances by "scientists" -many of whom receive their foundational support by big chemical companies, is willfully ignorant. There is no danger of food running out on this globe which is their main reasoning behind pushing these business experiments forward and calling them progress
This is about money Plain and simple people and if you take this columnist's words for fact and do not do some basic research on how your food has been changed without your consent or approval, you are placing your health in the hands of people that do not care about poisoning or altering your God given genes and immune system balance. Do some research on how chemical companies are actually more in control of your food supplies than farmers - it's scary
We should proceed with EXTREME CAUTION and public review as well as transparency as it relates to what has been altered and by whom
The rise in autism for one coincides almost directly with the introduction into the food supply of GMO's.
Anyone who blindly accepted the assurances by "scientists" -many of whom receive their foundational support by big chemical companies, is willfully ignorant. There is no danger of food running out on this globe which is their main reasoning behind pushing these business experiments forward and calling them progress
This is about money Plain and simple people and if you take this columnist's words for fact and do not do some basic research on how your food has been changed without your consent or approval, you are placing your health in the hands of people that do not care about poisoning or altering your God given genes and immune system balance. Do some research on how chemical companies are actually more in control of your food supplies than farmers - it's scary
We should proceed with EXTREME CAUTION and public review as well as transparency as it relates to what has been altered and by whom
8
The rise of autism correlates with the rise of cell phones. So put down your smartphones, people.
I live in an area where GMO/biotech crops are grown, and surprise - I don't know of any of my neighbors' children who have autism. Why are autism rates not higher for biotech farmers?
People who work in biotech EAT. The ones I know, eat biotech foods. They are safer than 'organic' foods, since they have been tested BEFORE they reach the table, not after they caused a health problem. Of course you don't trust the FDA either, (nor are they infallible), but then, what/who do you trust?
Nature isn't a benign 'being' for our enjoyment. Spend a few days out in it without technology (Naked and Afraid?), and see how you feel about it.
I live in an area where GMO/biotech crops are grown, and surprise - I don't know of any of my neighbors' children who have autism. Why are autism rates not higher for biotech farmers?
People who work in biotech EAT. The ones I know, eat biotech foods. They are safer than 'organic' foods, since they have been tested BEFORE they reach the table, not after they caused a health problem. Of course you don't trust the FDA either, (nor are they infallible), but then, what/who do you trust?
Nature isn't a benign 'being' for our enjoyment. Spend a few days out in it without technology (Naked and Afraid?), and see how you feel about it.
Sorry NYT. I used to respect and admire you (still do Paul Krugman!).
You NEVER print my opinions anymore because they are critical of your editorial line supporting oligarchy and power concentration and yet when Jill Abramson was editor 90+% of my letter got printed. Now it's about 5%
You have become no longer a source of news and information but of innuendo, half truths and shilling for the 1% and war mongering as you totally biased pro Hillary and Anti Sanders articles and blaming the Palestinians for Bibi's outrageous behavior (holocaust denial) prove.
The same for the UK Guardian. You do not sort comments by their thoughtfulness but by their ideology and how it fits in with your manipulation of opinion. AS Professor Chomski put it you 'manufacture consent' Disgraceful And yes I have wasted my time writing here again. Even vile FOX let me say what I want!
You NEVER print my opinions anymore because they are critical of your editorial line supporting oligarchy and power concentration and yet when Jill Abramson was editor 90+% of my letter got printed. Now it's about 5%
You have become no longer a source of news and information but of innuendo, half truths and shilling for the 1% and war mongering as you totally biased pro Hillary and Anti Sanders articles and blaming the Palestinians for Bibi's outrageous behavior (holocaust denial) prove.
The same for the UK Guardian. You do not sort comments by their thoughtfulness but by their ideology and how it fits in with your manipulation of opinion. AS Professor Chomski put it you 'manufacture consent' Disgraceful And yes I have wasted my time writing here again. Even vile FOX let me say what I want!
5
“What about the herbicide-resistant weeds…?” It is true that weeds and plant pathogens themselves adapt to overcome the traits acquired through genetic engineering. But GM can confer tolerance to various kinds of abiotic stress such as salinity, drought, etc. where the advantage would not be lost over time.
“Everything is always perfectly safe, until it isn’t. We only have to look at thalidomide, DDT, PCB… ” Thalidomide, DDT and PCB were new products that we had little experience with at the time of their introduction. We are familiar with foreign DNA in our food because we consume it with every meal. When we eat a piece of chicken, that’s chicken DNA we are eating. When we munch a piece of vegetable, that’s vegetable DNA, foreign to our own make-up. You have to be a very strict cannibal not to consume foreign DNA.
“If GMO is such a terrific idea, why (is) the industry … against GMO labelling?” It’s for the same reason an employer is not allowed to ask a prospective employee at an interview whether he or she is HIV-positive. That information has nothing to do with the job (unless it’s at the blood bank), but may constitute prejudice against the interviewee.
“Everything is always perfectly safe, until it isn’t. We only have to look at thalidomide, DDT, PCB… ” Thalidomide, DDT and PCB were new products that we had little experience with at the time of their introduction. We are familiar with foreign DNA in our food because we consume it with every meal. When we eat a piece of chicken, that’s chicken DNA we are eating. When we munch a piece of vegetable, that’s vegetable DNA, foreign to our own make-up. You have to be a very strict cannibal not to consume foreign DNA.
“If GMO is such a terrific idea, why (is) the industry … against GMO labelling?” It’s for the same reason an employer is not allowed to ask a prospective employee at an interview whether he or she is HIV-positive. That information has nothing to do with the job (unless it’s at the blood bank), but may constitute prejudice against the interviewee.
3
Mister Lynas, why are the honey bees disappearing?
5
I'm disappointed that the Times gave a forum to this pro GMO claptrap.
11
I have to agree with Brad and many other people who have posted here. I'm disappointed. First, aren't we really NOT talking about crops like lettuce, broccoli or peas that are directly consumed by humans and ACTUALLY talking about the corn and soybeans monocrops that "GMO scientists" (you can insert multinational chemical corporation names like Monsanto and Du Pont here) have rendered "Roundup Ready" (resistant to the "GMO scientists" brand of herbicide). Hence Yeang's question regrading herbicide resistant weeds (much like the antibacterial resistant super-diseases found in hospitals all across america).
Monoculture led by the "GMO scientists" arrogant position on patenting lifeforms and selling them at monopoly owning prices and litigating out of business every farmer that does does not want to use these seeds ... super-weeds and the eventual strain of disease or blight that the "GMO scientists" have not adequately prepared for that will decimate the monocrops worldwide and leave the food supply nonexistent. I believe these are what the Europeans, thinking Americans and the NYT are and should be worried about.
Monoculture led by the "GMO scientists" arrogant position on patenting lifeforms and selling them at monopoly owning prices and litigating out of business every farmer that does does not want to use these seeds ... super-weeds and the eventual strain of disease or blight that the "GMO scientists" have not adequately prepared for that will decimate the monocrops worldwide and leave the food supply nonexistent. I believe these are what the Europeans, thinking Americans and the NYT are and should be worried about.
2
This article's author spent years attacking the science of GMOs, and even took part in the vandalism of GE crops.
He admitted, according to Wikipedia, "... in 2008, I was still penning screeds in the Guardian attacking the science of GM – even though I had done no academic research on the topic, and had a pretty limited personal understanding. I don’t think I’d ever read a peer-reviewed paper on biotechnology or plant science..."
In fact, Mark Lynas had an outsized influence on the GMO debate, and has a corresponding responsibility for the anti-scientific positions he now wants to criticize. But the past doesn't wash off this easily.
He admitted, according to Wikipedia, "... in 2008, I was still penning screeds in the Guardian attacking the science of GM – even though I had done no academic research on the topic, and had a pretty limited personal understanding. I don’t think I’d ever read a peer-reviewed paper on biotechnology or plant science..."
In fact, Mark Lynas had an outsized influence on the GMO debate, and has a corresponding responsibility for the anti-scientific positions he now wants to criticize. But the past doesn't wash off this easily.
2
So difficult, isn't it? We humans walk on a tightrope and don't know it, with opinion trumping ignorance at every turn. Thanks for making this point.
1
Better late than never. He at least has admitted the errors of his ways. I call that intellecual integrity.
1
This piece is clearly one-sided, and stridently so, starting with the first sentence: CALL it the “Coalition of the Ignorant.”. The author Mark Lynas doesn’t even pretend to consider all the evidence. There are reasons for concern about GMOs, but not even a whisper of these appear in his piece. Did Mr. Lynas ever take a science course? His educational background is a degree in history and politics from the University of Edinburgh (wikipedia). Maybe he learned the tactics of the “bully pulpit” from these areas of study, where the “bullying” is done from the “pulpit” of assumed superiority, where no superiority in fact exists.
However, he does apparently change his positions and opinions: "he now felt that several of his previous strongly held beliefs were wrong. For example, he suggested that opposition by environmentalists, such as himself, to the development of nuclear energy had speeded up climate change, and that GM crops were necessary to feed the world” (wikipedia) Note the use of the words “ let” and “belief.” This is the opposite of a scientific conclusion, based upon all the available evidence. I would like to see more of those, and far fewer “beliefs” from the bully pulpit.
However, he does apparently change his positions and opinions: "he now felt that several of his previous strongly held beliefs were wrong. For example, he suggested that opposition by environmentalists, such as himself, to the development of nuclear energy had speeded up climate change, and that GM crops were necessary to feed the world” (wikipedia) Note the use of the words “ let” and “belief.” This is the opposite of a scientific conclusion, based upon all the available evidence. I would like to see more of those, and far fewer “beliefs” from the bully pulpit.
3
"There are reasons for concern about GMOs, but not even a whisper of these appear in his piece"...If their are legitimate reasons for concern why didn't you name one?
1
"Turned against science"?? Nonsense. They've turned against a product, and business, that results from an undesirable process. Absolutely NOTHING wrong with that. Coalition of the ignorant? Hardly.
6
Hahahahaha. What could possibly go wrong when hubristic engineers and a massive profit motive (NOT a science motive) tinker with DNA?
If you will not submit your seeds to the corporate overlords, you are phobic! Ha!
If you will not submit your seeds to the corporate overlords, you are phobic! Ha!
11
When an article begins with "Call it the “Coalition of the Ignorant", as a description of those who have an alternative viewpoint, it is hard to expect an objective discussion.
Can this important issue be talked about without immediately labelling other perspectives as negative ?
For the time being, until the controversy is settled, can the groceries be marked 'GMO' or 'non-GMO', whichever, so that the consumer knows what is being bought?
Can this important issue be talked about without immediately labelling other perspectives as negative ?
For the time being, until the controversy is settled, can the groceries be marked 'GMO' or 'non-GMO', whichever, so that the consumer knows what is being bought?
5
IS THERE ANY CREDIBLE EVIDENCE THAT GMOs ARE DANGEROUS? . . .
Since I am not aware of any (and, I keep in touch with current scientific findings), then is this the result of an irrational thinking process which emanates from the pseudo-sophisticated and well educated persons who reject Western medicine in favor of alternative modalities as their belief system is what is considered to be "hip" du jour?
Most Americans and peoples from other European nations have little knowledge of science and its methods and how to draw conclusions.
This reminds me of the kind of person who rejects free New York water and spends money on bottled water ... where often the company just creates a marketable plastic bottle and a fancy name filled with tap water...
Since I am not aware of any (and, I keep in touch with current scientific findings), then is this the result of an irrational thinking process which emanates from the pseudo-sophisticated and well educated persons who reject Western medicine in favor of alternative modalities as their belief system is what is considered to be "hip" du jour?
Most Americans and peoples from other European nations have little knowledge of science and its methods and how to draw conclusions.
This reminds me of the kind of person who rejects free New York water and spends money on bottled water ... where often the company just creates a marketable plastic bottle and a fancy name filled with tap water...
7
My mother is celiac, lactose intolerant, allergic to soy and other complications. I'm pretty sure it is because she used Sevin, aka Agent Orange (and hoarded it to use when it went off the market). Now I have a vague idea that this is related to glyphosate, but at this point I cannot support that. However, despite my agreement that GMO phobia is overdone, I think too little is said about how often these allergies arise from excessive use of pesticides.
It's hard to be on the fence, but this is a serious issue, not as well known or understood as I believe it should be.
It's hard to be on the fence, but this is a serious issue, not as well known or understood as I believe it should be.
3
It is interesting to compare this to a similar pseudo-scientific hysteria about cell phones. The fears about cell phones have gradually been relegated to the lunatic fringe, while the anti-GMO movement has gone main stream. There are also similarities with global warming denial, anti-vaccination, anti-fluoridation, creationism, 9-11 truthers, UFO believers, etc, etc.
4
You might have added fear of Marconi's invention, the radio. Lack of understanding of radio waves led to all sorts of claims that it involved devilish hocus-pocus. Fear is a powerful tool.
So many comments conflate the technology (GMOs) with the companies (like Monsanto) that use the technologies on a large scale. This is like saying that all diesel engines (a technology) should be banned because Volkswagen (a big company) used them badly.
GMOs come from our understanding of the fundamental mechanisms of living cells. In the last century we've also developed a fundamental understanding of atoms, the building blocks of matter. This understanding has given us the ability to use radioisotopes as tools resulting in life saving medical diagnostic imaging and treatments (all good), in nuclear power (reasonable people disagree), and in nuclear weapons (horrific). The idea of banning all GMOs because the technology can be used badly by companies (and I'd argue that this is an area where reasonable people disagree) is similar to arguing that we should ban the use of radioisotopes in medicine because they can also be used to make nuclear weapons. It does not hold up and comes from a place of fear, not understanding.
GMOs come from our understanding of the fundamental mechanisms of living cells. In the last century we've also developed a fundamental understanding of atoms, the building blocks of matter. This understanding has given us the ability to use radioisotopes as tools resulting in life saving medical diagnostic imaging and treatments (all good), in nuclear power (reasonable people disagree), and in nuclear weapons (horrific). The idea of banning all GMOs because the technology can be used badly by companies (and I'd argue that this is an area where reasonable people disagree) is similar to arguing that we should ban the use of radioisotopes in medicine because they can also be used to make nuclear weapons. It does not hold up and comes from a place of fear, not understanding.
10
Yes. GMOs are safe. So is nuclear power.
But cars and guns and cigarettes are very dangerous.
But cars and guns and cigarettes are very dangerous.
4
I'd agree, mostly, but with caveats. Unfortunately, current generation 2 nuclear has a problem with waste that depends on maintenance of infrastructure, and the prejudice against nuclear has prevented progress in updating.
However, the continuing issues with nuclear waste are beggared by the problems with global warming and nuclear could be part of the solution.
Same with GMOs, there are some issues with power and management, and it is not all one thing. Too many pesticides and ignorance of how fast insects evolve to be resistant. Finding a way to make farmers pay for seeds again and again. Persecuting farmers who choose to do otherwise. However, in general, GMOs are beneficial.
However, the continuing issues with nuclear waste are beggared by the problems with global warming and nuclear could be part of the solution.
Same with GMOs, there are some issues with power and management, and it is not all one thing. Too many pesticides and ignorance of how fast insects evolve to be resistant. Finding a way to make farmers pay for seeds again and again. Persecuting farmers who choose to do otherwise. However, in general, GMOs are beneficial.
1
How can being against G.M.O products be anti-science? GMO plants were created so they could tolerate ever increasing amounts of applied pesticides, including the latest variety harmful to pollinators and humans alike. Pesticides are also linked to birth defects, autism, and cancer, so Mark are you wholeheartedly supporting the free -range use of pesticides? You sir, are anti- healthy human, pro- illness. Take a step back and read what you're saying. Prohibitions against GMO will force our bio-chemical companies and Big Agra to do better and more in-depth research for anti pest products that don't destroy our bodies and our beneficial insect population. BTW, just was is "political director" for the Cornell Alliance for Science do? A PR consultant maybe?
7
The author states: "The worldwide scientific consensus on the safety of genetic engineering is as solid as that which underpins human-caused global warming. Yet this inconvenient truth on G.M.O.s — that they’re as safe as conventionally cultivated food — is ignored when ideological interests are threatened." Where is the evidence of "the worldwide scientific consensus"? His unabashed yet unsupported insistence on the safety raises red flags. And what does "as safe as conventionally cultivated food" mean? As other readers have commented, pesticides pose a safety threat.
3
"Pesticides pose a safety threat?" Organic agriculture uses pesticides. Conventional, non-GMO, agriculture uses pesticides. FYI, the use of GMOs has brought about a drop in pesticide use. Plus we use less land to produce more food meaning more land is kept in a natural state. Plus the use of glyphosate resistant crops means less tillage which means less erosion. Plus, plus, plus....Unfortunately this debate is being hijacked by self-interested disingenuous ignorami whose vision is being defined by what is offered on the shelf at Whole Foods, and the poison offered on the conspiracy pages of the internet.
Organic Agriculture does NOT use pesticides, of any kind, or at any time. That is the point. The taste, nutrition, and quality of produce is ALWAYS better when it it 100% Organic.
1
Good to see the NY Times carry a sensible Op-Ed piece on modern agricultural practices. From the comments made by readers so far, you need to do more to help overcome the hysterical and unfounded fears of the Neo-Luddites.
2
The tone of discourse in recent Times editorials has dramatically deteriorated, perhaps on par with society in general. Does everyone with whom the writer disagrees have to be termed "ignorant ... Hypocrites ... Crazies"? These same terms seem to fit whatever we are uncomfortable with lately - whether it be disagreements about GMOs, climate change, politics, religion. Does the Times really have to contribute to such polarization? The only truism that generally holds is that those most sure that they are right are usually wrong.
6
Calling GMO bans "unscientific" goes as a standalone argument nowadays? Instead, I would expect a discussion of why either Montsantos roundup ready is a great product, or why future GMOs will be much better. This is just a GMO shill let lose on the world on the honored pages of the NY Times.
4
I am so tired of science and not science argument. Just show me a clinical trial where a group of people ate only gmo food for a period of weeks or months. Where is this trial? What were the results. Isn't this kind of radical new technology deserving of at least ONE clinical trial? Lets see some real life data.
2
GMO crops push a lot of our buttons about food safety, corporate motives, and health policy. I hope readers will consider the points in this piece and take the time to read what journalists Will Saletan and Nathanael Johnson have written elsewhere after their extensive, impartial reporting on GMOs.
Follow the money. INDUSTRY uses science to make a profit. Then, when people raise concerns often equally based on science, industry goes on to label them as "anti-science" in an attempt to shame and discredit them.
Characterizing the people of Europe as being "ignorant" is insulting. Considering the state of diseases in the USA, maybe people in the US should look to other countries for wisdom.
Characterizing the people of Europe as being "ignorant" is insulting. Considering the state of diseases in the USA, maybe people in the US should look to other countries for wisdom.
6
It is outrages that NYT gives space to a Monsanto lobbyist. Even many American businesses are touting anti-GMO as their differentiators. But no, let's pollute GMO debate with Russophobic hysteria as obviously scientific evidence alone is not sufficient.
4
Concern is labeled hysteria. One who questions is accused of being anti-scientific. The worldwide scientific consensus on the safety of genetic engineering is solid only in the minds of those who write for websites like https://gmoanswers.com, which of course is funded by the members of The Council for Biotechnology Information, which includes BASF, Bayer CropScience, Dow AgroSciences, DuPont, Monsanto Company and Syngenta. No surprise there. And what corporate entities fund the Cornell Alliance for Science at Cornell University? Have we really not learned that corporations are not benign and that corporate interests come down to $$$?
5
One cannot say that "GMO crops are safe food," because so few long-term studies have been done, and the "crops" come with enormous environmental damage to birds, insects, soil arthropods, etc. from ever-increasing pesticides. GMO crops are LESS productive than plants grown with methods like SRI and they cause mineral deficiencies in soils and plants. Lynas and other commenters repeat the same arguments from Monsanto’s emails and funded websites, in a carefully orchestrated juggernaut. They are evangelists promoting a technology, not the scientific method, and they are shameless attackers of skeptics (like the scientist who warned about atrazine) http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/02/10/140210fa_fact_aviv?printab...¤tPage=all. Soprano-like tactics and huge funds to promote friendly research at universities and support traveling evangelists like the "Alliance for Science," they can win over a lot of funded and fearful scientists. But even with their well-funded congressional effort to pass the DARK act prohibiting state gmo labeling laws, they will lose in the long run.
Lynas is a propagandist, not a scientist, and one wonders why the Times gave him this column.
Lynas is a propagandist, not a scientist, and one wonders why the Times gave him this column.
2
I found this article to be shallow, biased, and unconvincing, and below the usual standards for the New York Times.
6
This article is pure fact-free propaganda, and an insult to Times readers' intelligence.
11
'Fact free'? There are plenty of facts given; evidently they are not of the sort you want. The author says plenty about the political expediencies of European actions, all of which are facts. His argument is not about the relative merits of GMOs; that's a settled issue in his mind. And yes, it does lobby a particular point of view, which is why it is on the *opinion* page.
I'm glad I don't have to worry about GMOs in France - it's just another reason to like it better here than in the USA.
4
Wow, has some NYT dept gone rouge.
You can't be against science. You can't be against the science of how a
combustion engine works. But you can be against how that science
is implimented, meaning technology.
Separating the two (technology/science) i guess is bad for business.
You can't be against science. You can't be against the science of how a
combustion engine works. But you can be against how that science
is implimented, meaning technology.
Separating the two (technology/science) i guess is bad for business.
5
Putting all GMO crops in one basket is crazy. I share the concern about Roundup and Roundup-ready crops, but there are so many other useful products we take for granted. It is unfortunate that there are so many scared closed minds on this subject, and on nuclear energy. Monsanto carries some of the blame, as like all powerful entities, it has become focused on power and control over time.
Bearing in mind that insects evolve faster than we do, it is crazy to use more and more powerful chemicals, many of them emerging as carcinogens, to make big agriculture work for profit without regard to the consequences.
But I mostly agree that we undermine our need for progress away from uniform factory farming with profits concentrated for the few by giving the impression we are against progress.
And can we please stop with assuming everyone who holds a different opinion is bought and paid for? It undermines progress by polarizing. Someone who is speaking from convictions is not going to listen to someone who claims they are doing it for the money. This is childish. Make arguments, not accusations.
Bearing in mind that insects evolve faster than we do, it is crazy to use more and more powerful chemicals, many of them emerging as carcinogens, to make big agriculture work for profit without regard to the consequences.
But I mostly agree that we undermine our need for progress away from uniform factory farming with profits concentrated for the few by giving the impression we are against progress.
And can we please stop with assuming everyone who holds a different opinion is bought and paid for? It undermines progress by polarizing. Someone who is speaking from convictions is not going to listen to someone who claims they are doing it for the money. This is childish. Make arguments, not accusations.
4
About 98% of GMO crops are Round-up ready.
As a general matter, the unchained, potted liberati, here and elsewhere, choose their politically correct totems intelligently; or at least defensibly. Once in a while, though ...
1
How paternalistic of you to make this pronouncement.
The American record on consumer protection is hardly stellar. There are MANY, MANY substances that are banned in Europe that are routinely used in American farming. There are many animal protection laws in place in Europe that are unheard of in the USA. Do you really think that companies such as Monsanto are not involved in making claims such as the one made by your columnist?
I would not want to eat your food.
The American record on consumer protection is hardly stellar. There are MANY, MANY substances that are banned in Europe that are routinely used in American farming. There are many animal protection laws in place in Europe that are unheard of in the USA. Do you really think that companies such as Monsanto are not involved in making claims such as the one made by your columnist?
I would not want to eat your food.
7
Who is W. A. Spitzer from Faywood New Mexico? I don't see you listing your credentials, nor studies linked to GMO's or RoundUp.
I did find this comment you made in the past on an article by Richard Conniff : "it is not only important for us to protect what exists in our natural world, it is equally important for us to study the natural world and to understand in detail how it works. W.A. Spitzer, Faywood, NM"
So which is it Mr. Spitzer? Protrect our natural world, or Frankenfood???
Face it, we Europeans prefer nature over biotech when it comes to our food and the production of it. Ever hear of the centuries old practice of crop rotation to prevent plant disease, to conserve soil health and to eliminate the need for pesticides?
The NY Times forum is for respectful commentary, not your shrill and condescending commentary directed at individuals who participate. If that is how you "get off", there is plenty of that on MSN.
I did find this comment you made in the past on an article by Richard Conniff : "it is not only important for us to protect what exists in our natural world, it is equally important for us to study the natural world and to understand in detail how it works. W.A. Spitzer, Faywood, NM"
So which is it Mr. Spitzer? Protrect our natural world, or Frankenfood???
Face it, we Europeans prefer nature over biotech when it comes to our food and the production of it. Ever hear of the centuries old practice of crop rotation to prevent plant disease, to conserve soil health and to eliminate the need for pesticides?
The NY Times forum is for respectful commentary, not your shrill and condescending commentary directed at individuals who participate. If that is how you "get off", there is plenty of that on MSN.
3
Why does the New York Times publish such transparent bullying coming from a shill for the petrochemical industry? And this isn't the first article of its kind published by the Times. Why is "the paper of record" so egregiously one-sided about this issue? No matter what the author says, many scientists have deep concerns about GMO experimentation and crops. The editorial staff of the Times should do a little research first. There are many reports in mainstream science raising alarms both about the safety of present GMO foods and the unknown consequences for the future. And at this very moment, Congress is set to dismiss the legitimate concerns of a large and growing number of Americans with the DARK Act which refuses to allow labeling of GMO ingredients in the food you eat. Educate yourselves. Tell your Congressperson to vote against it!
2
@free range: "... a shill for the petrochemical industry?"
The Cornell Alliance for Science is supported by a $5.6 million grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.[1]
BTW, Monsanto is an agribusiness, not a petrochemical company.[2]
[1] Per web search for "Cornell Alliance for Science".
[2] Per web search for "Monsanto".
The Cornell Alliance for Science is supported by a $5.6 million grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.[1]
BTW, Monsanto is an agribusiness, not a petrochemical company.[2]
[1] Per web search for "Cornell Alliance for Science".
[2] Per web search for "Monsanto".
GMO=Money - and in the case of GMOs that's the driver, not science.
The US is the number 1 exporter of agricultural produce - big on GMOs as a handful of US companies own the patents to monetize it (i.e. prevent any farmer that didn't pay for it from using the variety or improve it through breeding).
the number 2 exporter, tiny Holland (about the size of Maryland), has serious misgivings about the push for GMOs for this very reason.
Do you blame them?
The US is the number 1 exporter of agricultural produce - big on GMOs as a handful of US companies own the patents to monetize it (i.e. prevent any farmer that didn't pay for it from using the variety or improve it through breeding).
the number 2 exporter, tiny Holland (about the size of Maryland), has serious misgivings about the push for GMOs for this very reason.
Do you blame them?
1
Well, it's your opinion, Mark. Frnakly, I'm with the EU. I won't go near GMO food if I can help it. I try to eat organic all the time (and it's hard when I go out to eat). No GMO, no Frankenfood. No Monsanto!
3
"The new anti-G.M.O. policy aligns Europe with some unsavory allies." If this sort of ad hominem argument is the best the author can offer, I think it best to continue avoiding GMO foods.
3
Sensible European farmers will smuggle in GMO seeds for their higher yields. They are probably doing this even now.
More power to them!
More power to them!
2
History will conclude that G.M.O.s are to the decline of the American Empire as the use of Lead lined drinking water systems and lead compounds for artificial sweeteners is to the decline of the Roman Empire. Europeans are anti-science?? they have left America far behind in scientific research Mr Lynas, you should get out more often!!
3
This is a fine article. Thanks for bringing a little sanity to the conversation.
6
This might be an "opinion" piece, but it is surprising, or perhaps not, that the New York Times gives Mark Lynas space for such a one-side piece of writing. Some commenters have already pointed out that the issues are far more complex than stated here. Much is not black and white, and we need in-depth, investigative articles on the use and marketing of GMOs by the NYT, not just a mouthpiece for the industry. I suggest the NYT readers Google Mark Lynas' name and read up on his so-called conversation, in order to get a more balanced view.
2
When they put a partisan "blog" like this on the front page, I think the New York Times should also run an article by one of the authorities who have provided scientific proof of the dangers of GMOs.
There are many.
E.g. http://www.independentsciencenews.org/news/how-extreme-levels-of-roundup...
There are many.
E.g. http://www.independentsciencenews.org/news/how-extreme-levels-of-roundup...
5
You all reject science on this issue but insist on it concerning global warming. The left is just as bad as the right.
2
So only the left likes healthy food?
I am appalled at the paranoid response to this article. Welcome to the democratization of truth brought to you by the internet.
6
Monsanto-"The Seed's Creator" (thank you Tim B,like that!)
There is so much more to this topic that is going on in Europe than this opinion touches on. A larger picture will be the effect that the TTIP (Tran-Atlantic Investment Pact) will have in Europe,particularly in agriculture. Ironic that Britain and South Africa do want to cultivate GMO's,perhaps there is a good reason for these two bed fellows.As far as the rest of Africa,a little soil and Water would go a long way.
Europe is not setting itself against modern science as you state.It's just not doing or agreeing with what you want.
Is there a difference between cross-breeding plants and removing or injecting genes in plants?Not just on the plants but the resulting effects on the eco system.Just stop and think about the chemicals you put on your lawn.
Why does Monsanto say we'll use less chemical yet they want to buy one of the worlds largest chemical companies?(Syngenta in Switzerland)
Does Monsanto want to become the worlds largest and only owner of Agriculture in the world?They own/have purchased seed companies,want to own more chemical companies,want Patent Rights,contracts on "their" products, ect.
They don't want the land they want to own everything that grows on land. Who wants a company owning what Europe grows?or America or the world?
Monsanto is heavily involved in the TPP and TTIP,only it has been kept out of the press.They are working on it hard and your article sounds like you are trying too.
There is so much more to this topic that is going on in Europe than this opinion touches on. A larger picture will be the effect that the TTIP (Tran-Atlantic Investment Pact) will have in Europe,particularly in agriculture. Ironic that Britain and South Africa do want to cultivate GMO's,perhaps there is a good reason for these two bed fellows.As far as the rest of Africa,a little soil and Water would go a long way.
Europe is not setting itself against modern science as you state.It's just not doing or agreeing with what you want.
Is there a difference between cross-breeding plants and removing or injecting genes in plants?Not just on the plants but the resulting effects on the eco system.Just stop and think about the chemicals you put on your lawn.
Why does Monsanto say we'll use less chemical yet they want to buy one of the worlds largest chemical companies?(Syngenta in Switzerland)
Does Monsanto want to become the worlds largest and only owner of Agriculture in the world?They own/have purchased seed companies,want to own more chemical companies,want Patent Rights,contracts on "their" products, ect.
They don't want the land they want to own everything that grows on land. Who wants a company owning what Europe grows?or America or the world?
Monsanto is heavily involved in the TPP and TTIP,only it has been kept out of the press.They are working on it hard and your article sounds like you are trying too.
3
The author conveniently doesn't disclose who funds his research. His agri-business masters are surely pleased with his "work" and are now taking him out for the best tasting steak: grass-fed organic.
5
GMO is about Big Money. When Big Money gets involved it can buy as much science and as many scientists as it wants, and of course it can buy the government regulators. In such a case you need to do a little research on your own. You will find that it is not considered to be good for you to eat carcinogenic insecticides such as Roundup, which are likely to be applied generously to most DMO foodcrops. You will also find that DMOs contain weird proteins which do not occur in nature and that many scientists are worried about the possible effects. You will also find that the fix was in when GMOs were said to be proven safe, because most experiments were carefully designed to avoid detecting bad effects. So don't get fooled by phony commercial 'science'. Look before you leap.
4
This article makes the mistake (hubris) of equating commerce with science.
6
Industrial agriculture: kills jobs, kills the land, tortures animals, generates vast amounts of crummy food.
Fat Europeans in their SUVs.
Heard at Tour d'Argent: "Does M'sieu like high fructose corn syrup weece heez espresso?"
Fat Europeans in their SUVs.
Heard at Tour d'Argent: "Does M'sieu like high fructose corn syrup weece heez espresso?"
If GMO's are so safe then why does Monsanto and other greedy corporations spend millions trying to prevent any attempt to properly label GMO's ?
Why are they afraid of giving consumers a choice ?
I am willing to pay more for non GMO products but how can I tell if its not on the box ? enough of these corporations who only care about the bottom line
Why are they afraid of giving consumers a choice ?
I am willing to pay more for non GMO products but how can I tell if its not on the box ? enough of these corporations who only care about the bottom line
2
Does Lynas receive grants from Monsanto &/or other agribiz giants? Smells like it. This is an agit prop piece that leaves out more facts than those it claims to promote. Hardly balanced. Many allegations, so few proofs provided.
3
The GMO backlash is largely based on vague notions of "Frankenfoods", but there is validity to questioning and even opposing select business practices of major ag companies.
4
Mark Bittman, where are you??? Please, everyone read "Stop Making Us Guinea Pigs" (NYT, Mark Bittman, March 25, 2015). The active ingredient in Roundup, glyphosate, was recently found to cause cancer. I have personally suffered serious health effects which I strongly suspect are linked to GMOs, and am very thankful to spend much of my time in Europe where lawmakers are more cautious and protective of our fundamental rights to choose to purchase and eat clean, unadulterated foods. The risks here are simply too great. Scientists are getting ahead of themselves out of enthusiasm and/or economic interest, while our protectors at the FDA are agribusiness insiders and/or ill-equipped to do their jobs.
I was shocked to see this one-sided editorial in the NYT. Bring back Mark Bittman please!!!!
I was shocked to see this one-sided editorial in the NYT. Bring back Mark Bittman please!!!!
3
Who knows what's true about GMOs? But this piece is a classic tar-the-opposition effort, discrediting the other side as hypocritical and ignorant. Unworthy of the field we still call admiringly "science."
6
"Coalition of the ignorant"?
The author should be thanked for insulting those of us who simply prefer to know what is in our food and where it comes from. The arrogance inherent in the insult completely encapsulates the treatment of us lowly peasants – I mean people – by Big Agra and its powerful lobbyists.
The author should be thanked for insulting those of us who simply prefer to know what is in our food and where it comes from. The arrogance inherent in the insult completely encapsulates the treatment of us lowly peasants – I mean people – by Big Agra and its powerful lobbyists.
4
Wow, has some NYT dept gone rogue.
You can't be against science. You can't be against the science of how a
combustion engine works. But you can be against how that science is implemented, meaning technology.
Separating the two (technology+science) I guess is bad for business.
You can't be against science. You can't be against the science of how a
combustion engine works. But you can be against how that science is implemented, meaning technology.
Separating the two (technology+science) I guess is bad for business.
3
Yes, all those benefits of GMO crops sound great.
I think I'll wait a century or two to make sure they work the bugs out.
I think I'll wait a century or two to make sure they work the bugs out.
4
Same old pathetic story Mr Lynas ....those sadly ignorant people that are anti science. This isn't working anymore,we are tired of your degenerate chemical/seed/food business practices-degenerating our food, the soil, the water, our health but I see you've noticed the rest of the world is on to "corporate science" and would rather not be force fed it. Let us decide what we want to eat and feed our children.
3
The declaration that GMO foods are safe is not based on science. In 1992, the FDA declared that GMO foods are substantially similar to ordinary foods, without testing to determine this. The FDA leaves it to the manufacturer to determine that the food is safe. Some or many GMO foods may indeed be safe. But no one really knows for sure. Absent advances in biochemical knowledge that would enable us to know, precisely, how a GMO food will interact with the machinery of human cells (and we are not at that state of knowledge), the only way to know is by testing, by experimentation. Such testing would be difficult, perhaps impossible. It could take generations. But in reality we're all guinea pigs in a huge experiement.
Genetic modificaitons are very different. Some involve a tiny change from the natural variety, perhaps the change of a solitary base pair in the DNA. Others involve incorporation of whole new genes.
The author of the present article seems just beside himself that Europe has rejected GMOs. He seems desperate to paint Europe as foolishly endangering itself. But the Europeans are just fine with what they've decided to do. They've survived for millennia without GMOs, and they want to keep surviving and keep thriving.
Safe or unsafe - it's my food. Why shouldn't I have the right to decide what food I will ingest into my body, and to choose whether I will be a guinea pig? And to decide that, I have to know what's in my food.
1.usa.gov/1clzRCk
bit.ly/1i4P6Wy
bit.ly/1OOxz3m
Genetic modificaitons are very different. Some involve a tiny change from the natural variety, perhaps the change of a solitary base pair in the DNA. Others involve incorporation of whole new genes.
The author of the present article seems just beside himself that Europe has rejected GMOs. He seems desperate to paint Europe as foolishly endangering itself. But the Europeans are just fine with what they've decided to do. They've survived for millennia without GMOs, and they want to keep surviving and keep thriving.
Safe or unsafe - it's my food. Why shouldn't I have the right to decide what food I will ingest into my body, and to choose whether I will be a guinea pig? And to decide that, I have to know what's in my food.
1.usa.gov/1clzRCk
bit.ly/1i4P6Wy
bit.ly/1OOxz3m
2
Thank god for the comments section - would have been a useless article without them.
4
We don't want to eat your Frankenfood as we know that humans live very well without it. And we certainly don't want some GMO seed producer to control our food supply.
3
This is a good ploy by the NYTs to get people up and shouting out about how ridiculous Lynas has become in his love affair all of a sudden with GMOs. I would say some money has passed hands somewhere to make that happen, as it has with most of chemical industries and their paid "scientific institutions" and lobbyists.
And just in time, as the Senate prepares to vote on a bill passed by the House, to simply allow labeling of GMOs in food items. The DARK Act. The Senate doesn't seem to be very well informed except by Monsanto and industry lobbyists.
This is a free and informed country, is it not? We do have a right to know about what goes into and on our bodies, is that not true in the United State of America? Are we not allowed as individuals to make our own choices about food and chemicals, just like we have made choices not to eat trans fats, or sugar? If GMOs are so good for us, why to they want to hide it from labeling ? It is no longer a GRAS (generally recognized as safe: FDA abbrev.).
Tomorrow, I want to see the rebuttal opinion of this, although I hope there will be a million citizen-rebuttals here, as there have already been in the world!
And just in time, as the Senate prepares to vote on a bill passed by the House, to simply allow labeling of GMOs in food items. The DARK Act. The Senate doesn't seem to be very well informed except by Monsanto and industry lobbyists.
This is a free and informed country, is it not? We do have a right to know about what goes into and on our bodies, is that not true in the United State of America? Are we not allowed as individuals to make our own choices about food and chemicals, just like we have made choices not to eat trans fats, or sugar? If GMOs are so good for us, why to they want to hide it from labeling ? It is no longer a GRAS (generally recognized as safe: FDA abbrev.).
Tomorrow, I want to see the rebuttal opinion of this, although I hope there will be a million citizen-rebuttals here, as there have already been in the world!
5
Well, I live in Europe andthe way I see it is like this.
GMO crops are patented and designed so that they are not seed producing so a farmer has to buy nexr years seed from Monsanto. (Google farmer suicides in India).
There have been studies that find when hamsters are fed on GMO by the third generation the hamsters are tumour ridden and mainly sterile.
So look on the bright side America, if, Europe dosn't wamt GMO there will be all the more for yourselves!
Enjoy!!
GMO crops are patented and designed so that they are not seed producing so a farmer has to buy nexr years seed from Monsanto. (Google farmer suicides in India).
There have been studies that find when hamsters are fed on GMO by the third generation the hamsters are tumour ridden and mainly sterile.
So look on the bright side America, if, Europe dosn't wamt GMO there will be all the more for yourselves!
Enjoy!!
2
Has the New York Times ever had Dr. Michael Hanson write an Op Ed piece on GMOs? If not then I would say that tells us a lot about who's controlling their editorial policy. As a scientist with the Consumers Union who's been tracking the GMO phenomenon for decades, Dr. Hanson has mounds of scientific evidence that refutes the scientists who live on grants and stipends provided by Monsanto and its allies. Just as lead in gasoline was once considered safe by scientists, and nicotine in tobacco, so now scientists in the pay of major industry players are saying the same about GMOs. Don't believe a word they say.
2
The author just called entire countries, countries that are far saner than we are on medical care, guns, education, and you name it - "ignorant". It would be funny if it weren't so serious. I Googled Mr. Lynas after the last GMO-apologetic the NYT ran. Is he in the employ of the GMO industry? I would like to know. http://www.gmwatch.org/news/archive/2013/15033-how-reliable-is-the-journ...
There are 2 sides to the GMO issue. The other side, not discussed, here, are the risks. The risk of a genetically modified crop taking over and corrupting the seed stock so that there's almost no alternative in case something goes wrong (e.g. corn). About how GMO's were peddled with claims that they would reduce pesticide and herbicide use, but how in fact they developed strains that could tolerate more herbicide, so that the amount of Roundup used has risen sharply. http://www.forbes.com/sites/bethhoffman/2013/07/02/gmo-crops-mean-more-h...
When this much money is at stake, the scientific method goes out the windos, as we are seeing with Exxon hiding data about global warming. Billions of dollars and a media willing to be bought (even the NYT) can hide a lot of inconvenient truths. It has happened with tobacco and global warming and now GMO's. I hope people aren't falling for this.
There are 2 sides to the GMO issue. The other side, not discussed, here, are the risks. The risk of a genetically modified crop taking over and corrupting the seed stock so that there's almost no alternative in case something goes wrong (e.g. corn). About how GMO's were peddled with claims that they would reduce pesticide and herbicide use, but how in fact they developed strains that could tolerate more herbicide, so that the amount of Roundup used has risen sharply. http://www.forbes.com/sites/bethhoffman/2013/07/02/gmo-crops-mean-more-h...
When this much money is at stake, the scientific method goes out the windos, as we are seeing with Exxon hiding data about global warming. Billions of dollars and a media willing to be bought (even the NYT) can hide a lot of inconvenient truths. It has happened with tobacco and global warming and now GMO's. I hope people aren't falling for this.
2
The author does a disservice to the GMO debate by ignoring the patenting of seeds by companies such as Monsanto. Every anti-GMO activist I know is aware of (possibly spurious) horror stories from the Midwest, where farmers are said to be sued for allowing GMO seeds to germinate on their land if they too don't buy from that patent owner. You can't argue one side of this story without acknowledging the other. To ignore one side is to preach to the converted.
1
Some readers obviously don't read. With GMO's it's often the case pesticide use dramatically decreases. Easy to sit where we have plenty and tell those without, "Tough luck about your kids going blind. Could solve that with gmo golden rice, but I don't like that idea". Self centered navel gazing buffoons.
2
If you think Monsanto is trying to do good with these GMO's you are insane. Its just about money. Traditional plant breeding can achieve all of our needs. There are many technologies that can be used with out resorting to inserting genes into a different species. There is a very important reason nature puts up walls between species! But stupid humans think they know better.
2
You may be interested to learn that Monsanto is also adapting their technological infrastructure to accelerate development of new crops by traditional plant breeding--nothing that Gregor Mendl couldn't have done except for scale. No pun intended but because of such efforts we can expect this field to blossom in the next few years.
I live near Monsanto but don't work for them, and I'm tired of seeing Monsanto being painted as the bad guys. Monsanto seeds have fed millions. A good thing, no?
I live near Monsanto but don't work for them, and I'm tired of seeing Monsanto being painted as the bad guys. Monsanto seeds have fed millions. A good thing, no?
This story has a terribly loaded title. It is a sensationalist title, not becoming of a major, serious new source like the New York Times.
The GMO issue is far from settled. Allowing a major editorial to call people concerned about the unknowable consequences of feeding people genetically modified foods, grown soaked with herbicides... is it fear to label people with such concerns as having a phobia?
The title destroyed credibility of the article.
The GMO issue is far from settled. Allowing a major editorial to call people concerned about the unknowable consequences of feeding people genetically modified foods, grown soaked with herbicides... is it fear to label people with such concerns as having a phobia?
The title destroyed credibility of the article.
2
So if I produce scientific evidence that polygamy/polyandry are harmless, shall we make it legal?
I thought a precept of business is that the customer is always right. The customer in Europe doesn't want GMO's. What is wrong with that?
4
The output of crops is only one side of the story. For every innovation, there's a social disruption that follows. And in Europe that disruption is also taken very seriously. American farming has become a corporate enterprise with a predictable focus on profit. But if you look at the state of the American landscape and soil, diet, and social cohesion amoungst other issues, America is a basket case of disfunction. Read "the Omnivore's Dilemma" by Michael Pollen for an account of the destruction of the landscape due to factory farming, especially with regard to cattle and their relationship to grasslands.
The American landscape has become a sea of monocultural engineered crops at the cost of biodiversity and the resilience that brings. By focussing on yields, you're ignoring the real issues.
The American landscape has become a sea of monocultural engineered crops at the cost of biodiversity and the resilience that brings. By focussing on yields, you're ignoring the real issues.
2
Certainly. You just have to walk the streets anywhere in America to see for yourself that when it comes to healthy food Americans are so much more advanced than Europeans. And so wisely governed.
4
"These prohibitions expose the worrying reality of how far Europe has gone in setting itself against modern science."
It is an outright lie to claim that the safety of GMO is something that modern science has shown.
The New York Times should be ashamed of itself for publishing nonsense like this that it could have vetted and excluded from its august pages.
Determining the safety of something is a far more complicated endeavor than what science can answer with a Yes or a No.
The author, who is just a shill for the chemical and seed industry, knows perfectly well that this is out of the question.
It is an outright lie to claim that the safety of GMO is something that modern science has shown.
The New York Times should be ashamed of itself for publishing nonsense like this that it could have vetted and excluded from its august pages.
Determining the safety of something is a far more complicated endeavor than what science can answer with a Yes or a No.
The author, who is just a shill for the chemical and seed industry, knows perfectly well that this is out of the question.
2
American multinationals are simpy not to be trusted, under any circumstances. They, like this article, are entirely self-serving. We'll decide for ourselves, thanks all the same.
5
I'm not surprised that humans want to play God with my seed after it took a million years of evolution to perfect it to the bio-conditions of our earth. In a blink of evolutionary time we could cause a disruption of catastrophic proportions by ignorant carelessness.
http://www.alternet.org/food/uncovering-real-story-behind-mark-lynas-con...
What really does surprise me is that a person like Mark Lynas is vetted by the Times to spew his vile propaganda. It's been over 60 years since Rachael Carson tried to warn us.. and I haven't even mentioned Monsanto and Dupont yet.
I very much admire Europeans and France is looking very good.
http://www.alternet.org/food/uncovering-real-story-behind-mark-lynas-con...
What really does surprise me is that a person like Mark Lynas is vetted by the Times to spew his vile propaganda. It's been over 60 years since Rachael Carson tried to warn us.. and I haven't even mentioned Monsanto and Dupont yet.
I very much admire Europeans and France is looking very good.
7
Mark Lynas, are you on the Monsanto payroll? You failed to mention that the American public had no chance to debate Frankenstein foods, whereas here in Europe there was widespread and healthy discussions. Thanks to the healthy and open debates, the people chose to reject being forced to buy Monsanto seeds and poisons.
6
I find it so ironic that decades ago as a kid back in the states, we looked over at Europe as a stuffy, backward continent. Now as an adult living over here for a couple decades, we look over at the US and see a country that is bought by big business.
The "freedom" of the US has turned into "free to be used as guinea pigs" by big business. "GMOs are safe". "Fracking is safe". "Chemicals are safe". And even if it turns out a couple decades later that they really weren't so safe after all, well, ya know, "freedom".
The "freedom" of the US has turned into "free to be used as guinea pigs" by big business. "GMOs are safe". "Fracking is safe". "Chemicals are safe". And even if it turns out a couple decades later that they really weren't so safe after all, well, ya know, "freedom".
7
I think there's a simple solution and it's labeling our foods. Then, we'll have the choice to buy GMO foods at our own risk and those of us who want to pay less for suppler, larger foods can do so. I thought this article was right on when it comes to developing countries--we should be doing all we can to encourage companies to grow resistant crops.
2
This debate goes beyond safety. Given the choice of real food versus artificial food, the former always tastes better. If Mr Lynas, et al want to eat GMO, then I wish them bon appetit.
2
I disagree.
Consumers do not trust big business. Any 'benefit' from GMOs will be to the pockets of senior executives.
Why 'herbicide resistant'? So they can addict farmers on their particular herbicides. And do we really need more toxic herbicide on our food?
No thank you.
However, I have no objection should all GMO products are labelled as such. But they refuse. They would rather lie to us.
Consumers do not trust big business. Any 'benefit' from GMOs will be to the pockets of senior executives.
Why 'herbicide resistant'? So they can addict farmers on their particular herbicides. And do we really need more toxic herbicide on our food?
No thank you.
However, I have no objection should all GMO products are labelled as such. But they refuse. They would rather lie to us.
2
In 2011, leaked documents from a biotech company detail how Mark Lynas, this articles author, was picked by the industry to be an "ambassador" for their interests because of his credibility in the environmental science movement. Here is a link to the alternet article:
http://www.alternet.org/food/uncovering-real-story-behind-mark-lynas-con...
http://www.alternet.org/food/uncovering-real-story-behind-mark-lynas-con...
2
Im less worried about G.M.O. foods being harmful and more concerned that companies like Monsanto can own genetic rights to a seed and sue a neighboring farm for accidentally cultivating it. When you allow genetic patents for seeds to exist you essentially lay the groundwork for a farming monopoly. Bad for business, bad for any country, except ours apparently.
2
Call it the "Coalition of the Greedy", made up of Monsanto and food processors. When there are huge profits to be made and protected, the checkbook is open for mouthpieces with credentials. Europeans are not stupid.
2
Science denialism seems to reign in the Comments section! The scientific consensus is that GMOs are safe. If we can ignore nutrition science, is climate science next?
3
I find this column arrogant and frankly annoying. I have no idea nor do I care if GMO foods are harmful or harmless. What I do insist on, however, is right to decide for myself whether I want to eat them or not. So label them already and let me be in charge of my food consumption.
2
I'm not a scientist; just a left-leaning theologian, who was living with all kind of chronic health issues till a right-leaning nutritionist told me that increasing numbers of patients are showing up with similar conditions that improved when they eliminated GMOs from their diets. So I did, and she was right. Was it the GMOS or the toxic chemicals used to grow them, or a combination? I don't know. I'm not a scientist, just a body finally getting better through the process of elimination.
2
Given how trustworthy the companies who do this research are, I think Europe is making the right choice.
2
I agree with this article to the fullest. Being anti-gmo is roughly on par with being anti-vax or denying climate change. The readership of this newspaper should be on board with this.
A few "informed" commenters are muddying the waters with some discussion about roundup pesticide. What a red herring. If you have a problem with a pesticide, regulate the use of the pesticide!
To elaborate, one of many, many applications of GMO is to make some plants more resistant to a pesticide, so absolutely this might indirectly lead to more pesticide use, which could be a bad thing. But this does not lend one iota of credibility anti-science perspective that GMO should be distrusted across the board, that it should be labeled, there is some reason to think it is unhealthy...
Again, if you have a problem with a pesticide, regulate the pesticide.
A few "informed" commenters are muddying the waters with some discussion about roundup pesticide. What a red herring. If you have a problem with a pesticide, regulate the use of the pesticide!
To elaborate, one of many, many applications of GMO is to make some plants more resistant to a pesticide, so absolutely this might indirectly lead to more pesticide use, which could be a bad thing. But this does not lend one iota of credibility anti-science perspective that GMO should be distrusted across the board, that it should be labeled, there is some reason to think it is unhealthy...
Again, if you have a problem with a pesticide, regulate the pesticide.
6
A remarkable number of anti-GMO comments here, sharing the characteristic of providing zero documentation for their hysterical claims. By zero documentation I mean: not a single, scientifically sound, peer reviewed study showing any problem with GMO crops over the 20+ year history of their being on the market. Not one. Zilch.
As one of the writers below noted, this is an ignorance/prejudice/bigotry akin to the anti-vaccine, anti-acknowedegment of human caused climate disruption and on and on.
I try to avoid foods with non-gmo labels on them because I know they are provided by business people shamefully pandering to this hoax. Meanwhile kids go blind and die because Greenpeace and their politically correct genocidal cronies tear up test beds of Golden Rice. What a shameful farce.
n Rice. What a shameful farce.
As one of the writers below noted, this is an ignorance/prejudice/bigotry akin to the anti-vaccine, anti-acknowedegment of human caused climate disruption and on and on.
I try to avoid foods with non-gmo labels on them because I know they are provided by business people shamefully pandering to this hoax. Meanwhile kids go blind and die because Greenpeace and their politically correct genocidal cronies tear up test beds of Golden Rice. What a shameful farce.
n Rice. What a shameful farce.
6
The European Union has incorporated "the precautionary principle" into its policies and practices.
This is the precept that an action should not be taken if the consequences are uncertain and potentially dangerous.
In the U.S. recent technological innovations, particularly in biology, are often being rushed to market before their long-term consequences are known.
Genetic engineering is tinkering with the basic building blocks of life, something unprecedented. And GMOs have been around for less than 20 years. We do not -- we cannot -- yet be certain of their long-terms effects on the environment or human bodies.
In a sense GMO scientists are engineering what are, in effect, new “beings” by mixing the genes of two or more animals/plants/insects into a single organism.
Already some major problems are emerging.
For example, GMOs cross pollinate and their seeds travel, frequently polluting entire gene pools of “normal” seeds.
Because most GM crops are engineered to be “herbicide tolerant,” the result has been increased herbicide use.
Scientific studies are beginning to show that genetic engineering can create unpredictable and potentially dangerous side effects such as new toxins, allergens, carcinogen and nutritional deficiencies.
And GMO producers are fighting all efforts to label their products so citizens can decide whether to feed their children GMOs.
Europe is taking a prudent approach to GMOs.The EU apparently doesn't believe profits trump human well-being.
This is the precept that an action should not be taken if the consequences are uncertain and potentially dangerous.
In the U.S. recent technological innovations, particularly in biology, are often being rushed to market before their long-term consequences are known.
Genetic engineering is tinkering with the basic building blocks of life, something unprecedented. And GMOs have been around for less than 20 years. We do not -- we cannot -- yet be certain of their long-terms effects on the environment or human bodies.
In a sense GMO scientists are engineering what are, in effect, new “beings” by mixing the genes of two or more animals/plants/insects into a single organism.
Already some major problems are emerging.
For example, GMOs cross pollinate and their seeds travel, frequently polluting entire gene pools of “normal” seeds.
Because most GM crops are engineered to be “herbicide tolerant,” the result has been increased herbicide use.
Scientific studies are beginning to show that genetic engineering can create unpredictable and potentially dangerous side effects such as new toxins, allergens, carcinogen and nutritional deficiencies.
And GMO producers are fighting all efforts to label their products so citizens can decide whether to feed their children GMOs.
Europe is taking a prudent approach to GMOs.The EU apparently doesn't believe profits trump human well-being.
59
Clearly Mr. Lynas is bought and paid for by the Bio-Tech Industry. His opinions in this piece ring hollow with their proclamations of the extreme safety and utility of GMO crops. The fact the facts on the ground outside of the Bio Tech Industries test stations is dramatically different. Fertility and calving of pasture animals fed and intensive diet of GMO corn & soy is negatively impacted. False pregnancies, still births and of significant health problems of a larger percentage of those animals born to parents who were fed heavy GMO feed preconception and throughout the gestation period has risen precipitously.
Cheaper food does not mean better food and the counties around the world that have banned the planting and cultivation of GMO crops understand this far better than the cheer leaders of this indiscriminately applied technology. The legacy of this inadequately researched technology has already made itself know in the United States with the accelerated rise of chronic degenerative diseases across all age groups.
Mr. Lynas blindness to this fact is far more startling than the actions of countries around the world who have done their own analysis and have decided to proceed with an abundance of caution to protect their citizen's health...something that the United States seems uninterested in doing and has been uninterested in doing for quite some time...
Mr. Lynas has no credibility outside of the echo chamber of those who pay his wages..
Cheaper food does not mean better food and the counties around the world that have banned the planting and cultivation of GMO crops understand this far better than the cheer leaders of this indiscriminately applied technology. The legacy of this inadequately researched technology has already made itself know in the United States with the accelerated rise of chronic degenerative diseases across all age groups.
Mr. Lynas blindness to this fact is far more startling than the actions of countries around the world who have done their own analysis and have decided to proceed with an abundance of caution to protect their citizen's health...something that the United States seems uninterested in doing and has been uninterested in doing for quite some time...
Mr. Lynas has no credibility outside of the echo chamber of those who pay his wages..
3
The New York Times nor Mr. Lynas have disclosed that Cornell Alliance for Science, to which he belongs, was awarded, in late 2014, the sum of $5.6 millions from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to establish a multi-media, multi layer pro- GMO campaign. In other words that hefty sum is not dedicated to research and development of food or in food aid but clearly and openly as funds for PR - or propaganda - campaign.
As most of us know Mr. and Mrs. Gates are not food expert and so it would seem that their interest is not scientific. Despite the fact that they have no knowledge in the matter they find it important to put their wealth behind pro GMO, pro big agribusiness. Their interest lies in winning hearts and mind rather then supporting objective research.
Even if his position is substantiated Mr. Lynas not above suspicion.
It brings to mind Upton Sinclair who once said about professionals like Mr. Lynas:"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!".
As most of us know Mr. and Mrs. Gates are not food expert and so it would seem that their interest is not scientific. Despite the fact that they have no knowledge in the matter they find it important to put their wealth behind pro GMO, pro big agribusiness. Their interest lies in winning hearts and mind rather then supporting objective research.
Even if his position is substantiated Mr. Lynas not above suspicion.
It brings to mind Upton Sinclair who once said about professionals like Mr. Lynas:"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!".
5
Monsanto used to tell us that Roundup was OK to use in the garden if you are trying to grow organic vegetables.
Nowadays scientific journals disclose whether the author of an article has any financial ties to a particular industry, e.g., whether research on a particular drug was subsidized by the manufacturer. I'd like to know what financial ties Mark Lynas has to Big Ag.
Nowadays scientific journals disclose whether the author of an article has any financial ties to a particular industry, e.g., whether research on a particular drug was subsidized by the manufacturer. I'd like to know what financial ties Mark Lynas has to Big Ag.
4
The writer sounds like a lobbyist. In any case, so what if the EU goes it's way on the matter, it's better to wait and watch, science is great but it does make mistakes quite often and we wake up to it a bit too late. Let there be choice and different approaches to life. Mother nature is by far the best guide, science plays catchup all the time.
2
Is it any wonder that countries in Africa would mistrust the U.S.? It's not like we have a history of good relations with any part of Africa. We and other western nations are in large part responsible for much of the problems on that continent.
Personally I can't stand GMOs. I don't care what the science says. What is the point of food that has no flavor? GMO food is devoid of flavor - they've bioengineered the life out of it. So thank you but no thank you. I'll stick to my aesthetically imperfect but deliciously tasty organic fruits and vegetables.
Personally I can't stand GMOs. I don't care what the science says. What is the point of food that has no flavor? GMO food is devoid of flavor - they've bioengineered the life out of it. So thank you but no thank you. I'll stick to my aesthetically imperfect but deliciously tasty organic fruits and vegetables.
1
Why not require liability insurance? If no one will insure unless the liability is limited, as happened with the US nuclear industry under Price-Anderson Act of 1957, then we must be thankful for the "Coalition of the Wise".
Its really pathetic to see NYT give credence to this complete propaganda.
From the beginning, in the early 1980's, long before Monsanto even considered getting into this business, plant GMO were given GRAS status at the FDA, in the near complete absence of research data. The great majority of FDA scientists at the time were shocked and sickened by this development - which was entirely antithetical to the conservative, transparent, cooperative gathering and sorting of data that is supposed to comprise true science. The director of the FDA simply stated there was no reason to think GMO were materially different than other crops and therefore no research was needed for their approval.
The statements in this article - such as that there is global scientific consensus about the safety of GMO or that GMO crops reduce the use of pesticides - are patently false. Use of the single most common pesticide - glyphosate (patented by Monsanto) - has gone up 250-fold since 1974. An high profile article recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine called for labeling GMO foods.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1505660
I'm heartened to see so many commenters not fooled by what is going on here - not being bullied by the "anti-science" non-sense. If people actually knew the full story and how powerful interests create their own narratives (even within academia) they would be doubly opposed to GMO and supportive of the Europeans.
I toast my organic wine to them.
From the beginning, in the early 1980's, long before Monsanto even considered getting into this business, plant GMO were given GRAS status at the FDA, in the near complete absence of research data. The great majority of FDA scientists at the time were shocked and sickened by this development - which was entirely antithetical to the conservative, transparent, cooperative gathering and sorting of data that is supposed to comprise true science. The director of the FDA simply stated there was no reason to think GMO were materially different than other crops and therefore no research was needed for their approval.
The statements in this article - such as that there is global scientific consensus about the safety of GMO or that GMO crops reduce the use of pesticides - are patently false. Use of the single most common pesticide - glyphosate (patented by Monsanto) - has gone up 250-fold since 1974. An high profile article recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine called for labeling GMO foods.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1505660
I'm heartened to see so many commenters not fooled by what is going on here - not being bullied by the "anti-science" non-sense. If people actually knew the full story and how powerful interests create their own narratives (even within academia) they would be doubly opposed to GMO and supportive of the Europeans.
I toast my organic wine to them.
5
Is Mark Lynas a paid shill for Monsanto?
No we don't need seed manufacturers patenting lifeforms so they can corner the entire world's food supply by addicting the world's farms to a new yearly model of Roundup-ready seed, in order to further flood the planet with neurotoxins & chemical warfare like Roundup.
That's almost as evil as promoting wars in order to sell weapons.
No we don't need seed manufacturers patenting lifeforms so they can corner the entire world's food supply by addicting the world's farms to a new yearly model of Roundup-ready seed, in order to further flood the planet with neurotoxins & chemical warfare like Roundup.
That's almost as evil as promoting wars in order to sell weapons.
6
The person who wrote this editorial is ignorant.
With regard to GMO: Monsanto owns the seeds.
A farmer cannot plant them if s/he don't pay Monsanto.
And if the farmer's seeds cross with Monstano's, Monsanto own the crop.
So Europe is NOT turning against Science (that is the Monsanto spin).
Europe is turning against the "copyrighting and patenting" of nature's work: Europe is turning against Monsanto.
With regard to GMO: Monsanto owns the seeds.
A farmer cannot plant them if s/he don't pay Monsanto.
And if the farmer's seeds cross with Monstano's, Monsanto own the crop.
So Europe is NOT turning against Science (that is the Monsanto spin).
Europe is turning against the "copyrighting and patenting" of nature's work: Europe is turning against Monsanto.
6
Thank you, Norway !! We, the County People of America are with you 100%. "Science" has brought some good things to the World, but Monsanto is not one of them.
May we all shine a light on Monsanto's deception. It is way over due.
May we all shine a light on Monsanto's deception. It is way over due.
1
Perhaps a more helpful tone would question the direction we choose going forward. The author's tendentious tone sets back that effort.
4
This is a silly article, defending corporate control of food, dismissing scientific prudence, with the imprimatur of academia. Transgenic American Chestnut trees immune to Asian fungus? I get it. Soybeans drenched in Roundup? No thanks.
5
As an American living in Europe, I love the that governments here give the benefit of doubt to the consumer before big business, instead of the other way around in the U.S. If people don't want GMOs, if there's any doubt that growing crops that produce their own Roundup may not be good for our health, then why not ban it? Better safe than sorry.
5
There are no studies to tell us what happens to the children or the children of the children of people who eat GMO crops. Must we have one of these one-sided, bullying and more-scientific-than-thou editorials every few months? For god sakes, even Jane Brody wrote one a few months ago.
The science is not in on this. Little genetic changes may come back to bite us. Mark Lynas wants to feed hungry people? Feed them real food.
The science is not in on this. Little genetic changes may come back to bite us. Mark Lynas wants to feed hungry people? Feed them real food.
1
Mr Lynas, a corporate shill par excellence is tryng to make us believe that there are enough scientific studies to prove the safety of GMO foods. Well, many scientists in Europe beg to differ. For this layman all it takes, is to follow the money interests behind GMO to be highly skeptical of scientific findings by our academics working at universities supported by corporations profiting from GMO products: scientists are known find what they better find if a lot of their funding money is at stake.
3
GMO crops are not "science". They are corporate products just like any others, and they should be thoroughly tested just like any other products that have the potential to cause harm.
They have not been so tested due to the cozy relationship between Monsanto and its regulators.
Are they safe? We don't know, in themselves. But we do know that the glyphosate pesticides which they are designed to tolerate are unsafe, and that GMO crops use much much more of this poison (probable carcinogen - EU) than non-GMO crops.
They have not been so tested due to the cozy relationship between Monsanto and its regulators.
Are they safe? We don't know, in themselves. But we do know that the glyphosate pesticides which they are designed to tolerate are unsafe, and that GMO crops use much much more of this poison (probable carcinogen - EU) than non-GMO crops.
3
There ought to be some disclosure here, how much money do Monsanto and the biotech's funnel into Cornell? This article has very little in the way of facts, it is innuendo, character attacks and assertion. GMOS are not sustainable or cheap and their yields are not as good as conventionally grown crops. There is plenty of evidence for that. And nowhere does the auto address the harm that carcinogenic glyphosate causes.
4
Gotta love statistics. The author makes note of a 40% decrease in insecticide use, but obviously makes no mention of the increase in pesticide use. Maybe in Africa where they are starving it's not a big deal. I'm not starving. I don't want or need to eat Roundup over sprayed food.
3
Common sense: is the bee die-off the result of chemicals or not?
Of course it is.
Thank goodness for European common sense.
Badness = American special interest legislation.
Of course it is.
Thank goodness for European common sense.
Badness = American special interest legislation.
1
GMO has the potential to increase nutrition, etc.
But right now, GMO increases the use of herbicides. Yes, it might have the ability to decrease insecticide spraying by 40%, but instead the insecticide is inside the plant. The sprayed stuff will wash off, to some extent, which can cause environmental issues. But instead of washing off and hurting the environment, we are injesting it. Why not find a way to neither spray OR injest? Oh, yeah, organic farming...
But right now, GMO increases the use of herbicides. Yes, it might have the ability to decrease insecticide spraying by 40%, but instead the insecticide is inside the plant. The sprayed stuff will wash off, to some extent, which can cause environmental issues. But instead of washing off and hurting the environment, we are injesting it. Why not find a way to neither spray OR injest? Oh, yeah, organic farming...
33
It is a common myth that Organic farming uses no or little pesticides or that what they use is always less toxic. Organic farming only has a smaller suite of chemicals they are allowed use. These allowed chemicals also have their range of toxicities and, often, are used in far greater quantities than their synthetic counterparts, due to their lower efficacy. Hence, while many may indeed have a lower per gram toxicity, their higher quantities necessary releases a greater amount of toxicity into the environment.
In contrast, you point out that the Bt used in GM crops cannot be washed off. That may be true but the concentration of Bt in those crops are very low and completely non-toxic to mammals and many other classes of animals. Organic uses the very same class of compounds as a spray of the living bacteria on their crops. Hence, you can wash most of it off but what is left is not merely the non-toxic Bt compound but the living bacteria itself. And there has been no testing done, in contrast to GM testing, that addresses what effects ingesting the whole bacteria has on us.
In contrast, you point out that the Bt used in GM crops cannot be washed off. That may be true but the concentration of Bt in those crops are very low and completely non-toxic to mammals and many other classes of animals. Organic uses the very same class of compounds as a spray of the living bacteria on their crops. Hence, you can wash most of it off but what is left is not merely the non-toxic Bt compound but the living bacteria itself. And there has been no testing done, in contrast to GM testing, that addresses what effects ingesting the whole bacteria has on us.
Organic farming does not use the Bt toxin?
Mr. Lynas,
This information is copied from wikipedia:
The "Big 6" pesticide and GMO corporations are BASF, Bayer, Dupont, Dow Chemical Company, Monsanto, and Syngenta. They are so called because they dominate the agricultural input market -- that is, they own the world’s seed, pesticide and biotechnology industries.[1][2]
According to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), corporate concentration of the agricultural input market "has far-reaching implications for global food security, as the privatization and patenting of agricultural innovation (gene traits, transformation technologies and seed germplasm) has been supplanting traditional agricultural understandings of seed, farmers' rights, and breeders' rights."[3]
For more information, see the Pesticide Action Network of North America (PANNA) resource here."
This information is copied from wikipedia:
The "Big 6" pesticide and GMO corporations are BASF, Bayer, Dupont, Dow Chemical Company, Monsanto, and Syngenta. They are so called because they dominate the agricultural input market -- that is, they own the world’s seed, pesticide and biotechnology industries.[1][2]
According to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), corporate concentration of the agricultural input market "has far-reaching implications for global food security, as the privatization and patenting of agricultural innovation (gene traits, transformation technologies and seed germplasm) has been supplanting traditional agricultural understandings of seed, farmers' rights, and breeders' rights."[3]
For more information, see the Pesticide Action Network of North America (PANNA) resource here."
1
"The argument that there is nothing new about genetic rearrangement misses the point that GM crops are now the agricultural products most heavily treated with herbicides and that two of these herbicides may pose risks of cancer. We believe that the time has therefore come to thoroughly reconsider all aspects of the safety of plant biotechnology."
GMOs, Herbicides, and Public Health
Philip J. Landrigan, M.D., and Charles Benbrook, Ph.D.
New England Journal of Medicine, August 19, 2015
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1505660#t=article
We have a cure for hunger. Cancer we do not.
GMOs, Herbicides, and Public Health
Philip J. Landrigan, M.D., and Charles Benbrook, Ph.D.
New England Journal of Medicine, August 19, 2015
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1505660#t=article
We have a cure for hunger. Cancer we do not.
1
Does Mr Mark Lynas want to divulge if Monsanto is funding (directly or indirectly) his work?
2
This polemic is quite misleading. There is NO SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS that there are no health risks with GMOs. Scientists cannot come to a conclusion because it would be at best premature, and at worst flat wrong. This is because rDNA is a powerful technique that could easily be mishandled because we are probing aspects of the genome that are in part poorly understood and in part complete mysteries remain. The genetic engineers have pushed the application of gene splicing much too fast in their race to make profits. This has caused a tragedy because ultimately gene spicing might be able to help agriculture. They may have killed the goose that laid the golden egg.
For a detailed discussion of the potential dangers and also a detailed discussion of efforts to cover up the facts by scientists with special interests and industry-promoting government, see Steven Druker’s recent book, Altered Genes, Twisted Truth How the Venture to Genetically Engineer Our Food Has Subverted Science, Corrupted Government, and Systematically Deceived the Public. You will be told not to read it. But if you do you will understand why it is feared by those invested in the industry.
Polemics like Lynas' degrade public understanding of this issue, and make the industry look less and less trustworthy. They are shooting themselves in the foot with these public relations tactics.
For a detailed discussion of the potential dangers and also a detailed discussion of efforts to cover up the facts by scientists with special interests and industry-promoting government, see Steven Druker’s recent book, Altered Genes, Twisted Truth How the Venture to Genetically Engineer Our Food Has Subverted Science, Corrupted Government, and Systematically Deceived the Public. You will be told not to read it. But if you do you will understand why it is feared by those invested in the industry.
Polemics like Lynas' degrade public understanding of this issue, and make the industry look less and less trustworthy. They are shooting themselves in the foot with these public relations tactics.
2
Maybe we can import our food supply from Europe.
1
If glyophosphate is bad, band glyophosphate. Don't drum up ignorant and irrational fear of genetically modified plants to accomplish your goal. Many genetically modified crops have nothing to do with pesticide resistance. Insert cliche about babies and bathwater here...
2
Predictably the science-deniers come out in force in the comments section with their conspiracy theories and anti-GMO nonsense.
2
I think everyone else has made good points about pesticide implications and unforeseen environmental effects of certain applications. But to outright ban all GMO's is also tossing out a lot of good ideas that could help the environment. Crops that need less water, crops that actually need LESS pesticides etc... We can be sure the industry is trying to do these things because it will save THEM money. I'm not opposed to GMO labeling entirely, I think if the public wants to know we have a right to know. BUT I can see why the industry disagrees, labeling GMOs will simply hurt the sale of GMO products because of these preconceived notions about them, and also by suggesting that something is wrong with a GMO product. I understand those who are concerned and perhaps more scrutiny is due in the form of a strict approval process. But, its like climate change, could all these scientist forming a broad consensus really all be paid off? Let's examine our own biases and emotions and make an informed decision about GMOs before declaring that we totally understand whats going on here one way or the other.
1
It makes me sad that the NYT gives so much importance to Mark Lynas, a well known shill for Mosanto and the GMO lobby.
But I'm gladdened the NYT reminds us it is an opinion, and not a scientific discussion of the subject. yes Mr Lynas is not even a scientist, but still, he let us know why real scientists are wrong, while forgetting to disclose his tight association with the GMO lobby...
But I'm gladdened the NYT reminds us it is an opinion, and not a scientific discussion of the subject. yes Mr Lynas is not even a scientist, but still, he let us know why real scientists are wrong, while forgetting to disclose his tight association with the GMO lobby...
2
My family has been producing, processing, and marketing conventional farm seed in the midwest for over 90 years. When GMO farm seed was introduced...we had to make a choice: continue to service our conventional producers who shifted to GMO's or lose that business. We got licensed with all the major genetic suppliers and sold GMO corn and soybeans.
Was it the right thing to do?
No. GMO's are bad. Here is an MIT scientist waxing eloquent on GMO's and the harm to human health they have caused.
https://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/
Science isn't the answer to everything. It just isn't.
Was it the right thing to do?
No. GMO's are bad. Here is an MIT scientist waxing eloquent on GMO's and the harm to human health they have caused.
https://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/
Science isn't the answer to everything. It just isn't.
3
The anti-gmo zealots (see comments) sound as laughably ignorant as the climate change deniers on the right.
1
Mr. Lynas' track record speaks for itself. Go here:
http://www.alternet.org/food/uncovering-real-story-behind-mark-lynas-con...
http://www.alternet.org/food/uncovering-real-story-behind-mark-lynas-con...
3
One of the oldest tricks in the book.... raise a ridiculous straw man to ridicule your opponents arguments - GMO's cause sexual impotence. Why not address the legitimate issue of what effect using tremendous amounts of Round -Up on millions of acres is doing to the soil, nature, and our health? Your failure to address that issue makes me wonder where your organization's funding comes from. How many of your non-profit partners get $$'s from the petrol-chemical industry? In sum, your article doesn't further your cause.
1
I find it odd that a university based organization of scientists would need a "political director" Does not fill me with confidence that Mr. Lynas is unbiased scientist with any expertise on this issue.
4
Rare voice of reason on this issue.
4
Thank you all who have contributed before me. Indeed, Mark Lynas writes in service to commercial interests, not in service of science. In this, he shames both his institution and the NY Times, unless the Times follows through with the suggestion of another commentator: invite professionals of integrity in the fields of population ecology, public health and political science to expose this article's biased representations of scientific literature and political analysis.
1
Mr. Lyons seems to feel he knows more about what's good for than we know ourselves. Thankfully some parts of the world gave begun to assert themselves against the insidious forces of the chemical-industrial complex. You enjoy your Monsanto products Mr. Lyons, I won't and millions of others won't. Enough poison, enough centralized profit driven control of of our food production.
4
As if every “scientist” backs genetic modification of crops as practiced by agri-business. This is not at all true.
The mocking tenor of this essay, filled with the writer’s religious-like certainty that GMO-doubters are Neanderthal Luddites and his GMO dogma is the only truth, is typical of the priesthood of scientism.
Is is really so worthy of contempt that Europeans desire to be in harmony with nature and in submission to it, rather than man playing God?
Might there be other natural and harmonious methods for feeding humanity than engineering cross to produce or emit what they would never have produced if left alone in nature?
The essayist forgets that we inhabit a world where “science” has told us there is no difference between herbicide -soaked conventional food and food raised without poisons (“organic’). It’s the same “science" which has made childbirth into a disease requiring intensive intervention by an obstetrician rather than midwives.
It’s the same “science” that created nuclear power plants in sunshine abundant areas, rather than implementing clean solar power. On down the page we could go, listing all the times that high priests who cloak their sorcery in the habiliments of science have been dead wrong.
I choose nature over biotech and I have no faith in the people who insist that tinkering with the web of creation will have no blowback. More humility is needed. True scientists know this. Scientism does not.
The mocking tenor of this essay, filled with the writer’s religious-like certainty that GMO-doubters are Neanderthal Luddites and his GMO dogma is the only truth, is typical of the priesthood of scientism.
Is is really so worthy of contempt that Europeans desire to be in harmony with nature and in submission to it, rather than man playing God?
Might there be other natural and harmonious methods for feeding humanity than engineering cross to produce or emit what they would never have produced if left alone in nature?
The essayist forgets that we inhabit a world where “science” has told us there is no difference between herbicide -soaked conventional food and food raised without poisons (“organic’). It’s the same “science" which has made childbirth into a disease requiring intensive intervention by an obstetrician rather than midwives.
It’s the same “science” that created nuclear power plants in sunshine abundant areas, rather than implementing clean solar power. On down the page we could go, listing all the times that high priests who cloak their sorcery in the habiliments of science have been dead wrong.
I choose nature over biotech and I have no faith in the people who insist that tinkering with the web of creation will have no blowback. More humility is needed. True scientists know this. Scientism does not.
7
The topic of GMO crops pushes a lot of our buttons about food safety, corporate motives, and global politics. In addition to considering the points in this piece, I hope readers will take the time to read journalists who applied their professional skills to investigating and reporting on GMOs from Slate http://slate.me/1Glx5If and Grist http://grist.org/series/panic-free-gmos/
1
Yet another hypocritical opinion piece about GMOs. All the GMO pushers need to do to make GMOs acceptable is to make them recognizable. Instead they insist that their GMOs are unlabeled and mixed in with natural food. In other words, they insist that the public cannot make a choice in favor of their product. The public must thus be force-fed their GMOs.
If GMOs were so much better, they would be bought and consumed because of their merits.
To blame people who request choice for foolish beliefs in Africa is ludicrous if not disingenuous.
If GMOs were so much better, they would be bought and consumed because of their merits.
To blame people who request choice for foolish beliefs in Africa is ludicrous if not disingenuous.
4
Mr. Lynas glosses over here industrial and private profit aspect of GMO crops. He treats them like a wonderful product of pure science when they are a power tool for profit by the chemical companies like Monsanto.
The GMO modified crops are used to blackmail farmers. If the GMO crop spreads to a non-GMO property, Monsanto sues for it's dime.
The GMO crops are unsustainable by definition and must be PURCHASED each year vs. typically taking some seeds from the current harvest and planting them.
GMO crops can be wildly mutated, E. Coli DNA in corn and there is zero long term testing of the crops.
We have cross bred crops for disease resistance and other attributes and that is entirely sustainable. GMO crops are created by mixing DNA of plants, animals and bacteria into artificial and non-self sustaining combos. For the chemical companies it is cheaper and easier to do and provides them a constant customer base since the crops cannot legally be reproduced.
The farmers with the cassava must pay high prices for it each year to chemical companies.
While there is ignorance of the problems of the chemical companies business model of GMO crops that cannot be reproduced but purchased each year, that ignorance seems to be Mr. Lynas's.
The GMO modified crops are used to blackmail farmers. If the GMO crop spreads to a non-GMO property, Monsanto sues for it's dime.
The GMO crops are unsustainable by definition and must be PURCHASED each year vs. typically taking some seeds from the current harvest and planting them.
GMO crops can be wildly mutated, E. Coli DNA in corn and there is zero long term testing of the crops.
We have cross bred crops for disease resistance and other attributes and that is entirely sustainable. GMO crops are created by mixing DNA of plants, animals and bacteria into artificial and non-self sustaining combos. For the chemical companies it is cheaper and easier to do and provides them a constant customer base since the crops cannot legally be reproduced.
The farmers with the cassava must pay high prices for it each year to chemical companies.
While there is ignorance of the problems of the chemical companies business model of GMO crops that cannot be reproduced but purchased each year, that ignorance seems to be Mr. Lynas's.
58
Cassava reproduces vegetatively, the virus resistant GM variety is being developed by non-profits, farmers can multiply it as they wish, if their government permits to be grown at all. IP protection and transgenesis (GM) are two separate issues artificially combined together by anti*GM activists who take advantage the fact that in western societies only a small fraction of the society has any experience with farming and thus can be easily bullied into narratives that some PR department just makes up.
1
The only thing GMOs have in common is a technique. It's like saying all sweaters knitted with wooden needles are the same. Each one needs to be judged on it's own merits. And any new food product goes through years of FDA testing before it is allowed.
4
"Facing this hostile climate, the crop biotech sector in Europe is dying. The plant science division of the agrochemical giant BASF closed its doors in Germany back in 2012, shifting some operations to the friendlier climes of the United States."
If this is true, it must really be bad in the EU. Let's hope that the US regulations don't chase BASF and Monsanto to China.
If this is true, it must really be bad in the EU. Let's hope that the US regulations don't chase BASF and Monsanto to China.
Oh yes, you are telling me that Monsanto knows better than God?
Right.
Right.
2
Perhaps the ignorance is yours. This is as much about rejecting rampant, voracious capitalism as Monsanto is about food security.
1
I believe the science of GMO's is not as settled as the author would like us to believe. Too bad that those who dare question the state of science with respect to GMO's are called ignorant.
2
Thank goodness so many people have the intelligence to stand up against the hegemony of seed control. If it is science then science is oppression. The people of Guatemala have spoken and, thank you Monsanto, they do not have to buy their centuries old staple from you. Please read about Guatemala's victory over scientific oppression.
http://www.wakingtimes.com/2015/10/19/indigenous-mayans-win-stunning-rep...
http://www.wakingtimes.com/2015/10/19/indigenous-mayans-win-stunning-rep...
2
I think this article is a joke.
GMO crops have done incalculable harm to the environment and that is well documented. They may or may not be dangerous to eat but they are certainly dangerous to the wealth and independence of farmers who are enslaved to the GMO companies as once their fields are contaminated with GMO crops, they are sued by GMO companies if the stop buying from the GMO companies and any GMO plants sprout up.
GMO crops are also dangerous to the environment as they encourage agricultural practices like monocrop farming and excessive spraying by herbicides
GMO crops have done incalculable harm to the environment and that is well documented. They may or may not be dangerous to eat but they are certainly dangerous to the wealth and independence of farmers who are enslaved to the GMO companies as once their fields are contaminated with GMO crops, they are sued by GMO companies if the stop buying from the GMO companies and any GMO plants sprout up.
GMO crops are also dangerous to the environment as they encourage agricultural practices like monocrop farming and excessive spraying by herbicides
3
Aren't hybrids genetically engineered?
2
NO. Not the same at all. That is a standard Big_GMO talking point though.
1
And 2) the safety tests were run on toxicity and/or human harm. Did we run all the tests on plant safety? don't think so...
2
I'm quite fed up with the "not science faction". Mostly industry funded. Oddly, I am a scientist, even an biologist. Makes one want to read Food Babe night and day, and keep track of who's attacking her!
1
Ah, Science! Selflessly improving the world! Never promoting a new "advance" until it's been thoroughly test and found absolutely safe. Never promoting anything due to an overriding concern for profit-- no, the chief concern is malnourished children! Wonderful! How could anyone want to stand in the way of such undoubted progress? Fools!
1
You are the one ignoring the science and playing along with the pesticide/GMO creators like Monsanto. Don't play the poor starving people card in "whereever land" because they would all be much better off with sustainably grown good old fashioned crops and not this frankenfood garbage. We all need to get back to enriching our soils with compost and other real farm by products and away from petroleum based fertilizers and pesticides. WE need to integrate our crops and move away from mono-cropping. But I am sure you are jusst shaking your head and calling me a tree-hugging "extremist." Good comment kathalina,BTW.
2
The end goal of GMO crops is about nothing less than total corporate dominance and control of the world food supply.
As usual, you can get to the core of Mr. Lynas's intentions and motivations for writing his "scientific" hack job articles by following the money and who his "sponsors" are, including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. You know, the same foundation that is one of the main proponents of privatization of public schools.
As usual, you can get to the core of Mr. Lynas's intentions and motivations for writing his "scientific" hack job articles by following the money and who his "sponsors" are, including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. You know, the same foundation that is one of the main proponents of privatization of public schools.
2
I'm trying to figure out why the Times would publish this poorly written and misleading opinion. Is this the same Mark Lynas who wrote about global warming and holds a degree in history and politics? How does that qualify a person for an opinion piece on genetically modified organisms in a major newspaper? I would much rather learn what GMOs containing insecticides
are doing to the many strains of gut bacteria essential to our lives.
are doing to the many strains of gut bacteria essential to our lives.
2
Stop giving ideologues like this a platform. And now that he mentions it, it's no wonder Viagra and Cialis commercials are so ubiquitous during football games. It's the GMOs!
And they said cigarettes were harmless too.
Two comments: 1) Do you remember thalidomide? We said "yes " Europe said "no." Who was right?
37
I cannot believe this comment was chosen as a NYT pick. Do you really remember Thalidomide? The FDA saved thousands of Americans from being borne with serious limb defects, while in my home country of Germany, 4000 - 5000 children were born with these defects.
It takes a truly ideological mind to thus contort history. And yes, I think we should be sceptical of GMOs but to outright ban them is immoral.
It takes a truly ideological mind to thus contort history. And yes, I think we should be sceptical of GMOs but to outright ban them is immoral.
2
It is exactly the other way around! US said no Germany said yes.
2
Actually, you are exactly wrong. Europe approved Thalidomide, and the US (actually one scientist at the FDA) blocked it.
The comments to this article emphasize the point the author is making. GMO's are part of the "belief complex' of ideas which are held for motivations that may be personal or political, but are certainly not scientific.
I find it amusing that PETA members and carnivores can think that feeding European animals GMO derived feed is OK, but is not for "human consumption."
The comments to this article emphasize the point the author is making. GMO's are part of the "belief complex' of ideas which are held for motivations that may be personal or political, but are certainly not scientific.
I find it amusing that PETA members and carnivores can think that feeding European animals GMO derived feed is OK, but is not for "human consumption."
1
I wish we could be ignorant like the Europeans, but alas, in the US Monsanto rules. If such a dominating, vicious company sells it, I don't want it. But I have to have it.
18
In America we have climate change deniers. In Europe (and parts of America) an irrational fear of biotechnology. Human progress is always challenged by Luddites.
5
Climate change doesn't exist.
GMO crops are unsafe and should be banned.
Vaccines are harming our children.
If I agree with one of these statements, then evil scientists are lying to us and science can't be trusted because it is all about personal choice. If I agree with one of these statements, then it is "settled science" and anyone disagreeing is stupid or a sheep and should not be given personal choice in the matter.
GMO crops are unsafe and should be banned.
Vaccines are harming our children.
If I agree with one of these statements, then evil scientists are lying to us and science can't be trusted because it is all about personal choice. If I agree with one of these statements, then it is "settled science" and anyone disagreeing is stupid or a sheep and should not be given personal choice in the matter.
5
The real issue with GMOs isn't whether they are safe or not. It is about a handful of corporations copyrighting nature, and controlling the entire food chain. The switch the GMO is a one-way affair, specifically designed to make you dependent on the company forever after. There is no turning back; you become the costumer of Monsanto forever or you will be sued and ruined. This is a big concern for Europeans and other countries, who would rather not let corporations with questionable agendas dictate what and how they plant.
25
The article gets the comparison between global warming and G.M.O. wrong. Those who blindly support the Global Warming political movement are of the same ilk as those who blindly reject GMOs. The problem is not a respect for science in the one case and a disrespect for client in the other. It is a willingness, in both cases, to let your politics run your science.
The Global Warming Industrial Complex denies, ridicules, protests, and squelches anyone who challenges the Global Warming orthodoxy with legitimate scientific objection or observations regarding the inadequacy of the global warming movement.
The Global Warming Industrial Complex denies, ridicules, protests, and squelches anyone who challenges the Global Warming orthodoxy with legitimate scientific objection or observations regarding the inadequacy of the global warming movement.
4
The concern is not so much over the food itself but the unknown effects of inadvertent effects on neighboring ecosystems.
13
With 7+ billion people in the world, and more on the way, we should not give up a powerful tool to feed us all without credible scientific evidence showing that GMOs are harmful. Genetics can enable agriculture to adapt more quickly to climate change.
Food already kills millions by heart attack, diabetes, cancer and stroke. No need for magical thinking about GMOs.
Food already kills millions by heart attack, diabetes, cancer and stroke. No need for magical thinking about GMOs.
4
The general tone and argument of the first comments here really displays an ignorance of weed control practices, herbicides, what GMOs are actually about, what the alternatives are, what the ag industry is actually doing, how much a citizen might be consuming a GMO crop, or of Roundup! its the Luddites, folks. They're marching forward in a wild mob, waving their pitchforks, after Dr. Franekstein. When will more citizens wake up to this? Would one of these critics please find me a single human being or animal that is eating "Roundup-soaked GMO foods"? I challenge you because such a person does not exist, except in their rabid, Luddite imagination.
5
I'd offer myself as such a person, since I use US flour-based products, I eat US produce, I eat US meat fed on round-up ready corn and soy.
Unfortunately I have no way of knowing how much Roundup I consume, since it is not on any label.
However, if the WHO can stop Colombia spraying coca fields with Round-Up because of human carcinogen concerns I see no reason for complacency. How much cocaine can a person consume, compared to flour, meat . . .?
It may have been the farmers who were the potential cancer victims rather than the consumers, but no article made that clear.
Unfortunately I have no way of knowing how much Roundup I consume, since it is not on any label.
However, if the WHO can stop Colombia spraying coca fields with Round-Up because of human carcinogen concerns I see no reason for complacency. How much cocaine can a person consume, compared to flour, meat . . .?
It may have been the farmers who were the potential cancer victims rather than the consumers, but no article made that clear.
1
Monsanto and its ilk can be blamed for this attitude towards GMOs. By producing GMOs whose only benefit is the tolerance for Monsanto's Round-up, a herbicide that has been shown to cause more than a few negative impacts on the health of soil, water, and the organisms that consume it, the company has tainted the reputation of all GMOs, many of which may be as beneficial at Mr. Lynas claims.
23
Right from the start, Mr Lynas, you explain inadvertently WHY Europeans are opposed to GMOs (until more and better research is in, by the way)... Pure science: tends to be performed by what the Germans rightly call "Fachidioten," who can't look beyond the narrow box of their faculties.
1) Science, pure, is not what people trust, especially when HUGE multinationals are involved. That is the key point and you miss it entirely. Those multinationals are gearing up to make billions by industrializing agriculture through their GMO program, and that is the real problem. Framers forced to buy engineered seed from Monsanto and Co? Seed that does not reproduce? Do you consider that sustainable? I don't.
That is just one very important aspect of the European opposition to GMOs, and you don't care. When your cassavas survive, I can guarantee that some multinational will quadruple the price, and the same poor kids will go hungry.
Hunger (the emotional argument always brought up by Syngenta & Co. ) is a distribution problem, not a production problem, but for that you'd also have to step out of the science department and go fish in difficult, muddier waters.
Stop portraying Europeans as backward, please, just because we are not swallowing the GMO koolaid without giving it some thought.
1) Science, pure, is not what people trust, especially when HUGE multinationals are involved. That is the key point and you miss it entirely. Those multinationals are gearing up to make billions by industrializing agriculture through their GMO program, and that is the real problem. Framers forced to buy engineered seed from Monsanto and Co? Seed that does not reproduce? Do you consider that sustainable? I don't.
That is just one very important aspect of the European opposition to GMOs, and you don't care. When your cassavas survive, I can guarantee that some multinational will quadruple the price, and the same poor kids will go hungry.
Hunger (the emotional argument always brought up by Syngenta & Co. ) is a distribution problem, not a production problem, but for that you'd also have to step out of the science department and go fish in difficult, muddier waters.
Stop portraying Europeans as backward, please, just because we are not swallowing the GMO koolaid without giving it some thought.
31
The vast majority of GMO plants are plants modified so that they are not affected by Round-up - so farmers can saturate the field with this week killer, without hurting the crop. But humans are not thusly genetically modified. So the Round-up that the plants absorbed enters the food chain and is consumed by humans.
I for one have no interest in eating weed killer, and I applaud the EU decision.
In the 50's and 60's we had well paid tobacco "scientists" telling us that cigarette smoking was not a danger to our health. Now we have a new crop of Shills.
I for one have no interest in eating weed killer, and I applaud the EU decision.
In the 50's and 60's we had well paid tobacco "scientists" telling us that cigarette smoking was not a danger to our health. Now we have a new crop of Shills.
51
Europeans value their unique local agricultural products and traditions, which are closely linked to local cultures. Go to Europe and taste the difference - their dairy products are out of this world, and the local produce is fantastic.
Also, Europeans are big fans of something called the "protective principle", which means you make sure something is safe before you spread it all over the place. And they aren't just worried about whether GMOs will kill people, but what effect they will have on indigenous plants and birds and insects. You might not care about bees and butterflies, but they do.
And just because you don't share their values doesn't give you any right to call them ignorant.
Also, Europeans are big fans of something called the "protective principle", which means you make sure something is safe before you spread it all over the place. And they aren't just worried about whether GMOs will kill people, but what effect they will have on indigenous plants and birds and insects. You might not care about bees and butterflies, but they do.
And just because you don't share their values doesn't give you any right to call them ignorant.
137
If you choose to ignore science, doesn't that make you "ignorant" by definition?
These Europeans - and the Africans who follow them - are fearing something which an overwhelming amount of sound science is telling them they need not fear. It's one thing to pay a bit more for non-GMO foods, it's quite another for people to starve to death because of unfounded fears of European greens.
Do you value your (unsupported) fears over the lives of thousands? How much do you think mothers and fathers in sub-Saharan Africa should care about these esoteric concerns when their children are literally starving to death?
You're right, I don't share your values!
These Europeans - and the Africans who follow them - are fearing something which an overwhelming amount of sound science is telling them they need not fear. It's one thing to pay a bit more for non-GMO foods, it's quite another for people to starve to death because of unfounded fears of European greens.
Do you value your (unsupported) fears over the lives of thousands? How much do you think mothers and fathers in sub-Saharan Africa should care about these esoteric concerns when their children are literally starving to death?
You're right, I don't share your values!
Great advertisement ,,,, science NO .... The big factor that this skips over is that the plants are STERILE ... that's right .... you must BUY new seed each year .. why are they sterile... what happens to us when we eat it ... nothing significant ... sounds like thalidomine..
BUT we are still missing the best part .. seeds are patented.. so big money will be making a killing ... looks like big pharma will only be little pharma .... but wait don't the same guys own both
BUT we are still missing the best part .. seeds are patented.. so big money will be making a killing ... looks like big pharma will only be little pharma .... but wait don't the same guys own both
25
The House of Representatives passed a bill in July that effectively eliminates any state from requiring the labeling of GMO food items. One of the sponsors was Mike Pompeo, who currently serves on the Select Committee on Benghazi. It requires that all labeling be done at the federal level (USDA), meaning that individual states are not allowed to require GMO labeling on their own. It has the innocuous title “The Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015,” but it means that all the corporate interests will focus their attention on that one agency. This is the same House of Representatives which abhors government overreach and promote states’ rights. They claim that they are looking out for our best interests and protecting us from higher prices at checkout. What we really need is labeling information to be able to make informed choices, but the House of Representatives does not think we are capable of that option.
10
GMO modified corn and soyabeans allow the field to be treated with RoundUp herbacide as it will not harm the corn or beans. However, the Roundup can be incorporated into the corn and beans leaves and stem. Then when this corn is eaten by humans, Roundup is considered very likely to be cancer producing. So many of us have cancer already and we are going out of our way to avoid dying from cancer and we you will understand why we avoid these crops that have been contaminated with the Roundup. It's not illogical. This does not even begin to discuss how this chemicals affects fauna and flora - specifically the monarch butterfly lifecycle-- animals and plants are related to our own wellbeing and that of the planet.
All this said, GMO is not always producing such results, each case is unique but we are manipulating the gene pool in any of these situations and we are not crazy to look at the problem with logic.
All this said, GMO is not always producing such results, each case is unique but we are manipulating the gene pool in any of these situations and we are not crazy to look at the problem with logic.
5
Given the strong-arm history of Monsanto and other multinationals, what these European countries are doing is logical. The Monsantos are all about profiteering and bullying, not science.
18
Weeds are already becoming resistant to GMO plants. Insect are becoming resistant to GMO modified plants. The path of GMO crops means we have fewer and fewer variety of plants. More and more crops are becoming infected by cross pollination.
As a consumer I should have a choice what I eat and place in my body. All food stuff should be labeled and let the consumers decide. This is why I grow my own with non- GMO seeds.
As a consumer I should have a choice what I eat and place in my body. All food stuff should be labeled and let the consumers decide. This is why I grow my own with non- GMO seeds.
17
Some of the same people who become apoplectic at the possibility their high fructose corn syrup comes from GMO corn, become willing to inject recombinant insulin into their muscles daily, should they become diabetic as a result of overindulging in the organic variety.
Nothing can overcome reason as effectively as fear. It plays out in the debates over GMOs, terrorism, gun control, evolution, you name it.
Nothing can overcome reason as effectively as fear. It plays out in the debates over GMOs, terrorism, gun control, evolution, you name it.
3
The insulin meme is a standard Big-GMO/Monsanto talking point.
1) The way GMO insulin is made has little to do with how GMO corn comes about.
2) Proof that one GMO product is OK does not mean they all are.
1) The way GMO insulin is made has little to do with how GMO corn comes about.
2) Proof that one GMO product is OK does not mean they all are.
Things things are seldom what they seem. We are assaulted daily with the promise of GMO's, but, in fact, most of the genetic engineering is to develop crops that will tolerate large doses of pesticide combinations applied right up to the time of harvest. The Europeans, whose governments are not in Monsanto's pocket, are better educated than we and prefer fewer poisons in their diets.
22
Coming from a family of farmers from Eastern Europe, from a country where GMO is banned, I find it interesting that comments are justifying GMO ban because Roundup is bad for the environment. Obviously, they aren't informed that Roundup is widely used when cultivating non-GMO crops as well, with different techniques. Roundup is just better than most alternatives, price/efficiency ratio makes it cheaper, so it is used everywhere. Unfortunately, liberal left has the same anti-science zeal with their anti-vaxxing and anti-GMO propaganda as conservative right with anti-climate change and creationism.
7
Please dig a little deeper. Maybe Europe is aghast as the U.S. should be at the GMO business model. Maybe they honor and value their farmers enough to protect their autonomy. Would European countries be steering clear of North America's adept criminalization of saving seeds? Could it be they won't line up behind vast corporate legal teams ruthlessly suing their independent farmers for planting downwind of some patented crop, like over here?
19
The author is absolutely correct. GMOs are urgently needed to feed a growing worlds population, especially as climate change will make more and more areas barren.
It's high time the anti-science crowd in Europe and the US wakes up and gets on the right side of common sense and scientific opinion.
It's high time the anti-science crowd in Europe and the US wakes up and gets on the right side of common sense and scientific opinion.
6
So Bayer and Monsanto can solve the problems in Uganda and Tanzania if only the "autocrats and crazies" would get out of the way. Sign me up. I'll even donate five bucks to their altruistic Congressional lobby.
But I just don't like eating food with glyphosate nor glufosinate residue. The legal allowable limit of glyphosate in food grown in North Dakota had to be raised this year because too many farmers couldn't meet the previous standard. Mr. Lynas didn't come out and state that consuming these chemicals is harmless — for a reason I assume.
When I see farmers spraying Roundup on wheat that soon will be turned into bread or pasta just to get a jump on harvest (and ease the thrashing process by wilting the green weeds), I shake my head.
But I just don't like eating food with glyphosate nor glufosinate residue. The legal allowable limit of glyphosate in food grown in North Dakota had to be raised this year because too many farmers couldn't meet the previous standard. Mr. Lynas didn't come out and state that consuming these chemicals is harmless — for a reason I assume.
When I see farmers spraying Roundup on wheat that soon will be turned into bread or pasta just to get a jump on harvest (and ease the thrashing process by wilting the green weeds), I shake my head.
18
Bravo! Thank you Mark Lynas. The cognitive dissonance displayed by otherwise rational people when it comes to GMO is shocking. Somehow those of us in the scientific community have to find a way to get across the benefits and safety of this technology.
We have the power to help farmers whose crops and livelihoods are devastated, boost our agricultural output, and create plants which vastly decrease the amount of pesticides used compared to convention non-GMO farming.
Keep up the good fight. We will save more lives and feed more people with GMO than all the hot air coming from the EU.
We have the power to help farmers whose crops and livelihoods are devastated, boost our agricultural output, and create plants which vastly decrease the amount of pesticides used compared to convention non-GMO farming.
Keep up the good fight. We will save more lives and feed more people with GMO than all the hot air coming from the EU.
9
Another example of social kumbaya PC voodoo running roughshod over common sense. Dangers of GMO foods are hype, and people love hype it seems more than they love lower prices or better sufficiency. The voodoo manifests in meaningless supermarket terms like "all natural." The price of food double when it's "organic" when in fact it's probably about 5% more healthy. Watch a person in the yogurt section of the dairy aisle, they study the claims for what is basically milk and sugar like some brand certainly contains the key to immortality, then the buy the one that has the prettiest package. Guess what folks, all food is "genetically modified," that's what evolution does to living things to make them the way they are.
7
There are too many unknowns--including the extent to which the genie can be put back in the bottle if it is determined to be a threat--to plunge uncontrolled into the world of genetically modified flora. It may take 30-50 years before most of the implications of genetically modified plant organisms are understood.
This article appears to be propaganda for the GMO industry.
This article appears to be propaganda for the GMO industry.
25
I understand the frustration of Mr. Lynas, a lobbyist. Sovereign countries dare resisting the propaganda of the biotech and food industries, which of course always have the health of consumers in mind. Remind me again the % of obese and overweight people in the U.S. thanks to the agro-industry business ?
We want something else in our plates than a source of profits for your customers, Mr. Lynas. Better the "Coalition of the Ignorant" than the "Continent of Idiots"
We want something else in our plates than a source of profits for your customers, Mr. Lynas. Better the "Coalition of the Ignorant" than the "Continent of Idiots"
25
Thank goodness for the "Coalition of the Ignorant" here in Europe. The idea that the science of GMO is settled is risible. It's far too early to tell the long term impacts of any new scientific field on mankind and our environment. Claiming otherwise is the unscientific stance of ignorance.
22
I am afraid that Monsanto has given GMO research and products such a bad reputation that this adversarial reaction described in the article may be largely to that, alas understandably so. Public education by others than Monsanto, as e.g. this good editorial does, will be needed.
3
A lot of people are against GMO crops not because of any argument aimed at any specific crop, but because of completely justifiable concerns that GMO crops have the potential to decimate the world's natural pollinators. Questions for Mr. Lynas: What's killing off bees and butterflies? Until there's scientific consensus that definitively rules out GMO crops, the Europeans are right to ban them.
Monsanto is no more likely to conduct serious research on whether GMO's damage pollinators than the NRA is to conduct serious research on whether the proliferation of guns in America is related to an increase in homicides.
On a side note, anyone who's spent time in Europe knows the Europeans like to grow fruits and vegetables that have flavor. Here in the US, by contrast, we like to grow food that tastes like cardboard.
Monsanto is no more likely to conduct serious research on whether GMO's damage pollinators than the NRA is to conduct serious research on whether the proliferation of guns in America is related to an increase in homicides.
On a side note, anyone who's spent time in Europe knows the Europeans like to grow fruits and vegetables that have flavor. Here in the US, by contrast, we like to grow food that tastes like cardboard.
14
Mr. Lynas does not have a clue what he is talking about with regard to GMO science. What science is he referring to? No generational studies have ever been conducted to determine long-term effects because FDA's ruling did not require any testing. He strikes me as an industry mouth piece spouting off their propaganda.
13
It is the society which ultimately decides what technologies should be used: not the scientists and the corporates. EU's decision is perfect especially the uncertainties regarding the impacts of GM technology in agriculture are still not settled.
4
Billions of human beings have eaten millions of tons of genetically modified grains over the last 10 years without there being a single verifiable case of doing any harm to anyone consuming such food. Hey, all food has been genetically modified! It has just been genetically modified by a much more hap hazard way than scientists can achieve with today's tools.
It amazes me how the very same people who so vocally condem climate change deniers are the first to dismiss the overwhelming majority of scientific opinion that GMO foods, properly implemented, pose no undo risk to humans. On the other hand they provide a way to feed a growing population without tearing down more of the earth's forest.
It amazes me how the very same people who so vocally condem climate change deniers are the first to dismiss the overwhelming majority of scientific opinion that GMO foods, properly implemented, pose no undo risk to humans. On the other hand they provide a way to feed a growing population without tearing down more of the earth's forest.
2
The science on GMOs has been settled. They are safe, and have been endorsed by the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, and many others. European opposition is largely due to pressure from farmers and others with vested interests in the organic lobby.
1
Luddism is a European concept -- deniers of technology -- born in England. It's descendant, Neo-Luddism is apparently alive and well in modern Europe.
Many of the crops have been researched exhaustively and found safe for human and animal consumption, while pesticides are never safe for human consumption.
I vote "aye".
Many of the crops have been researched exhaustively and found safe for human and animal consumption, while pesticides are never safe for human consumption.
I vote "aye".
1
Golden rice is one thing, round-up ready corn quite another in terms of human and environmental impact. Even using genes from Bacillus thuringens, definitely not harmful to humans, harms butterflies and probably bees. GMO is not of necessity a bad thing but its most profitable applications may not be its most benign.
5
It took generations to get asbestos out of homes and lead out of gasoline, thanks to corporate obfuscation, paid-for apologists, suborned "science" and the buying and selling of the political process. And there are still thousands upon thousands of untested chemicals in the U.S., used indiscriminately in home and workplaces.
Europeans have evidently had enough; Americans meanwhile, won't even have the right to know whether what they're eating is genetically engineered or not. "Science" demands that nobody be told and nobody be allowed to say. Meanwhile,"food disparagement" laws on the books in several of our states make it a crime to speak badly of a piece of meat or a cucumber. Insult prime roast or genetic corn on TV or in the newspaper, or have your crops contaminated by genetically altered plants, and you're likely to find yourself rendered destitute by legal fees.
Land of the free, indeed.
Europeans have evidently had enough; Americans meanwhile, won't even have the right to know whether what they're eating is genetically engineered or not. "Science" demands that nobody be told and nobody be allowed to say. Meanwhile,"food disparagement" laws on the books in several of our states make it a crime to speak badly of a piece of meat or a cucumber. Insult prime roast or genetic corn on TV or in the newspaper, or have your crops contaminated by genetically altered plants, and you're likely to find yourself rendered destitute by legal fees.
Land of the free, indeed.
17
Monsalto shouldn't started its work by creating plants that produces pesticides. The whole 'science' part lost the general public's trust at that point. The industry never had it. Monsalto should only fault itself. Out of greed it destroyed its own market.
7
In his hubris, what Mr. Lynas proposes is actually the worst kind of science – the outdated God-playing kind that peddles easy fixes to a problem it has ultimately caused itself. Haven't we seen enough farmers go bust, de-enabled by big business, enslaved by high finance? Consensus in Europe appears to be forming that the solution to the world's food problems will come not from aggressive U.S. agricultural corporations (i.e., Monsanto and its evil kind) but by smart, energy-conscious, autonomous organic farming – and nothing but. Shame on the NYT for an item that lays claim to 'science' but is obviously interest-funded, offends the reader's intelligence, and may help give U.S. research & industry a bad name abroad.
15
A recent Pew Research Center survey of members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) found that a slightly higher percentage of scientists believe GMOs are safe (89%) than believe climate change is caused by humans (88%).
Those who ignore the science of climate change are referred to as "Deniers".
How should we refer to those who claim GMOs aren't safe?
Picking and choosing science for convenience, when it supports a preconceived conclusion, isn't Progressive.
Those who ignore the science of climate change are referred to as "Deniers".
How should we refer to those who claim GMOs aren't safe?
Picking and choosing science for convenience, when it supports a preconceived conclusion, isn't Progressive.
1
Is Europe's ban on GMO's a threat to species diversity, climate stability and our survival? I am not convinced.
How long has science been looking at the question of GMO's vs the question of climate change? Unlike climate change there really is not that much harm in waiting longer to adopt this method. And another thing, science or no science I don't want a giant corporation controlling our food supply and yes that is a political agenda.
How long has science been looking at the question of GMO's vs the question of climate change? Unlike climate change there really is not that much harm in waiting longer to adopt this method. And another thing, science or no science I don't want a giant corporation controlling our food supply and yes that is a political agenda.
6
I was looking forward to an interesting article but the author could not avoid presenting a one-sided view.
On the one hand, he discusses the reduction in insecticide use when using some GMO crops, but on the other hand, he fails to discuss the increase in herbicide use associated with many crops. Many of Monsanto's big sellers are "Roundup ready corn", "Roundup ready soybeans", etc. The point of these crops is that you can spray with with a lot of the Roundup herbicide to kill weeds chemically and have the plant survive.
Of course he is right there there is no direct nutritional concern of eating food with modified DNA. I'm not sure that anyone disagrees with that, though. I would say that he is attacking a straw man.
The main reason to be wary of increased GMO use is the trend of developing crops which are more resistant to chemicals for the purpose of spraying them with more chemicals. This article fails to address this concern even a little bit.
Also, "outlawed by government fiat" is a strange phrase. I think it just means "outlawed". Is the surprise that the government is passing a law that the corporations didn't lobby for?
On the one hand, he discusses the reduction in insecticide use when using some GMO crops, but on the other hand, he fails to discuss the increase in herbicide use associated with many crops. Many of Monsanto's big sellers are "Roundup ready corn", "Roundup ready soybeans", etc. The point of these crops is that you can spray with with a lot of the Roundup herbicide to kill weeds chemically and have the plant survive.
Of course he is right there there is no direct nutritional concern of eating food with modified DNA. I'm not sure that anyone disagrees with that, though. I would say that he is attacking a straw man.
The main reason to be wary of increased GMO use is the trend of developing crops which are more resistant to chemicals for the purpose of spraying them with more chemicals. This article fails to address this concern even a little bit.
Also, "outlawed by government fiat" is a strange phrase. I think it just means "outlawed". Is the surprise that the government is passing a law that the corporations didn't lobby for?
10
It's not about science. that's a red herring.
It's about control.
I'm not afraid of GMO's, I'm afraid of Monsanto, of forced monocultures, of patenting life itself.
When the rational, cautious, and adventuresome people of the earth can get together and develop foods for all mankind, not for the benefit of provably irresponsible corporations, then let's use science to develop whatever we need, but all of us, together.
Jonas Salk, upon being asked why he didn't patent the Polio vaccine replied "It belongs to everyone. It would be like patenting the Sun."
When did we trade our dignity for greed?
It's about control.
I'm not afraid of GMO's, I'm afraid of Monsanto, of forced monocultures, of patenting life itself.
When the rational, cautious, and adventuresome people of the earth can get together and develop foods for all mankind, not for the benefit of provably irresponsible corporations, then let's use science to develop whatever we need, but all of us, together.
Jonas Salk, upon being asked why he didn't patent the Polio vaccine replied "It belongs to everyone. It would be like patenting the Sun."
When did we trade our dignity for greed?
19
Americans are fat, in an overall deplorable state of health compared to most other developed countries, spend an absolutely insane amount of money per person on healthcare, and have a food industry that is in no way focused on improving the health of its citizens but increasing the earnings of corporations.
The US also is a very pro gmo country. Why would other countries want to follow in our footsteps?
The US also is a very pro gmo country. Why would other countries want to follow in our footsteps?
12
I believe that most folks would be more welcoming to GMOs if companies were more transparent about what was actually done to the plants AND if they were more receptive to appropriate labeling.
I view this as similar to the choice of whether or not to eat a food with a certain chemical, say a certain low calorie (non-nutritive) sweetner. Companies have to state whether or not they used aspartame or sucralose. They should have to state how they did their genetic modification.
Without this transparency, it will be difficult for the consumer to trust the safety of the food, especially for those who are on restricted diets, whether for health, allergies, or religious reasons.
I view this as similar to the choice of whether or not to eat a food with a certain chemical, say a certain low calorie (non-nutritive) sweetner. Companies have to state whether or not they used aspartame or sucralose. They should have to state how they did their genetic modification.
Without this transparency, it will be difficult for the consumer to trust the safety of the food, especially for those who are on restricted diets, whether for health, allergies, or religious reasons.
46
GMO crops are good, right? This is the same old tired argument trotted out by scientists that have a view to promote. The public has been rightly suspicious of non-natural forms of farming and produce and is increasingly choosing organic foods in the US against GMO crops and foods produced with those crops.
It would be incredibly disingenuous to think these things aren't associated. The Europeans have that right. But Big Agriculture is apoplectic over their failure to be able to spin this story to their advantage and make billions in profits.
Good for the Europeans.
It would be incredibly disingenuous to think these things aren't associated. The Europeans have that right. But Big Agriculture is apoplectic over their failure to be able to spin this story to their advantage and make billions in profits.
Good for the Europeans.
5
Mr. Lynas is an apologist for the pesticide industry. Glyphosate, "roundup" is a potent gut biocide, killing off both beneficial and harmful bacteria in the human gut. It's now been found in breast milk. GMO crops cast their pollen far, contaminating attempts to grow organic food. These companies have gotten their people appointed into high positions in the USDA and therefore, favorable rulings have come out. Academic apologists for the industry write studies and reports but fail to disclose that they are paid by the pesticide. subject. Watch "Symphony of the Soil" a great film on the subject. Manufacturers and apologists, your grandchildren will hang their heads in sadness when all is revealed how your industry has damaged earth.
6
This article is the standard industry line on GMOs. GMOs are subject only to a 60-90 day toxicity tests. Neither tobacco nor radiation would show as harmful with the same suite of tests. The GMO companies make no claims about the safety of the product, placing responsibility for safety on the government agencies who they have lobbied through the revolving door of corporate positions to approve anything. Over 90 percent of the GMO acreage is for Roundup ready crops so our land and water will be polluted with Glycophosphate now known to be a carcinogen. Lastly, the GMO industry has given every indication of wanting to hide something through protective legislation, lack of openness and intimidation of unbiased researchers. It is the tobacco/radiation/pollution/car safety playbook all over again. Thank you Europe for being the shining light of Democracy once again. Why does anyone think the paid pseudo-science from industry hirelings trump our right to know what is in our food?
8
We are in the midst of the sixth great mass extinction event in our planet's history. It would have been wise to exercise the precautionary principle before introducing GMOs into the already reeling biota of our planet. But wisdom regarding the greater good is of little value when corporate profits are at stake. I'm sure my kids will understand.
5
"...the gene-editing tool known as Crispr is on the brink of revolutionizing the field of genetics internationally." Please, a little less melodrama.
What cutting-edge technology doesn't feel that it's on the verge of "revolutionizing" science, and in this case, genetics?
As a botanist with some experience in agronomy, the GMO debate is not as clear-cut as you make it seem, and not all relevant science embraces GMO. Also, I don't care how many starving children you've seen, it makes you no more informed (clearly) on the subject than the average flight attendant.
Some GMO is here to stay, and in some cases it's no more controversial than similar techniques developed over the last 30 years. We should also continue to search for wild progenitors as a way to fight disease of agriculture crops. Much of this argument can be seen in the larger context of humans being incapable of slowing & controlling their own growth and nasty, wasteful ways - we're always looking to innovate ourselves out of whatever problem we create in the natural world.
What cutting-edge technology doesn't feel that it's on the verge of "revolutionizing" science, and in this case, genetics?
As a botanist with some experience in agronomy, the GMO debate is not as clear-cut as you make it seem, and not all relevant science embraces GMO. Also, I don't care how many starving children you've seen, it makes you no more informed (clearly) on the subject than the average flight attendant.
Some GMO is here to stay, and in some cases it's no more controversial than similar techniques developed over the last 30 years. We should also continue to search for wild progenitors as a way to fight disease of agriculture crops. Much of this argument can be seen in the larger context of humans being incapable of slowing & controlling their own growth and nasty, wasteful ways - we're always looking to innovate ourselves out of whatever problem we create in the natural world.
3
This is what happens when an industry refuses to listen to its consumers who for decades requested labeling of GMOs. With the constant refusal from this industry came the complete mistrust and opposition of consumers who are also voters on a continent where food quality actually matters, something that this article carefully ignores, being based in a cultural opposite.
4
Too bad that whenever someone questions science run amok, that person is automatically "anti-science." There is a wealth of data about the dangers of GMOs and the deleterious effects to the environment and culture. But I guess that's unscientific, probably because those tracts are written by scientists not in the pockets of truly offensive corporations like Monsanto.
9
The problem here is not a phobia of science, but a healthy skepticism of technology guided by too little science and too much greed.
What's next from this writer? A diatribe against films like Supersize Me because they undermine America's lead in "fast food science"? Or against recycling because it stifles promising careers in "landfill science"? Or about forcing vegetarians to become meat-eaters so that they can benefit from the wonders of GMO-stoked production and save jobs in the meat-packing industry? Wrong focus for an intelligent man, I'd say.
What's next from this writer? A diatribe against films like Supersize Me because they undermine America's lead in "fast food science"? Or against recycling because it stifles promising careers in "landfill science"? Or about forcing vegetarians to become meat-eaters so that they can benefit from the wonders of GMO-stoked production and save jobs in the meat-packing industry? Wrong focus for an intelligent man, I'd say.
5
"Why would anyone spend years developing genetically modified crops in the knowledge that they will most likely be outlawed by government fiat?"
That is an _excellent_ reason for governments to outlaw them. Then maybe
But a much better reason is that genetically modified organisms are a catastrophe waiting to happen.
The home page teaser reads "An irrational phobia of genetically modified crops is causing real harm." The fear of them is not at all "irrational." You doubt this? It is just a matter of time before the complexity of DNA and our inability to model unknown ecosystems results in a widespread mistake of far-reaching proportions.
Mankind has a foolish history of ignoring low-probability events that are guaranteed to occur in the long run, and many people have needlessly died because of it.
That is an _excellent_ reason for governments to outlaw them. Then maybe
But a much better reason is that genetically modified organisms are a catastrophe waiting to happen.
The home page teaser reads "An irrational phobia of genetically modified crops is causing real harm." The fear of them is not at all "irrational." You doubt this? It is just a matter of time before the complexity of DNA and our inability to model unknown ecosystems results in a widespread mistake of far-reaching proportions.
Mankind has a foolish history of ignoring low-probability events that are guaranteed to occur in the long run, and many people have needlessly died because of it.
2
The GMO trajectory follows that of antibiotics fed to livestock and fowl to "fatten em up quicker" Big pharma had no problem marketing antibiotics to farmers until trace amounts were found throughout the environment. Antibiotic resistant organisms are the result at great cost to human health and the environment.
How many tens of thousands will suffer until we find out definitively GMOs are dangerous? Using the anti science argument is disingenuous at best. As with most things in the USA, it's all about the money.
How many tens of thousands will suffer until we find out definitively GMOs are dangerous? Using the anti science argument is disingenuous at best. As with most things in the USA, it's all about the money.
6
Man, it's hard for a lay person to understand modern issues. Most high school kids can offer some clear insights on social issues such as abortion, the death penalty, welfare, etc. Once they learn some facts, their opinions sometimes change. But when an issue is purely scientific, it's all about whom you trust. For me, as a non-scientist, I find compelling the argument that the vast majority of scientists support GMO use. On the other hand, note that Mr. Lynas argues that shutting up shop for GMOs would be analagous to the U.S. banning the automobile in 1910. Knowing what we know now about the effect of the automobile on the health of every human being and sustainability on the planet, that sounds like it might have been a pretty good idea. So which is it -- trust or don't trust the scientists?
The issue here is preventing unintended consequences.
When GMO genomes cross pollinate with other stocks the effects are uncontrolled. Uncontrolled is the key point.
Protecting the economic viability of investments in GMO products is anti-free enterprise. Consumers should know what they are purchasing, and if they do not want your product, tough.
They have every right to do it through their governments if they so choose. Your economic loss is not our concern.
You made a bad bet.
When GMO genomes cross pollinate with other stocks the effects are uncontrolled. Uncontrolled is the key point.
Protecting the economic viability of investments in GMO products is anti-free enterprise. Consumers should know what they are purchasing, and if they do not want your product, tough.
They have every right to do it through their governments if they so choose. Your economic loss is not our concern.
You made a bad bet.
1
Human beings should have the right to choose whether or not they want to be guinea pigs for scientific experiments.
The GMO faction has vehemently opposed labeling their products so that people can make that decision.
In America "judges" have usurped legislators in presuming to decide whether or not labeling should be required; therefore it is prudent for other countries to preempt judicial corruption by just banning the product all together.
If the GMO people are willing to abandon the practice if they are not allowed to surreptitiously impose their product on the public, so be it. We never asked for it in the first place.
The GMO faction has vehemently opposed labeling their products so that people can make that decision.
In America "judges" have usurped legislators in presuming to decide whether or not labeling should be required; therefore it is prudent for other countries to preempt judicial corruption by just banning the product all together.
If the GMO people are willing to abandon the practice if they are not allowed to surreptitiously impose their product on the public, so be it. We never asked for it in the first place.
2
Dear Mark...we have enough food in the world to feed everyone and more. We don't need to genetically alter our food we simply need to stop the greed and intentional lack of food distribution to the worlds poor. Humanity wastes it time creating weapons to destroy each other instead of spending that time to find ways to care for one another. I have a great amount to respect for Science but your reasoning is void of truth. For years Americans have been blindly allowing their government and its scientists to alter and destroy the nutritional value of our food and this article is a perfect example of that.
5
I am an average European consumer and my limited knowledge about the technology behind GMO products comes only from the media. However I lived long enough to know that products claimed safe and approved today often turn out not so safe tomorrow. And I understand that behind that GMO science is a huge profitable industry. I also understand how powerful GMO industry lobby is in America if they can block the rights of the consumers in the USA from making informed choices to buy or not to buy GMO products by influencing governments not to label their products as GMO.
10
The US & Europe could trade insults like this (you ignoramus, climate denier or GMO crazy). Yet is the GMO debate really about science only? The debate is also largely an economic and political one: will Monsanto control the crops of all farmers in the world? Even if GMOs are as safe as this indignant scientist claims the political issues remain. Now who is opposed to GMOs? Only Greenpeace or are there scientists too? If the writer is involved in the lobbying of the EU then his statements should be taken with a pinch of (organic) salt. I remember the lobbying by Big Tobacco (still very active in the EU after its defeats in the US).
6
It is not a phobia of science. It is about companies taking control of food. If a particular type of GMO crop, say corn, becomes the dominant type grown, then the company that owns that patent controls the price. It would be illegal for any farmer to produce seed from the plant to use in a second year. Also, it has been shown that when one farm has a GMO, there is cross contamination with adjoining farms that do not, making their plants into a patent crops.
13
Lynas, who has no science qualifications while labeling Europe as ignorant, fails to acknowledge there are legitimate scientific, health, and environmental concerns. This is not about ideology or choosing chemistry over biology. On the contrary, studies in peer reviewed scientific journals document weed and insect resistance to herbicide tolerant (HT) and Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) GMO crops requiring increased quantities of herbicides and pesticides. This is a predictable effect of evolution no different than microorganisms developing resistance to antibiotics and antivirals. Consider the perspective of "GMOs, Herbicides, and Public Health" published August 20, 2015, in The New England Journal of Medicine: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1505660
7
Mark- thanks for the insightful editorial. Why anti-GMO advocates turn to Europe for inspiration to support their non-scienctic ideology is perplexing (thalidomide quickly comes to mind...). But of course, this is not about who is right and who is wrong, and there are a slew of well respected European scientists who support crop biotechnology and GMOs, as the article mentions. It is absurd that a scientific consensus is intentionally ignored. There are consequences to ignoring science, whether the issue is global warming, the safety of vaccines, or GMOs.
37
I'm a scientist in the California Biotech industry, but am focused on finding cures for cancer and other human diseases. This has nothing to do with plant modification. The European (non-plant) biotech industry will not be affected by these anti-GMO policies.
The obesity epidemic in the US is out of control and we Americans think that we should continue fiddling with our crops and animals? People were not obese two generations ago. Now we are at 33% obesity in some states. I think we should be taking our cues from Europe rather than saying they are anti-science.
The obesity epidemic in the US is out of control and we Americans think that we should continue fiddling with our crops and animals? People were not obese two generations ago. Now we are at 33% obesity in some states. I think we should be taking our cues from Europe rather than saying they are anti-science.
4
The comments here demonstrate the ignorance of the science of GMO crops. Resistance to Roundup has been seized upon by the anti-GMO crowd to condemn the whole field of GMO research. However, Roundup resistance is but one trait that has been introduced into food crops through genetic engineering. This op-ed mentions a few of the many beneficial modifications that have been introduced, including disease resistance, resistance to pests and nutritional enhancements of staple food crops. Use of genetic engineering to modify food crops is using modern technology to do what humans have been doing for thousands of years: breeding and selecting favorable traits to improve these crops. The anti-GMO movement shows that science denial is not just a right-wing phenomenon.
2
I think the Europeans are smart enough to let this rather radical experiment with the world's food supply take place somewhere other than their own fields and furrows. A very long list of supposedly safe scientific 'breakthroughs' that turned nasty should give one pause. And Monsanto has been anything but cooperative when it comes to giving people basic information about this new technology, such as "which foods contain it and which foods do not". I don't trust them. Many people do not trust them. They have a very strong financial incentive to advertise the benefits without ever discussing the risks. We've seen it all before, countless times. The European approach is anything but reckless. It is measured and deliberate, as it should be here in the US... but isn't.
5
I am stunned and appalled by the superiority and frankly ignorance of this article. The audacity of calling the EU or 28 or so countries Ignorant is truly ignorant.
I would also say that if you really believe the biotech business is trying to save humanity then you are naive.
Whether GMO foods are harmful or harmless - they are insidious and uncontainable once adopted. There simply have not been enough studies to proof their safety in all forms and there is some pretty compelling independent studies to indicate otherwise.
We should not and can't allow the biotech industries too barrel along and strip all choice from the matter by contaminating every square inch of our planet far and wide with it's unproven, largely untested, unlabeled seeds. Kathalina's case in point re: glyphosate, which Monsanto, claimed was safe for years.
Bravo EU, and all the countries that have shown some restraint and bravery. Shame on the US, this puppet Mark Lynas and the NY times for this rhetoric. Wake up - think for yourselves, and join the majority of american that are actually against GMO's rampant spread.
I would also say that if you really believe the biotech business is trying to save humanity then you are naive.
Whether GMO foods are harmful or harmless - they are insidious and uncontainable once adopted. There simply have not been enough studies to proof their safety in all forms and there is some pretty compelling independent studies to indicate otherwise.
We should not and can't allow the biotech industries too barrel along and strip all choice from the matter by contaminating every square inch of our planet far and wide with it's unproven, largely untested, unlabeled seeds. Kathalina's case in point re: glyphosate, which Monsanto, claimed was safe for years.
Bravo EU, and all the countries that have shown some restraint and bravery. Shame on the US, this puppet Mark Lynas and the NY times for this rhetoric. Wake up - think for yourselves, and join the majority of american that are actually against GMO's rampant spread.
7
The problem is not with GMO's themselves (I'm a scientist and must go with what the data tell me), it's the monopolization and money that mega-agro companies make off of GMO's and the startling restrictions in freedom they've successfully demanded our governments impose on us in the name of intellectual property (another name for huge profits). There are limits in how far I'll go in approving of (not to mention ingesting) GMO's, and I think everyone should think about these, Mr. Lynas included, but the real question is who is making our food decisions for us, those interested in our welfare (and the welfare of farmers, other organisms, the planet, etc.) or those sole concern is the bottom line?
6
While GMO foods might be safe, the GMO infrastructure is NOT. In fact it is destructive. (a) One type of genetic modification makes crops resistant to a class of pesticides that kill all bugs and weeds, damaging the eco-system, the loss of milk-weed being one example. (b) The GMO seed industry wishes to eliminate traditional seed that has, over time, evolved to produce plants that are better suited to the local conditions, e.g., poor water. This leaves farmer in 3rd world countries with large expenditure and debt for seed, pesticides, then fertilizer, then irrigation.
It is for these reasons I oppose GMO foods and would like to know which of my foods were produced with this technology.
It is for these reasons I oppose GMO foods and would like to know which of my foods were produced with this technology.
6
This smacks of "paid for" by Monsanto.
There are so many problems with "GMOs", none of them simple
1. A company with ethical standards that serve as a low benchmark of how venal a corporation can go in their quest for universal ownership of the planet's food supply—what and how it is grown, who can grow it and what farmers must pay to do so,
2. the still unknown consequences of long-term use of GMOs, including to ALL species who eat GMOs
3. A corollary to the GMO controversy is use of pesticides. We have learned, perhaps too late, the role neonicotinoid pesticides have in the rapid decline of bees. Like DDT, these bug killers are highly effective but a Faustian bargain.
More unbiased public education is desperately needed (not more propaganda by Monsanto) to differentiate between gene modification/gene splicing and other forms of manipulation and the implications of each for their TOTAL environmental consequences . Consideration must be taken for ALL human repercussions: small economies, a farmer's freedom to plant what he/she wishes not what is "allowed" by corporate dominance, the long-term affects on human metabolism, etc.
It's not not enough to simply address the apparent safety to any one individual eating a modified food. It's far more complicated and to attempt to make it seem a simpleminded rejection of "science" is an egregious lie, no matter what isolated anecdote of ignorance you throw into the discussion.
There are so many problems with "GMOs", none of them simple
1. A company with ethical standards that serve as a low benchmark of how venal a corporation can go in their quest for universal ownership of the planet's food supply—what and how it is grown, who can grow it and what farmers must pay to do so,
2. the still unknown consequences of long-term use of GMOs, including to ALL species who eat GMOs
3. A corollary to the GMO controversy is use of pesticides. We have learned, perhaps too late, the role neonicotinoid pesticides have in the rapid decline of bees. Like DDT, these bug killers are highly effective but a Faustian bargain.
More unbiased public education is desperately needed (not more propaganda by Monsanto) to differentiate between gene modification/gene splicing and other forms of manipulation and the implications of each for their TOTAL environmental consequences . Consideration must be taken for ALL human repercussions: small economies, a farmer's freedom to plant what he/she wishes not what is "allowed" by corporate dominance, the long-term affects on human metabolism, etc.
It's not not enough to simply address the apparent safety to any one individual eating a modified food. It's far more complicated and to attempt to make it seem a simpleminded rejection of "science" is an egregious lie, no matter what isolated anecdote of ignorance you throw into the discussion.
6
Predictably, the first ten comments are from people who fear biotech. Their responses run the gamut of red herring concerns about seed patents, monocultures, and unknown long-term risks to ad hominem arguments, comparisons of seed companies with the tobacco industry, and demands for opposing points of view. The Sunday Review has already run an op-ed by fear monger Nassim Taleb who, unlike Dr Lynas, has no background in genetics or plant breeding.
Folks, this really is a question of science, and that includes scientific risk assessment. There's no need to simply echo what you've read on Facebook with lives at stake all over the world.
Folks, this really is a question of science, and that includes scientific risk assessment. There's no need to simply echo what you've read on Facebook with lives at stake all over the world.
1
Certainly there are irrational aspects to the anti-GMO perspective. However, the article takes quite a one-sided view. While there appears to be little evidence or rational basis for worrying about negative impacts of GMOs on health, there are valid concerns about long term ecological and evolutionary consequences. We have sidestepped normal mechanisms of genetic transmission and change, creating novel processes. It would be quite cavalier to assume that we can predict the impacts that will ensue.
4
Food production in the U.S. has more than doubled since the 1970's, in large part because of evil Monsanto and their ilk. During that time the worlds population has also grown. So if one does not wish to dine on these crops then one should prepare to be hungry because traditional farming methods for which so many foolishly long for will not feed the planet. The carrying capacity of the earth simply will not allow for billions to be fed without the use of machines, and science that all too many people enjoy themselves but unrealistically expect food producers to refuse to employ. Most Americans are fat and lazy and would perish behind a mule in high temperatures. And yes, using traditional farming methods would mean that most of us would have to grow food since one man or woman can only plow and hoe and weed and harvest a small plot of land.
1
I'm sorry but I'll take nature's product over one made in a labratory any day of the week. We simply have no idea what the long term consequences of GMOs are or the pesticides used in concert with them. There are too many un-explained health phenomenon going on (autism, cancer etc) to not be extremely causious in this realm. I think Europe is smart for banning GMO's and if we actually valued health over profit we would also.
5
The initial responses to to this opinion piece reflect the emotional aversion to GMOs that has a basis in human psychology but is not justified by biological science. Europeans can afford this willful ignorance but to deny the potential of this technology to developing countries that struggle with agricultural productivity is a needless moral failing.
1
As a liberal I am chagrined that the anti-vaccination and anti-GMO movements are dominated by my fellows. OF COURSE, when it comes to the behavior of large corporations and the association of profit with central aspects of our humanity like health and diet, there's a lot that is worthy of both suspicion and caution.
But just banning GMOs, like allowing personal preference exemptions to vaccines, is really throwing the baby out with the wash water. It's turning a complicated and nuanced reality into an artificial and even harmful black-or-white, either/or proposition. Anti-GMO folks seem fixated on the issue of pesticide use when there's a plethora of other equally consequential issues at stake, such as disease resistance (the mention in the article of cassavas is pertinent in this regard).
In all, the idea of the EU not even having a science adviser just strikes me as a huge loss for everyone concerned, as does the successful corporate campaigns in the U. S. forbidding the labeling of GMOs--a pyrrhic victory that will breed only destructive suspicion and fear. As with the issue of anthropogenic climate change, we NEED the scientists both publicly involved and professionally accountable in order to inform regulation and help dispel the kind of militant ignorance that is afoot and affecting policy to the detriment of humanity.
But just banning GMOs, like allowing personal preference exemptions to vaccines, is really throwing the baby out with the wash water. It's turning a complicated and nuanced reality into an artificial and even harmful black-or-white, either/or proposition. Anti-GMO folks seem fixated on the issue of pesticide use when there's a plethora of other equally consequential issues at stake, such as disease resistance (the mention in the article of cassavas is pertinent in this regard).
In all, the idea of the EU not even having a science adviser just strikes me as a huge loss for everyone concerned, as does the successful corporate campaigns in the U. S. forbidding the labeling of GMOs--a pyrrhic victory that will breed only destructive suspicion and fear. As with the issue of anthropogenic climate change, we NEED the scientists both publicly involved and professionally accountable in order to inform regulation and help dispel the kind of militant ignorance that is afoot and affecting policy to the detriment of humanity.
1
right wingers shout "big government is evil!" left wingers shout "big corporations are evil!'. both engage in hyperbole. strong government regulations to protect the environment are essential. but investments in biotech will be necessary to feed people. yes big corporations are obsessed with profit. but middle class people who want to retire will need tracking funds fed with corporate profits in their 401k.
polymath British Columbia Pending Approval
"Why would anyone spend years developing genetically modified crops in the knowledge that they will most likely be outlawed by government fiat?"
That is an _excellent_ reason for governments to outlaw them. Then maybe companies won't spend years developing something they can charge farmers for year after year, even pretending to outlaw the harvesting of seeds from the plants they grow.
But a much better reason is that genetically modified organisms are a catastrophe waiting to happen.
The home page teaser reads "An irrational phobia of genetically modified crops is causing real harm." The fear of them is not at all "irrational." You doubt this? It is just a matter of time before the complexity of DNA and our inability to model unknown ecosystems results in a widespread mistake of far-reaching proportions.
Mankind has a foolish history of ignoring low-probability events that are guaranteed to occur in the long run, and many people have needlessly died because of it.
"Why would anyone spend years developing genetically modified crops in the knowledge that they will most likely be outlawed by government fiat?"
That is an _excellent_ reason for governments to outlaw them. Then maybe companies won't spend years developing something they can charge farmers for year after year, even pretending to outlaw the harvesting of seeds from the plants they grow.
But a much better reason is that genetically modified organisms are a catastrophe waiting to happen.
The home page teaser reads "An irrational phobia of genetically modified crops is causing real harm." The fear of them is not at all "irrational." You doubt this? It is just a matter of time before the complexity of DNA and our inability to model unknown ecosystems results in a widespread mistake of far-reaching proportions.
Mankind has a foolish history of ignoring low-probability events that are guaranteed to occur in the long run, and many people have needlessly died because of it.
5
Splicing genetically engineered DNA into a plant destabilizes that plant's genetic sequence that has evolved over millions of years. This changes the RNA of that plant and it's impact on humans and animals is unpredictable, can be toxic, and can cause DNA mutations.
For example Mice fed Roundup Ready had problems with liver cell, pancreas, testicular cells and had intestinal damage. Their offspring fed on RR soy died within three weeks. There are increased mortality rates for large animals fed GM crops, but this data has been ignored or suppressed and not investigated. Also, it is interesting that animals given a choice of food avoid GMOs. (Genetic Roulette)
For example Mice fed Roundup Ready had problems with liver cell, pancreas, testicular cells and had intestinal damage. Their offspring fed on RR soy died within three weeks. There are increased mortality rates for large animals fed GM crops, but this data has been ignored or suppressed and not investigated. Also, it is interesting that animals given a choice of food avoid GMOs. (Genetic Roulette)
2
There can be no greater evidence to the absence of true fact based leadership in our country than the division between the parties on GMO and global warming. In the end, people adopt policy positions that support their ideology.
Global Warming is bad for business therefore it is false.
GMO is researched by major industries therefore it must be stopped.
If the powers that be succeed in killing GMO it will become a niche field driven by academic researchers. When people lobby to employ this technology, future anti-capitalists will lament the terrible opposition from Big Organic in demanding that anti-GMO laws be kept in place to protect their profit margins to the detriment of society - particularly the malnourished. I hope to live long enough to enjoy the irony.
Global Warming is bad for business therefore it is false.
GMO is researched by major industries therefore it must be stopped.
If the powers that be succeed in killing GMO it will become a niche field driven by academic researchers. When people lobby to employ this technology, future anti-capitalists will lament the terrible opposition from Big Organic in demanding that anti-GMO laws be kept in place to protect their profit margins to the detriment of society - particularly the malnourished. I hope to live long enough to enjoy the irony.
1
The author seems to be selectively writing history of the current restrictions on GMO in Europe. My understanding was the EU loosened restrictions on GMO crops in 2012 after intense lobbying by the agriculture industry, but left a legal loophole for member states to decide which crops can or cannot be grown in their countries. So it's no surprise that the first national restrictions were passed in 2012. Trying to pin this on a few angry Scotsmen and African dictators is misleading. Health concerns aside, the main reason this person opposes GMOs are the IP- restrictions that come with those GMOs. If a university developed a better strain of a crop to help fight hunger, that would be one thing. But what we have here are multi-national corporations seeking to control the worlds seed supplies. Thumbs down until this changes.
4
There is no chance a university or any other non-profit public research institutions will ever develop any transgenic crop again if the current excesive regulation persists. I have my grant applications turned down repeatedly because it contained a transgenic plant as a part of the project and many of my collegues have the same experience. The cost to get a new GMO crop through regulations are prohibitive. EFSA wants something like 100.000 Euros just as administrative fee to see the submitted dossier, not speaking about how much it costs to produce the data. Nobody can afford to pay millions and then to give the IP for free for a common good. That is way only Big Ag plays on this turf.
Unfortunately, the politicians are actually executing the will of the people here, and many of them presumably act also out of personal conviction. Opposition to G.M.O.s is so universal here that when you share at a dinner party that you support genetic engineering, people consider you a confused weirdo and may even pity you. Phobia of modern technologies like G.M.O.s or nuclear power is our pendant to American opposition to climate change science or recycled wastewater. Everyone seems to have their particular streak of insanity.
This is unlikely to change anytime soon. Although it reminds me of a similarly stupid phobia: The widespread fear of 'cellphone radiation' that would give us all cancer. Until a few years ago this was so mainstream that citizens organized in action committees to fight against the installation of cellphone antennas in their neighborhoods. That obsession seems to have mostly disappeared from the mainstream, probably because smartphones are just too useful to most people, and after years of using them and still not getting cancer, they wised up. If G.M.O.s' usefulness could somehow be made more apparent, the same could happen there.
This is unlikely to change anytime soon. Although it reminds me of a similarly stupid phobia: The widespread fear of 'cellphone radiation' that would give us all cancer. Until a few years ago this was so mainstream that citizens organized in action committees to fight against the installation of cellphone antennas in their neighborhoods. That obsession seems to have mostly disappeared from the mainstream, probably because smartphones are just too useful to most people, and after years of using them and still not getting cancer, they wised up. If G.M.O.s' usefulness could somehow be made more apparent, the same could happen there.
1
Opposing Frankenfood is not anti-science and is not irrational.
Secondly, those involved in the production, distribution and sale of Frankenfood have lobbied to keep knowledge of it's presence off of consumer product labels. That is anti-consumer and against the basic precepts that drive science.
I work in the Medical field of Radiology and the history of both radiation and medicine is littered with harm to people because people assured others it was ok when it was not. Likewise, the purveyors of Frankenfood are playing with fire that they have yet to truly understand.
Secondly, those involved in the production, distribution and sale of Frankenfood have lobbied to keep knowledge of it's presence off of consumer product labels. That is anti-consumer and against the basic precepts that drive science.
I work in the Medical field of Radiology and the history of both radiation and medicine is littered with harm to people because people assured others it was ok when it was not. Likewise, the purveyors of Frankenfood are playing with fire that they have yet to truly understand.
6
My issues with GMO produce is not only the poisons that are sprayed on them but also the "unintended" consequences of destroying and/or pollen exchange that devastate possibly a millenium of careful development of mainstays such as corn. Farmers have been harassed for such things as "saving" seed from successful non-GMO plants and forcing them to buy new "improved" seeds every year from guess who? The only reason for these "scientific improvements" is so that plants can survive onslaughts of pesticides and herbicides that are harmful to humans.
1
I agree with many commenters here. I haven't seen the level of scientific study to draw conclusions that GMO's are safe. A few industry funded studies does not allow such conclusions. Do we, for example, know what the effect of roundup ready crops are on the health of our pollinator species?
As a gardener I want the right to grow organic food; as an individual I want the right to eat them. I do not want the agricultural-industrial complex to own all rights to seeds, or to interfere with plant diversity and the health of our pollinators. Bravo to the Europeans!
As a gardener I want the right to grow organic food; as an individual I want the right to eat them. I do not want the agricultural-industrial complex to own all rights to seeds, or to interfere with plant diversity and the health of our pollinators. Bravo to the Europeans!
1
Hmmm, a billion years or so of evolution to concoct the present day genetic make up of all living beings, and a few humans, looking at this genetic piece or that piece, linked to this trait or that trait, imagine that they are competent to play tinker toy engineers.
These tinkerers are not scientists, they are engineers, promoting the profitabilty of private companies. In their crass and reckless disregard for honoring the mystereious gift of life, they pose as fundamentists, imagining that they are Gods, and competent to peform such manipulations.
Europe has not turned against science, it has turned against madness.
These tinkerers are not scientists, they are engineers, promoting the profitabilty of private companies. In their crass and reckless disregard for honoring the mystereious gift of life, they pose as fundamentists, imagining that they are Gods, and competent to peform such manipulations.
Europe has not turned against science, it has turned against madness.
3
In many ways, I believe that genetic modification of plants may be preferable to the use of chemicals.
But, from what I have seen and read, I am quite suspicious of the big agribusinesses who are promoting GM in terms of their motivation, lack of ethics, and tactics.
And, unfortunately, given their financial clout and ability to lobby legislatures and corruptly influence members of the executive branch, we cannot rely on government regulation to keep the honest.
So the problem is not the concept of GM per se but rather the unscrupulous and overbearing organizations that are promoting it. I believe that GM can have real benefit but not in the way that it is currently being pursued and not without real government oversight.
But, from what I have seen and read, I am quite suspicious of the big agribusinesses who are promoting GM in terms of their motivation, lack of ethics, and tactics.
And, unfortunately, given their financial clout and ability to lobby legislatures and corruptly influence members of the executive branch, we cannot rely on government regulation to keep the honest.
So the problem is not the concept of GM per se but rather the unscrupulous and overbearing organizations that are promoting it. I believe that GM can have real benefit but not in the way that it is currently being pursued and not without real government oversight.
5
Notice that the few comments posted so far, such as by kathalina and Victor Hugo, have a major ax to grind regarding the herbicide Roundup. That is fine, but they neglect to mention that the worldwide scientific community, both in Europe and the United States and around the world are in consensus that GMO foods are safe to eat, that there are no reputable studies disputing this fact, and that GMO foods can greatly increase food yields and reduce the need for pesticides. I would assume that those like kathalina and Victor Hugo are in favor of greatly reducing the need for pesticides.
GMO hysteria on the part of many European officials, and Europeans, and thank goodness to a much smaller scale in the USA is proof positive that the right wing nutcases in the USA like Senator James Inhofe, have no monopoly on being anti science. We have enough of a problem in the USA with Republican Party being anti science when it comes to climate change and Darwin's theory of evolution. GMO hysterics are mostly liberals and left wingers, especially in the USA, and their opposition to GMO foods is also based upon myth, unscientific thinking, and irrational fears.
"The worldwide scientific consensus on the safety of genetic engineering is as solid as that which underpins human-caused global warming. Yet this inconvenient truth on G.M.O.s — that they’re as safe as conventionally cultivated food — is ignored when ideological interests are threatened."
GMO hysteria on the part of many European officials, and Europeans, and thank goodness to a much smaller scale in the USA is proof positive that the right wing nutcases in the USA like Senator James Inhofe, have no monopoly on being anti science. We have enough of a problem in the USA with Republican Party being anti science when it comes to climate change and Darwin's theory of evolution. GMO hysterics are mostly liberals and left wingers, especially in the USA, and their opposition to GMO foods is also based upon myth, unscientific thinking, and irrational fears.
"The worldwide scientific consensus on the safety of genetic engineering is as solid as that which underpins human-caused global warming. Yet this inconvenient truth on G.M.O.s — that they’re as safe as conventionally cultivated food — is ignored when ideological interests are threatened."
1
VW emissions scandal. Exxon's own internal scientific research on climate change confirms it as a serious threat to humanity then lobbies to prevent action to combat it and funds propaganda and disinformation campaigns to cast doubt about its scientific reality in the minds of the public.
Giving control of our food supply (vital to our very survival), and ability to regenerate it independently, to a handful of corporations - what could possibly go wrong?
The problem isn't with the science Mr. Lynas.
Giving control of our food supply (vital to our very survival), and ability to regenerate it independently, to a handful of corporations - what could possibly go wrong?
The problem isn't with the science Mr. Lynas.
4
I have an idea that another important reason for Europe's resistance is due to the USA being far ahead in the GMO game at this point. It aligns with the troubles that American firms have experienced with computers and the internet in Europe (Apple, Google, etc.) - economic games in which the USA is also well ahead.
On the other hand, when good old Europe is either ahead or competitive in a game (e.g. diesel engines, the corruption of soccer's ruling body, gigantic beer monopolies, petrochemical companies that despoil lands in other continents), the regulators in Brussels tend to suffer from selective blindness in regard to potential infractions.
On the other hand, when good old Europe is either ahead or competitive in a game (e.g. diesel engines, the corruption of soccer's ruling body, gigantic beer monopolies, petrochemical companies that despoil lands in other continents), the regulators in Brussels tend to suffer from selective blindness in regard to potential infractions.
Jeeze, does this guy work for Monsanto?
The European method of implementing new and potentially environmental changing organisms is to study all the implications first, before releasing. This is not only sound science but wise science.
The American Cowboy method is to toss something out there and see what happens to the environment. The demise of honey bee colonies has been attributed to the systemic insecticide of some GMO plants. European countries wisely resisted their planting unless there was no evidence of possible environmental damage.
The European method of implementing new and potentially environmental changing organisms is to study all the implications first, before releasing. This is not only sound science but wise science.
The American Cowboy method is to toss something out there and see what happens to the environment. The demise of honey bee colonies has been attributed to the systemic insecticide of some GMO plants. European countries wisely resisted their planting unless there was no evidence of possible environmental damage.
2
Why won't Europe listen to "experts?"
Same reason Big Oil funded experts hid and concertedly denied climate change; now we find they knew all along about petrol's effect on the environment.
Same reason Big Corporate Food funded experts declared that hormone and antibiotic pumped animals are perfectly safe, even though we see its effects on our kids-- higher rates of allergies, girls reaching puberty earlier than ever, and nation of anti-anxiety pill pushers.
Same reason that Big Chemical funded experts has declared Bisphenol A and lead paint to be perfectly safe for kids.
Same reason Big Bank funded experts declared that allowing the CFTC to regulate toxic derivatives is unnecessary and anti-capitalism.
Same reason Big Pharma funded research always shows that only pumping patients with drugs is useful; that talk therapy, counseling, meditation, and long-term humanistic care for patients is downright dangerous.
Same reason Big Oil funded experts hid and concertedly denied climate change; now we find they knew all along about petrol's effect on the environment.
Same reason Big Corporate Food funded experts declared that hormone and antibiotic pumped animals are perfectly safe, even though we see its effects on our kids-- higher rates of allergies, girls reaching puberty earlier than ever, and nation of anti-anxiety pill pushers.
Same reason that Big Chemical funded experts has declared Bisphenol A and lead paint to be perfectly safe for kids.
Same reason Big Bank funded experts declared that allowing the CFTC to regulate toxic derivatives is unnecessary and anti-capitalism.
Same reason Big Pharma funded research always shows that only pumping patients with drugs is useful; that talk therapy, counseling, meditation, and long-term humanistic care for patients is downright dangerous.
1
Past experience is that extraordinary changes to our environment and food supply require extraordinary proof. Once upon a time DDT was the wonder pesticide. DDT killed bugs but only later did people (including scientists) realize that it killed a lot more. The bald eagle (the national bird of the nation) was almost exterminated as a by product. None of this was even imagined when DDT was used a pesticide. Before we jump in and change our natural environment and food supply using GMO's we need to study them more intensively.
3
There have been no ill effects of GMO crops found, despite decades of effort. But GMO seeds are sold by big corporations with patents, so the Green movement has determined that they must be evil and dangerous, despite the vast majority of scientists agreeing that no harm has been found. The same Green movement pours enormous scorn on climate change deniers on the same grounds that the vast majority of scientists agree that the climate is changing and that man is at fault.
The level of hypocrisy is just staggering. Essentially they're saying we'll listen to the findings of science, but only when it reinforces our superstitious beliefs. So the rich Europeans spread their blind ignorance, on the theory that they're not hungry, so why worry about the rest of the world? By the same token, why should rich people in the cold part of the world worry about the world getting hotter? Nice attitude.
The level of hypocrisy is just staggering. Essentially they're saying we'll listen to the findings of science, but only when it reinforces our superstitious beliefs. So the rich Europeans spread their blind ignorance, on the theory that they're not hungry, so why worry about the rest of the world? By the same token, why should rich people in the cold part of the world worry about the world getting hotter? Nice attitude.
2
This supposed "scientific" defense of GMOs and pesticides is remarkably narrow-minded and wants to throw caution to the wind (for profit). The real problem underlying this is the incessant growth of the number of humans and all the impact that comes with it. As far as life on Earth is concerned humans are proving themselves to be an evolutionary mistake because we are so badly lacking respect for all of life. Stop defending weird science for money.
4
To be honest, my phobia as an expat looking in, lies more in profound my mistrust of North American agri-industry players such as Monsanto which i perceive as ethically skewed towards bottom line and shareholder value before anything else. Take that GMO corn silage for feeding cattle a step further...
When considering the horrendous amounts of pharmaceutical and chemical products used in feedlots just as an example, to add to that chemical soup designed to ensure the highest "weight return" per animal before slaughter one can only wonder what the added effect of grain born insecticides into the feed may have on that filet mignon on the store shelf.
I have been living in Europe for twenty years and every time we return home we go on a filet mignon binge for in those twenty privileged years spent in France, a world gastronomical center, we have never once found as tender a cut as a US filet mignon.
Many a study shows that processed foods in the US are responsible for essentially CONUS health problems and I worry on each binge just what might be in my filet mignon!
When considering the horrendous amounts of pharmaceutical and chemical products used in feedlots just as an example, to add to that chemical soup designed to ensure the highest "weight return" per animal before slaughter one can only wonder what the added effect of grain born insecticides into the feed may have on that filet mignon on the store shelf.
I have been living in Europe for twenty years and every time we return home we go on a filet mignon binge for in those twenty privileged years spent in France, a world gastronomical center, we have never once found as tender a cut as a US filet mignon.
Many a study shows that processed foods in the US are responsible for essentially CONUS health problems and I worry on each binge just what might be in my filet mignon!
1
Europeans value biological food and health. Experiments by those multinational companies that want to dominate food production world-wide by all available means are not welcome in Europe. Also TTIP will not get the support of the Europeans as it is an attempt to destroy democracy and introduce plutocracy. The overwhelming majority of Europeans detests food factories and factory farming. All this has nothing to do with science yet everything with quality of life.
5
What if an environmentally conscious, local family farmer builds a GMO in the back of his family's 5th generation barn? Let's say no cross-species genes were introduced either. This newly modified now plant produces 25% more marketable yield per acre and reduces pesticide use. In addition, the farmer now decides to return 25% of his land to wild prairie grasses. Where would be the downside? One has to separate distaste for large agri-business from one's opinion of GMOs. There are half a dozen ways plants naturally modify their fluid genomes. Introduction or deletion of a single individual gene by humans is very low on the list of things to be feared in life.
3
The hysterical reaction to GMO crops is weird. I was dealing with Turkey about six years ago when Turkish cotton producers tried to get a ban on US grown genetically modified cotton. They alleged that it could hurt your skin. This was a pretty transparent ruse.
Although the ban on GMOs per se results from some imagined danger is nonsense, one use of GMO technology that is common in the US does involve a secondary danger. Certain crops are genetically modified not for superior flavor, texture, bug or blight resistance, or shelf-life, which would be admirable, but to make them resistant to weed killers such as Round-up. Farmers can then use these strong weed killing poisons which are generally carcinogenic around the resistant GMO plants and do not need to get rid of weeds manually. Although the procedure sounds good as it increases productivity, grains such as wheat that were grown this way have retain some of the poison on their surface and this is carried over to flour that contains traces of Roundup. Genetic modification of crops is simply an acceleration of what humankind has been doing since genetic selection and primitive hybridization began from the beginning of agriculture in the early Neolithic, However, the genetic modification should not be used in a manner that introduces harmful poisons into our diets.
Although the ban on GMOs per se results from some imagined danger is nonsense, one use of GMO technology that is common in the US does involve a secondary danger. Certain crops are genetically modified not for superior flavor, texture, bug or blight resistance, or shelf-life, which would be admirable, but to make them resistant to weed killers such as Round-up. Farmers can then use these strong weed killing poisons which are generally carcinogenic around the resistant GMO plants and do not need to get rid of weeds manually. Although the procedure sounds good as it increases productivity, grains such as wheat that were grown this way have retain some of the poison on their surface and this is carried over to flour that contains traces of Roundup. Genetic modification of crops is simply an acceleration of what humankind has been doing since genetic selection and primitive hybridization began from the beginning of agriculture in the early Neolithic, However, the genetic modification should not be used in a manner that introduces harmful poisons into our diets.
37
There is no Roundup-Ready wheat seed on the market.
All the comments so far are about unlikely scenarios. Yes, maybe there is some unforeseen danger. But the probability is 100%, not .01%, that without GMOs, the world, particularly Africa (as mentioned in the article), will suffer "food insecurity" (a nice term for starvation and malnutrition). This is a result of rapid population growth, rising oceans (leading to reduction of fertile land), other effects of climate change, increasing use of agricultural land for biofuels (e.g., corn in the U.S.), over-fishing, and lack of research on other ways to solve these problems. Of course, the same people who oppose GMOs also oppose alternative solutions such as research on geo-engineering, and (as NIMBYs) construction of wind farms, etc. Push has come to shove. What do you propose?
1
Monsanto has been a cynical player in this field from day one. And I have no trouble with any country or legal jurisdiction regulating the results of their cynical play for health and for business reasons. The trouble is, that they have given GMO a bad name and black eye. Genetic Modification is a potent tool as we face the challenges in our world going forward. It should be regulated with great nuance and care. But it should not be outlawed. With judicious application of this technology, not only can we strengthen our food supply and feed more people healthier and life-sustaining food, but we can manufacture useful products that degrade the environment far less than oil-based plastics. I agree with the author that our fears and the European impulse that has led in some countries to outright bans are far too blunt of an instrument. We need to encourage and foster GM that is beneficial while regulating and shutting down the bad actors, just like we do in countless other industries.
1
Monsanto and seed developers supported by them want you to believe there is scientific consensus on this issue.
And that all fears relating to their development and use are irrational, that gmo's are perfectly safe, and are going to solve many food production, environmental and nutrition challenges now and over the coming decades.
It is propaganda from the industry and their supporters. There is no such consensus among independent scientists.
From the European Network of Scientists:
"As with GM food safety, disagreement among scientists on the environmental risks of GM crops may be correlated with funding sources. A peer-reviewed survey of the views of 62 life scientists on the risks of GM crops found that funding and disciplinary training had a significant effect on attitudes. Scientists with industry funding and/or those trained in molecular biology were very likely to have a positive attitude to GM crops and to hold that they do not represent any unique risks, while publicly-funded scientists working independently of GM crop developer companies and/or those trained in ecology were more likely to hold a “moderately negative” attitude to GM crop safety and to emphasize the uncertainty and ignorance involved..." http://www.ensser.org/increasing-public-information/no-scientific-consen...
And more essential, scientific info casting doubt on GMO safety here: http://www.nongmoproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/GMO-Myths-and-Tr...
And that all fears relating to their development and use are irrational, that gmo's are perfectly safe, and are going to solve many food production, environmental and nutrition challenges now and over the coming decades.
It is propaganda from the industry and their supporters. There is no such consensus among independent scientists.
From the European Network of Scientists:
"As with GM food safety, disagreement among scientists on the environmental risks of GM crops may be correlated with funding sources. A peer-reviewed survey of the views of 62 life scientists on the risks of GM crops found that funding and disciplinary training had a significant effect on attitudes. Scientists with industry funding and/or those trained in molecular biology were very likely to have a positive attitude to GM crops and to hold that they do not represent any unique risks, while publicly-funded scientists working independently of GM crop developer companies and/or those trained in ecology were more likely to hold a “moderately negative” attitude to GM crop safety and to emphasize the uncertainty and ignorance involved..." http://www.ensser.org/increasing-public-information/no-scientific-consen...
And more essential, scientific info casting doubt on GMO safety here: http://www.nongmoproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/GMO-Myths-and-Tr...
Europe is setting itself against modern science?? Ummm, have you heard about the US and it's perpetual denial of climate change? Or maybe about the schoolbooks adopted in Texas and used throughout the country that teach Creationism while downplaying Darwin's "theories"?
Now, regarding genetically engineered crops, in the US, Monsanto with it's devilish Round-Up is causing massive disruption to ecosystems that is just beginning to be understood. And then there is the "terminator" seed issue which makes farmers wholly dependent on Monsanto. http://web.mit.edu/demoscience/Monsanto/impact.html#terminatorseeds
In the US, if a genetic modification is deemed a success by a corporation, it will suddenly be produced by the millions of tons. FDA & EPA are underfunded, and may be infiltrated by revolving -door-corporate-executives. Caution is thrown to the wind. Monoculture agriculture, as we see in the endless GMO cornfields of the Midwest becomes the norm. Soil is degraded, waterways polluted, and corporations always deny that ANY of their products have negative effects. (Until declared the next Super-Fund site) Corporations would have us believe they, and their secret concoctions are perfect, and are fighting GMO labeling in the US tooth and nail. Yes, we've seen this before. We are the guinea pigs in a dangerous, dangerous game.
Now, regarding genetically engineered crops, in the US, Monsanto with it's devilish Round-Up is causing massive disruption to ecosystems that is just beginning to be understood. And then there is the "terminator" seed issue which makes farmers wholly dependent on Monsanto. http://web.mit.edu/demoscience/Monsanto/impact.html#terminatorseeds
In the US, if a genetic modification is deemed a success by a corporation, it will suddenly be produced by the millions of tons. FDA & EPA are underfunded, and may be infiltrated by revolving -door-corporate-executives. Caution is thrown to the wind. Monoculture agriculture, as we see in the endless GMO cornfields of the Midwest becomes the norm. Soil is degraded, waterways polluted, and corporations always deny that ANY of their products have negative effects. (Until declared the next Super-Fund site) Corporations would have us believe they, and their secret concoctions are perfect, and are fighting GMO labeling in the US tooth and nail. Yes, we've seen this before. We are the guinea pigs in a dangerous, dangerous game.
1
After reading this piece, I wondered if the writer had any connection with Monsanto, any mention of that company or its toxic and carcinogenic herbicide Roundup or of those Roundup Ready crops mentioned in the previous response appearing to be glaring omissions. But It turns out Mr. Lynas, as indicated in a previous essay of his, actually thinks Monsanto is the fly in the GM ointment in the way it continues to use biotechnology to promote Roundup and other chemicals rather than focusing on developing seeds for seemingly more noble purposes. This article is therefore rather disingenuous by making it appear that worldwide anti-GMO sentiments are due to ignorant opposition to science rather than to the corrupt, greedy, reckless and toxic manner in which Monsanto and its biotech buddies have attempted to use genetic engineering to control and monopolize agriculture.
3
As many commentators have already mentioned, the monster corn in the accompanying caricature is only the hypothetical problem. The problem we are already facing is the massive increase of herbicide which is part and parcel of the GMO program. Anyone who can cite "a 40 percent reduction in insecticide spraying worldwide" without even a mention of herbicide strikes me as being on the take. There is really no other explanation for such one-sidedness.
The agricultural "Green Revolution" of the 60s had an enormous impact on many poor countries but there have also been steep prices to pay. Some lands have been rendered barren by overfarming and monoculture (see Oaxaca). Pesticides and herbicides have poisoned water and killed off fish (see Punjab and the Philippines). Higher cancer rates have been linked to increased use of agricultural chemicals. Today's push for GMO crops is more of the same. Beware of arrogance and corporate interests.
The agricultural "Green Revolution" of the 60s had an enormous impact on many poor countries but there have also been steep prices to pay. Some lands have been rendered barren by overfarming and monoculture (see Oaxaca). Pesticides and herbicides have poisoned water and killed off fish (see Punjab and the Philippines). Higher cancer rates have been linked to increased use of agricultural chemicals. Today's push for GMO crops is more of the same. Beware of arrogance and corporate interests.
2
This whole article sounds ridiculous. Corporate world in the US is not following ethical standards. Driven by greed it does not care about the long term consequences of unleashing a technological product into nature. Monsanto has cornered the law makers and the entire establishment into selling GMP products into the food industry. GMO corn has pesticide embedded into the genes which the consumer's body will not break down, leading to digestive issues, cancer and who-know-what kind of consequences to the ignorant population. GMO seeds can proliferate and run over organic ones, destroying naturally evolved food crops. There is money to be made creating various types of crops, and people will undergo health problems because our wiring has not adapted to unnatural, synthetic food molecules. And then the health care,insurance industry can make a kill selling medicine developed through "advanced" research. Each will feed into the other's need and greed while people will be used as the guinea pigs. Nice story. But sell it to the ignorant.
2
Since "worldwide scientific consensus on the safety of genetic engineering is as solid as that which underpins human-caused global warming" why do the agribusinesses fight so hard against clear transparent labeling of the food that we eat? Could it be that they paternalistically and condescendingly believe in their omniscience over and above the individuals right to make a choice of his/her own? The linkage of Roundup to cancer and the wholesale destruction of Monarch butterflies because of the excessive use of this herbicide should give any thinking person pause. Since there has been no long term credible study of pesticide, monoculture, water table, endocrine balances, respiratory effects and the unknown effects of modified gene releases into the environment. There are certainly positive possibilities in Genetic Modification a go slower approach is certainly warranted.
4
"The Coalition of the Ignorant" is an apt title not only for much of Europe, but sadly, at least until this point, 90% of Times commentators. GMOs are safe as established by science, and any other authority is worthless -- such as that provided by the emotional comments herein. In fact all domesticated crops are genetically modified -- that is how they got domesticated in the first place. It is doubtful that any of the coalition of the ignorant writing on these pages goes to bed hungry or malnourished as a consequence of the anti-GMO policies they advocate. To the contrary. They consume costly organic food, painfully and expensively grown, free of "chemicals" and pesticides -- a choice unavailable to most of the world's population.
1
The bans on GMOs are only one problem in a very problematic agricultural system, that is in both the U.S. and the E.U. In both countries (yes, for this purpose the EU is practically a country), farms are heavily subsidized. This encourages overproduction, which is unsustainable. It causes heavy pesticide use, and fertilizer use. The biggest problem in our agricultural system is high meat consumption. It makes no sense for people to grow grain, then feed it to an animal, then eat the animal. If people didn't eat meat, the demand for corn and soy would be so low that there would be no need for Roundup.
Amid this problematic system, blanket bans on GMOs exacerbate the problem. Roundup is "probably carcinogenic" according to the WHO, and should be banned. But most other GMOs are safe, because the process of genetic modification is just like conventional breeding, only faster. Many GMOs can decrease the need for pesticides, which entails significant environmental benefits.
Amid this problematic system, blanket bans on GMOs exacerbate the problem. Roundup is "probably carcinogenic" according to the WHO, and should be banned. But most other GMOs are safe, because the process of genetic modification is just like conventional breeding, only faster. Many GMOs can decrease the need for pesticides, which entails significant environmental benefits.
2
This type of "anti-science" scare tactic is quite common. This time it's offered by Mr. Lynas, whose organization, the Cornell Alliance for Science, was established solely to promote GMO use. Mr. Lynas is a paid voice for the agro-chemical companies that sell these products.
The fact is that there is nothing "non science" about the EU stance. The core scientific support for GMO acceptance was paid for and written by Monsanto, Bayer and others. They have sued others from using their patented plants in independent research, and have sought to narrowly define the term "safe" to studies of short-term direct health impacts.
Mr. Lynas conveniently mentions "one study" that shows a reduction in pesticide use due to GMO crops but fails to mention that MOST studies show a rapid and extensive increase of herbicides and pesticides, like harmful glyphosate, with GMO use.
Rather than being "anti-science" the EU is acceding to the caution science demands before introducing radical change. To date there is no evidence that GMO crops are a magic bullet, no increased yields, no populations saved from hunger - just increased sales of GMO crops and the pesticides sold by their makers.
Caution is necessary. As long as the agro-chemical industry will spend tens-of-millions more trying to convince us that GMOs are good for us than they do trying to prove it, we should be wary. The science is not settled but the sales effort goes on.
The fact is that there is nothing "non science" about the EU stance. The core scientific support for GMO acceptance was paid for and written by Monsanto, Bayer and others. They have sued others from using their patented plants in independent research, and have sought to narrowly define the term "safe" to studies of short-term direct health impacts.
Mr. Lynas conveniently mentions "one study" that shows a reduction in pesticide use due to GMO crops but fails to mention that MOST studies show a rapid and extensive increase of herbicides and pesticides, like harmful glyphosate, with GMO use.
Rather than being "anti-science" the EU is acceding to the caution science demands before introducing radical change. To date there is no evidence that GMO crops are a magic bullet, no increased yields, no populations saved from hunger - just increased sales of GMO crops and the pesticides sold by their makers.
Caution is necessary. As long as the agro-chemical industry will spend tens-of-millions more trying to convince us that GMOs are good for us than they do trying to prove it, we should be wary. The science is not settled but the sales effort goes on.
7
Who is it that derives any particular benefit from genetically-modified crops? Is it the ordinary farmers of the third world? Or is it only Monsanto and other gigantic, international corporations of first-world Big Agri-Business?
"Today, however, no rational young scientist interested in molecular techniques of crop breeding would choose a base in Continental Europe."
So what? Is this supposed to be understood as some kind of tragedy? If so, for whom is it a tragedy? The sole point of this infomercial is to persuade the unthinking that patented methods of genetic modification are a boon to anyone except to the international corporations that own the patents. Local farmer have been being put out of business for decades, when patented, genetic modified pollen has been wafted onto their crops by the wind or carried there by honeybees.. Monsanto and other agribusiness corporations have scientists working for them whose sole job it is to find and sue small farmers "illegally using" patented crops that appear among their crops only by the sheer happenstance.
Is humanity going to benefit from the use of patented, genetically-modified, monocultured food-sources or will it be only Monsanto?
"Today, however, no rational young scientist interested in molecular techniques of crop breeding would choose a base in Continental Europe."
So what? Is this supposed to be understood as some kind of tragedy? If so, for whom is it a tragedy? The sole point of this infomercial is to persuade the unthinking that patented methods of genetic modification are a boon to anyone except to the international corporations that own the patents. Local farmer have been being put out of business for decades, when patented, genetic modified pollen has been wafted onto their crops by the wind or carried there by honeybees.. Monsanto and other agribusiness corporations have scientists working for them whose sole job it is to find and sue small farmers "illegally using" patented crops that appear among their crops only by the sheer happenstance.
Is humanity going to benefit from the use of patented, genetically-modified, monocultured food-sources or will it be only Monsanto?
1
I have a Ph.D, in physics plus I went to engineering school for a few years before switching over. Nothing alienates me from the entire GMO project more than this stridently manipulative and transparent tactic of labeling anyone who dares voice the slightest bit of concern as being in league of science-rejecters.
Many of my professors in engineering school wound up in academia because they witnessed practices in private industry such as rewriting stress tests that jet engines failed as tests that those engines passed. When I took engineering quality control, our professor muttered many knowing asides about the problems of lax quality control practices in industry.
And Volkswagen -- hello! That wasn't even new science. That wasn't pushing the edges of anything but deliberate conscious cheating.
It's hard enough to recall a bunch of cars. Imagine how hard it would be to recall a crop in the ground if something went wrong. And only a liar will promise that it never will.
Many of my professors in engineering school wound up in academia because they witnessed practices in private industry such as rewriting stress tests that jet engines failed as tests that those engines passed. When I took engineering quality control, our professor muttered many knowing asides about the problems of lax quality control practices in industry.
And Volkswagen -- hello! That wasn't even new science. That wasn't pushing the edges of anything but deliberate conscious cheating.
It's hard enough to recall a bunch of cars. Imagine how hard it would be to recall a crop in the ground if something went wrong. And only a liar will promise that it never will.
4
The equation that "gmo crops" equal "science" is a common meme among those who wish to promote GMO crops. Genetic modification is a technique -- it's not "science." GMO crops exist to increase corporate profits. In the US, the vast majority of GMO crops are Roundup-ready corn and soy. The result of these crops has been a proliferation of Roundup/glyphosate in our environment and in our food. Glyphosate is a likely carcinogen; it's associated with a variety of serious illness for both agricultural workers and consumers; it's creating a new era of super-weeds; it's a major reason that the Monarch butterfly has declined to 10% of its former population. Some people imagine that GMO crops can solve problems, but the actual GMO crops around us are harming people and the environment. People are rightly suspicious of GMOs; there's nothing anti-science about wanting them controlled. Could they be used in a life-enhancing way? Possibly, in a more perfect world; but not while they're controlled by Monsanto.
3
This was an issue I followed while working at the NIH in the mid-1980s. Back then, there were fears of "Ice 9" and GMOs that enabled genes to jump species in the wild, producing weird hybrids like pesticide-resistant weeds. Though I started out fearful of GMOs, I learned that nature itself already produced most hybrid variations, that the difference would be in their widespread commercial dissemination. While it requires monitoring, I concluded, GMOs in fact most resembled traditional hybrids that we have been breeding since the agricultural revolution.
A decade later, when we moved to Europe, I was astonished that the debate here had not moved on like it has in the US. To my disgust, a discredited activist like Jeremy Rifkin was widely regarded as an "intellectual" here. Alas, the debate has not evolved much since then, but wallows in the same old hysteria. GMOs offer useful product innovations. We should regulate them and monitor their impact, but not fear them as much as we do. This is a set back for Europe.
A decade later, when we moved to Europe, I was astonished that the debate here had not moved on like it has in the US. To my disgust, a discredited activist like Jeremy Rifkin was widely regarded as an "intellectual" here. Alas, the debate has not evolved much since then, but wallows in the same old hysteria. GMOs offer useful product innovations. We should regulate them and monitor their impact, but not fear them as much as we do. This is a set back for Europe.
1
The problem is really one of common sense. Yes, fertilizers are poisoning our lakes and rivers and making algae grow. Destroying the ditches in America kills milkweed and destroys habitat for larvae. Bees are killed because of chemicals and a lack of environment for them. Then, there is the issue of enough food for children, disease, where a lack of common sense when science is accurate contributes to the spread of disease and starvation, and malnutrition. However, because of the proximity to animal waste, even organic growers are potentially at risk for having their fruits and vegetables contaminated with dangerous and deadly bacteria. In order to prevent airplane exhaust from contaminating all crops everywhere, you would need to stop flying all planes. That would never happen, as when the population at large, the government, or business wants something, they no longer listen to any reasoning whether it is common sense, science, or moderation. The human animal after all is not given to rational behavior, or the earth wouldn't be overpopulated, fat, drunk, religious, or at war. Good luck on all of the above.
3
I hate the condescending tone of food industry apologists. I live in Italy, a country in which GMO's are not looked upon kindly by average people or the government. I don't hear the farmers here clamoring to use GMO's and there doesn't seem to be any lack of food in the markets. There isn't a lack of diversity either. Could it be that the "old-fashioned" version of genetics works well enough?
GMO apologists can attack most people as being "scientifically illiterate" but what food production disadvantages are Europeans experiencing because they haven't (and hopefully never will) embraced the use of GMO's?
Let's not forget that the "food sciences" that began in the 70's have changed the landscape of foods and food production, especially in the U.S.; however, with the exception of longer shelf lives and some other banal improvements in food itself, food scientists (and food industries) have simply imposed their will on the rest of us. They can't really demonstrate that food is better now than it was 100 years ago. Indeed, if GMO's were so "popular" or necessary, why does the industry spend mountains of money fighting the disclosure of these products in food?
Just come to Umbria or other parts of Italy where the influences of "food science" have been largely ignored and where (if you like to eat meat) you can find meat that tastes far superior to the genetically modified nonsense produced in the U.S. (especially pork products). This goes for most other foods here.
GMO apologists can attack most people as being "scientifically illiterate" but what food production disadvantages are Europeans experiencing because they haven't (and hopefully never will) embraced the use of GMO's?
Let's not forget that the "food sciences" that began in the 70's have changed the landscape of foods and food production, especially in the U.S.; however, with the exception of longer shelf lives and some other banal improvements in food itself, food scientists (and food industries) have simply imposed their will on the rest of us. They can't really demonstrate that food is better now than it was 100 years ago. Indeed, if GMO's were so "popular" or necessary, why does the industry spend mountains of money fighting the disclosure of these products in food?
Just come to Umbria or other parts of Italy where the influences of "food science" have been largely ignored and where (if you like to eat meat) you can find meat that tastes far superior to the genetically modified nonsense produced in the U.S. (especially pork products). This goes for most other foods here.
2
This becomes tiresome. It about time NY Times starts printing the backgrounds of some of these op-ed authors. Full disclosure is supposed to be good journalistic ethics.
But to just quickly demolish this paid spokesman's straw men - Europeans do not have problems with GMOs perse. They are educated enough to know that practically everything they eat is in some form "genetically modified" if only by generations of manipulated natural selection by farmers.
What worries them is that the GMOs created by the big chemical and pharmaceutical companies are not optimised for the health and wellbeing of those that consume them, or the economic wellbeing of the farmers that grow them. No, like so much else in the US they are created to maximise the short term revenues of the companies that make them, and forget about any long term consequences.
Europeans worry about what happens to everything else in the environment when farmers soak their GM Soy in Roundup. We worry about those farmers in Tanzania when they find they cannot use seeds obtained from GMOs for the next year's crop without paying a licensing fee.
We don't worry about GMOs. Most of us are pretty sure they're safe to eat. But most of us are aware that there are long term consequences of using them that the GM industry, and Mr. Lynas don't seem to care too much about as long as there is short term profit to be made.
But to just quickly demolish this paid spokesman's straw men - Europeans do not have problems with GMOs perse. They are educated enough to know that practically everything they eat is in some form "genetically modified" if only by generations of manipulated natural selection by farmers.
What worries them is that the GMOs created by the big chemical and pharmaceutical companies are not optimised for the health and wellbeing of those that consume them, or the economic wellbeing of the farmers that grow them. No, like so much else in the US they are created to maximise the short term revenues of the companies that make them, and forget about any long term consequences.
Europeans worry about what happens to everything else in the environment when farmers soak their GM Soy in Roundup. We worry about those farmers in Tanzania when they find they cannot use seeds obtained from GMOs for the next year's crop without paying a licensing fee.
We don't worry about GMOs. Most of us are pretty sure they're safe to eat. But most of us are aware that there are long term consequences of using them that the GM industry, and Mr. Lynas don't seem to care too much about as long as there is short term profit to be made.
5
Many people in the left wing have long ridiculed the right for their "faith based reality", never actually realizing that it is a human condition shared by all of us. On the subject of GMO's we now have on the left educated and intelligent people conveniently ignoring the scientists where their emotional conceptions pull them strongly in another direction.
Humans feel first and then assemble their rationalizations to justify their feelings. The author of this article is merely stating scientific consensus and many of the readers predictably attack the credibility of the writer instead of the scientific community at large. I guess this is where these folks show their higher education than the climate change deniars on the right. The right wing has the gall to attack the scientists themselves.
I'm sorry folks, but mother nature is no protective angel and creates mutations by the millions every day with no thought at all about human survival. GMO's are no threat at all compared to the next AIDS type virus or antibiotic resistant super bug. Such scourges can be the product of natural mutations or simple selective evolution.
Technology is likely our only salvation as a species, and GMO's are among the most promising of technologies to avoid wide spread famine.
Humans feel first and then assemble their rationalizations to justify their feelings. The author of this article is merely stating scientific consensus and many of the readers predictably attack the credibility of the writer instead of the scientific community at large. I guess this is where these folks show their higher education than the climate change deniars on the right. The right wing has the gall to attack the scientists themselves.
I'm sorry folks, but mother nature is no protective angel and creates mutations by the millions every day with no thought at all about human survival. GMO's are no threat at all compared to the next AIDS type virus or antibiotic resistant super bug. Such scourges can be the product of natural mutations or simple selective evolution.
Technology is likely our only salvation as a species, and GMO's are among the most promising of technologies to avoid wide spread famine.
1
sorry, but the bias of this piece is a bit excessive. Europeans simply do not want to cultivate "GMO" crops in Europe because those crops have not and do not provide any advantages to European farmers or consumers. Resistance to the herbicide Roundup? Resistance to the European corn borer? Resistance to corn root worm? The genes that provided those sources of resistance were solutions to problems that did not exist in Europe (or, for much of US for that matter). Sure, they will import the cheaply produced grain ... produced at risk by the US. And, have you heard about the recent lawsuits against Monsanto related to the excessive use of Roundup? What are you learning at Cornell ?
6
My wife and I are Americans. In adulthood, my wife developed Celiac's disease and I developed a gluten intolerance. We've always eaten organic foods whenever possible but we do eat outside the home in a variety of restaurants. When I eliminated gluten from my diet, I lost 30 pounds in 3 months because, I presume, my system went back to a more efficient digestion. However, my wife and I still suffered from what might be characterized as a chronic sour stomach. I have been thoroughly examined by several doctors. A swelling of the stomach lining was documented but no cause was ever identified.
Then, eight months ago, we moved to Europe (Brussels, Belgium). The chronic digestion issues disappeared in both of us and we've both slimmed down without effort. We've found that many basic foods here generally taste better than in the US, with much more flavor, especially fruits and vegetables. Two months ago we returned to the U.S. for a two week visit, and our chronic sour stomach problems resumed. Once we got back to Brussels, they disappeared again.
I have no idea why our digestion issues go away when we're in Europe but I have to wonder if we're allergic to something in US foods, or are we a percentage of the population that is intolerant to genetic modification? I don't know if people like us have been studied, but if Europe is seriously considering allowing GM foods, I hope similar experiences to ours are thoroughly examined.
Then, eight months ago, we moved to Europe (Brussels, Belgium). The chronic digestion issues disappeared in both of us and we've both slimmed down without effort. We've found that many basic foods here generally taste better than in the US, with much more flavor, especially fruits and vegetables. Two months ago we returned to the U.S. for a two week visit, and our chronic sour stomach problems resumed. Once we got back to Brussels, they disappeared again.
I have no idea why our digestion issues go away when we're in Europe but I have to wonder if we're allergic to something in US foods, or are we a percentage of the population that is intolerant to genetic modification? I don't know if people like us have been studied, but if Europe is seriously considering allowing GM foods, I hope similar experiences to ours are thoroughly examined.
90
Dear Mark
First, it is without a doubt that what people object to, and what is meant by GMO crops is almost exclusively Round-up Ready crops.
The main herbicidal ingredient in Roundup is Glyphosate which interestingly enough was not developed as an herbicide but was an industrial cleaner of scale from metal pipes. It was noticed that plants died when airconditioner outside units were treated to reduce scaling. Monsanto bought the patent and the rest is history.
Glyphosate works by binding minerals to itself and denying the plant tissue of the use of the minerals We Americans are now getting regular doses of Glyphosate residual in our food. So we are eating a chemical that will decrease our mineral uptake from our food
Also the use of Roundup has led to the evolution of weeds resistant to it. These can only be removed by stronger and stronger herbicides which require further genetic modification of plant seeds.
And finally the overuse of Roundup spraying has led to the decimation of beneficial edge plants such as milkweed that sustain Monarch butterflies and other pollinators and to drift onto neighboring land.
So Mr Lynas who are really the ignorant ones here???
First, it is without a doubt that what people object to, and what is meant by GMO crops is almost exclusively Round-up Ready crops.
The main herbicidal ingredient in Roundup is Glyphosate which interestingly enough was not developed as an herbicide but was an industrial cleaner of scale from metal pipes. It was noticed that plants died when airconditioner outside units were treated to reduce scaling. Monsanto bought the patent and the rest is history.
Glyphosate works by binding minerals to itself and denying the plant tissue of the use of the minerals We Americans are now getting regular doses of Glyphosate residual in our food. So we are eating a chemical that will decrease our mineral uptake from our food
Also the use of Roundup has led to the evolution of weeds resistant to it. These can only be removed by stronger and stronger herbicides which require further genetic modification of plant seeds.
And finally the overuse of Roundup spraying has led to the decimation of beneficial edge plants such as milkweed that sustain Monarch butterflies and other pollinators and to drift onto neighboring land.
So Mr Lynas who are really the ignorant ones here???
5
Skipping the European politics of G.M.O. crops, which I know little about, I do have a couple problems with Lynas' article, apart from its self-righteous tone.
Scientific consensus is precisely that, the current best available conclusions. No less, but no more. That is how science is different from religion. It can and should change its conclusions, when new data warrants it. That's how we went from the consensus several decades ago that we were entering a new Little Ice Age to the current consensus that we are facing global warming severely aggravated anthropogenically.
When dealing with a largely new technology, a little humility is warranted to temper enthusiastic certainty. All things have unanticipated consequences. If "getting it wrong", even if unlikely, would have a major down side, then one is warranted in proceeding cautiously.
As to needing G.M.O. crops to feed the world: remember the Green Revolution? It dramatically helped feed the world, thus producing a huge population explosion, which is contributing greatly to anthropogenic global warming, pollution, and other serious problems.
Scientific consensus is precisely that, the current best available conclusions. No less, but no more. That is how science is different from religion. It can and should change its conclusions, when new data warrants it. That's how we went from the consensus several decades ago that we were entering a new Little Ice Age to the current consensus that we are facing global warming severely aggravated anthropogenically.
When dealing with a largely new technology, a little humility is warranted to temper enthusiastic certainty. All things have unanticipated consequences. If "getting it wrong", even if unlikely, would have a major down side, then one is warranted in proceeding cautiously.
As to needing G.M.O. crops to feed the world: remember the Green Revolution? It dramatically helped feed the world, thus producing a huge population explosion, which is contributing greatly to anthropogenic global warming, pollution, and other serious problems.
3
You are the propagandist, Mr. Lynas. You present sophistry at best, and much of it relying upon the same tired lies and quantitative slights of hand. Indeed there are malnourished in the world. There are malnourished children in the USA, as a matter of fact, and it is not due to crop failure; it is due to human failure, the usual culprit.
National or international, the true problems are the same old ones: greed; distribution issues; overpopulation (which begs for a segue into criticism of certain organizations that on an international scale work against female reproductive health education and empowerment as well as birth control education and tools, e.g. condoms); ignorance; bad, outdated farming practices (see California); etc.
I get so very sick of the emotive language used to defend treating the world as GMO testing ground. The political clout and mounds of money used to push GMO dictum could be used to better educate, to revamp farming practices, and to promote birth control. Instead, profits are - as always - the goal, damn the truth, full speed ahead.
I suggest that the "agribusiness" scientists and their corporate CEOs eat nothing but GMO products for a period of 10 years. Spoon it into their children from birth; let themselves be tested at regular intervals, let the testing and results be done in a transparent manner (and by independent researchers, physicians, etc.), and then work on convincing the world that human beings can do better than Mother Nature.
National or international, the true problems are the same old ones: greed; distribution issues; overpopulation (which begs for a segue into criticism of certain organizations that on an international scale work against female reproductive health education and empowerment as well as birth control education and tools, e.g. condoms); ignorance; bad, outdated farming practices (see California); etc.
I get so very sick of the emotive language used to defend treating the world as GMO testing ground. The political clout and mounds of money used to push GMO dictum could be used to better educate, to revamp farming practices, and to promote birth control. Instead, profits are - as always - the goal, damn the truth, full speed ahead.
I suggest that the "agribusiness" scientists and their corporate CEOs eat nothing but GMO products for a period of 10 years. Spoon it into their children from birth; let themselves be tested at regular intervals, let the testing and results be done in a transparent manner (and by independent researchers, physicians, etc.), and then work on convincing the world that human beings can do better than Mother Nature.
5
Thank God, some sanity finally. Hopefully the Continent will ban the import of GMO crops as well! GMO crops undermine biodiversity and local resilience that weakens our food security. Genetically modified material has migrated (supposedly impossible - nature always finds a way). The colonial powers exported our agricultural practices - like clearing land of all vegetation - in the 19th century. The result was disastrous (just as it was in our Dust Bowl in the 1930's).
As a scientist, development worker, and someone who has spent a career working to support small-holder famers and pastoralists, the essential argument against GMOs is that they are simply not necessary. They do not perform as promised except under perfect conditions, something difficult to achieve and impossible at the village level.
What does succeed, and succeed very well, is to work with nature, not attempt to control it. Use a variety of long established practices that protect the soil and sustains harvests. One such technique is known as agro-forestry. Trees are interplanted with food crops. Another is organic agriculture - something indigenous peoples have used for thousands of years. Farm and community based water containment projects also are traditional and very effective. Those are still working when the modern bore hole wells run dry. We would do well to look to traditional practices and knowledge to help our modern world.
As a scientist, development worker, and someone who has spent a career working to support small-holder famers and pastoralists, the essential argument against GMOs is that they are simply not necessary. They do not perform as promised except under perfect conditions, something difficult to achieve and impossible at the village level.
What does succeed, and succeed very well, is to work with nature, not attempt to control it. Use a variety of long established practices that protect the soil and sustains harvests. One such technique is known as agro-forestry. Trees are interplanted with food crops. Another is organic agriculture - something indigenous peoples have used for thousands of years. Farm and community based water containment projects also are traditional and very effective. Those are still working when the modern bore hole wells run dry. We would do well to look to traditional practices and knowledge to help our modern world.
3
I am with the author. Current genetic modification techniques may be more efficient than traditional cross-breeding methods, but the goals and results are similar. Both techniques can be used to produce ecologically undesirable qualities in plants or they can increase farm productivity in good ways. Whether companies such as Monsanto are sufficiently motivated to be good ecological citizens is an important question, as is whether current patent laws are appropriate. But blind suspicion of scientists until recently was primarily an American disorder. It seems to be contagious, with potentially disastrous results.
1
Humans have been genetically modifying foods since our earliest experiments with agriculture. Through burns, selective harvesting and other methods we began to ensure that the most productive plants continued to reproduce, thus altering their genes to produce foods, such as corn, which by all accounts needs human intervention to grow. Additionally, all livestock has, in one way or another, been selectively bred, and therefore, genetically modified.
No one wants to see Monsanto gain patents on seeds, and thus, a strangle hold on farmers, so unlike the freedoms we've granted pharmaceutical companies, we should focus on granting freedom of information when it comes to seeds that feed people rather than waging an irrational war on genetically modified foods
No one wants to see Monsanto gain patents on seeds, and thus, a strangle hold on farmers, so unlike the freedoms we've granted pharmaceutical companies, we should focus on granting freedom of information when it comes to seeds that feed people rather than waging an irrational war on genetically modified foods
2
Having just returned from Europe, I can report that several food groups which literally make me sick here in the U.S.A., I can eat over there with no ill effect. These include red meats, foul and dairy products. While much of my reaction is most likely attributable to pesticide and weed-killer residues which are not allowed in Europe, the large agro-businesses have even blocked our ability to know if products contain GMO's.
There is also circumstantial evidence that the larger gluten found in GMO wheat has resulted in triggering immune reactions in the gut of non-celiacs.
Perhaps the most damning of all is the development of GMO crops whose fertile seeds can only be provided by the manufacturer such as Monsanto. This has produced a new peasant class of farmers who are slaves to the cost of new seeds each season. In addition we are placing the food security of the planet in the hands of a few private corporations. The accidental or deliberate destruction of their seed stock would result in a billion people starving to death within a few years.
There is also circumstantial evidence that the larger gluten found in GMO wheat has resulted in triggering immune reactions in the gut of non-celiacs.
Perhaps the most damning of all is the development of GMO crops whose fertile seeds can only be provided by the manufacturer such as Monsanto. This has produced a new peasant class of farmers who are slaves to the cost of new seeds each season. In addition we are placing the food security of the planet in the hands of a few private corporations. The accidental or deliberate destruction of their seed stock would result in a billion people starving to death within a few years.
5
The whole GMO debate might be much better if there weren't quite as much money involved. The agro-chemical industries had decided to market GMOs before real scientific evidence was in. The article uses a popular, but deeply manipulative argumentation structure by pointing out the great things that GMOs could do to prevent world hunger (but these things are all in the experimental stage), but forgets to mention that the real GMOs are generally centered around pesticide use and profits from pesticides. Another manipulative structure in the argument is the indiscriminate use of the word "science." To say that "science" shows that some pesticides are not poisonous is not saying much, especially when critical studies are massively attacked. "Science" also used to say that nuclear energy was perfectly safe and easy to handle. "Science" used to say that no ill effects from smoking could be detected. If this were an honest article, it would give us a balanced account of what GMOs have really been used for so far, and more specific details about their effects.
3
The companies which are trying so hard to push their GMOs onto worldwide markets could do themselves a service if they would systematically research and publish specific information on the ecological effects of long-term over-application of the corresponding herbicides on areas subjected to such treatment. Included must be a species by species study of the native plants and their associated animal and vegetable actors and how they are affected by such applications.
In describing their products, the herbicide manufacturers unremittingly will refer to all non-crop species as 'weeds.' This devaluation of the critical importance of local native forbs and grasses within the existing ecosystem implies a basic incomprehension of the consequences of the use of their product within a naturally evolved setting of native plants, insects animals and fungi.
Just who is anti-science, and does it not depend on the perspectives and intentions one brings to the table?
In describing their products, the herbicide manufacturers unremittingly will refer to all non-crop species as 'weeds.' This devaluation of the critical importance of local native forbs and grasses within the existing ecosystem implies a basic incomprehension of the consequences of the use of their product within a naturally evolved setting of native plants, insects animals and fungi.
Just who is anti-science, and does it not depend on the perspectives and intentions one brings to the table?
3
Skipping the European politics of G.M.O. crops, which I know little about, I do have a couple problems with Lynas' article, apart from its self-righteous tone.
Scientific consensus is precisely that, the current best available conclusions. No less, but no more. That is how science is different from religion. It can and should change its conclusions, when new data warrants it. That's how we went from the consensus several decades ago that we were entering a new Little Ice Age to the current consensus, that we are facing global warming severely aggravated anthropogenically.
When dealing with a largely new technology, a little humility is warranted to temper enthusiastic certainty. All things have unanticipated consequences. If "getting it wrong", even if unlikely, would have a major down side, then one is warranted in proceeding cautiously.
As to needing G.M.O. crops to feed the world: remember the Green Revolution? It dramatically helped feed the world, thus producing a huge population explosion, which is contributing greatly to anthropogenic global warming, pollution, and other serious problems.
Scientific consensus is precisely that, the current best available conclusions. No less, but no more. That is how science is different from religion. It can and should change its conclusions, when new data warrants it. That's how we went from the consensus several decades ago that we were entering a new Little Ice Age to the current consensus, that we are facing global warming severely aggravated anthropogenically.
When dealing with a largely new technology, a little humility is warranted to temper enthusiastic certainty. All things have unanticipated consequences. If "getting it wrong", even if unlikely, would have a major down side, then one is warranted in proceeding cautiously.
As to needing G.M.O. crops to feed the world: remember the Green Revolution? It dramatically helped feed the world, thus producing a huge population explosion, which is contributing greatly to anthropogenic global warming, pollution, and other serious problems.
2
There isn't any good science about GM foods' effect and safety.
Agribusiness has convinced the FDA that GMO doesn't involve any additives and therefore the type of testing on those types of substances isn't necessary. They don't recognize that inserting genes from completely unrelated species is different from the cross-pollination that happens naturally or by design.
Nothing could be further from the truth. You may recall the outbreak of deaths caused by tryptophan, an amino acid used for insomnia. A change in the manufacturing process by a Japanese company - they used genetically modified bacteria - was the cause. See: http://psrast.org/demsd.htm
I shudder to think how frequently genetically modified substances are used in drug manufacturing today, all unreported because genetic modification is not recognized as an additive.
Testing done on GM crops is done by the seed manufacturers themselves - Monsanto et al. Their testing only focuses on whether the modified seed does what they intend it to do. They do no testing whatever on safety or health.
This article is a puff piece. Painting those who are against GMOs as anti-diluvial anti-science Luddites and grouping them with those who contest global warming is a ploy. Those alarmed by GMO proliferation recognize that these seeds have been released into our food supply, lands and the environment with inadequate consideration or testing.
I applaud those countries who have banned GMOs.
Agribusiness has convinced the FDA that GMO doesn't involve any additives and therefore the type of testing on those types of substances isn't necessary. They don't recognize that inserting genes from completely unrelated species is different from the cross-pollination that happens naturally or by design.
Nothing could be further from the truth. You may recall the outbreak of deaths caused by tryptophan, an amino acid used for insomnia. A change in the manufacturing process by a Japanese company - they used genetically modified bacteria - was the cause. See: http://psrast.org/demsd.htm
I shudder to think how frequently genetically modified substances are used in drug manufacturing today, all unreported because genetic modification is not recognized as an additive.
Testing done on GM crops is done by the seed manufacturers themselves - Monsanto et al. Their testing only focuses on whether the modified seed does what they intend it to do. They do no testing whatever on safety or health.
This article is a puff piece. Painting those who are against GMOs as anti-diluvial anti-science Luddites and grouping them with those who contest global warming is a ploy. Those alarmed by GMO proliferation recognize that these seeds have been released into our food supply, lands and the environment with inadequate consideration or testing.
I applaud those countries who have banned GMOs.
4
Kudos to Europe. GM companies are a huge drain on a farmer's revenue. Its not the science perhaps but the capitalism behind it. GM plants are engineered in such a way so as to not yiled seed which can be replanted. The new seed for the new crop has to be re bought leaving farmers at the mercy of price fixes at the hands of profit , stock price driven corporations. And while the US is seeing an "organic" movement its corporations continue to pollute the planet with impunity. If there is no fear as the author claims why is even labeling Genetically modifed food as such in US facing such stiff resistance with Corporations calling for the first amendement in their defense.
Lets face it there would have been no organic movement in US had it not been for inordinate amount of pesticides and fertilizers seeping through the food chain. The fertilizers, pesticides and GM seeds have left farmers impoverished in countries like India leading to large number of farmer suicides. Organic farming gets little research except from not for profit and non-profit orgs. What profit is there to make from a framer completely independent and relying on his dry leaves, worms and cowdungs?
Lets face it there would have been no organic movement in US had it not been for inordinate amount of pesticides and fertilizers seeping through the food chain. The fertilizers, pesticides and GM seeds have left farmers impoverished in countries like India leading to large number of farmer suicides. Organic farming gets little research except from not for profit and non-profit orgs. What profit is there to make from a framer completely independent and relying on his dry leaves, worms and cowdungs?
4
It's not only European law makers that are ignorant about the benefits of GMO crops.
As indicated here a lot of the population in NA is too.
I have no problem eating a GMO vegetable or eating a GMO salmon.
I think the prejudice against engineered crops is due to the involvement of giant chemical firms, particularly Monsanto with their Round Up Ready seeds, and their wars to protect their patents.
Even Greenpeace has fought against the dissemination of Golden Rice in Asia, a GMO crop that has an enhanced Vitamin A content that will help with the nutritional deficiency suffered by many Asian children.
If GMO crops were freed from the taint of 'greedy multinational corporations', I think there would be much less resistance.
Given what climate change will do to agricultural output over most of the crop bearing world, we should be encouraging experimentation to develop more heat, drought, and yes frost resistant food of all kinds.
Genetic modification is just one step further on what humans have been doing since we became pastoralists. We have been selectively breeding crops and animals for millennia.
There *is* a real danger. That lies in the natural dissemination of modified genes to wild or unexpected sources where that introduced genetic variation would be detrimental to biodiversity. The solution is rigorous oversight and regulation. However, we all know how well that has worked.
We can't turn back the clock, but we can try to make things work for the best.
As indicated here a lot of the population in NA is too.
I have no problem eating a GMO vegetable or eating a GMO salmon.
I think the prejudice against engineered crops is due to the involvement of giant chemical firms, particularly Monsanto with their Round Up Ready seeds, and their wars to protect their patents.
Even Greenpeace has fought against the dissemination of Golden Rice in Asia, a GMO crop that has an enhanced Vitamin A content that will help with the nutritional deficiency suffered by many Asian children.
If GMO crops were freed from the taint of 'greedy multinational corporations', I think there would be much less resistance.
Given what climate change will do to agricultural output over most of the crop bearing world, we should be encouraging experimentation to develop more heat, drought, and yes frost resistant food of all kinds.
Genetic modification is just one step further on what humans have been doing since we became pastoralists. We have been selectively breeding crops and animals for millennia.
There *is* a real danger. That lies in the natural dissemination of modified genes to wild or unexpected sources where that introduced genetic variation would be detrimental to biodiversity. The solution is rigorous oversight and regulation. However, we all know how well that has worked.
We can't turn back the clock, but we can try to make things work for the best.
1
You often get three choices in mainstream agricultural crops:
1) Organically grown - here yields are often half and costs are two to three times as high because of manual processing of the reduced yield.
2) Chemically managed crops - hundreds of millions of lbs of organo-phosphates and other chemicals are fed into the environment to assure maximal yield and quality.
3) GMO - where one goal is often reduction of chemical pesticide uses (the hundreds of millions alluded to above). GMO's can also have dramatic reductions of deadly side-compounds like (like erucic acid in canola - damages the heart).
There is no free lunch. Go organic and people potentially starve, go without GMO's and the environment is fouled with pesticides, go with GMO's and you face largely irrational fears.
Plant breeders have been attempting to achieve over the last several millennials what GMO's allow rather quickly. The ability to inject new genes, allowing bananas to produce vaccines, or boost drug production (half of all drugs are still derived from plants), can be viewed as a positive.
Much of the verve against GMO's springs from people who hate Monsanto and their glyphosate resistant plants - glyphosate is one of the safest, best, least persistent, most environmentally-friendly, herbicides there is.
Take this away and you are left with options (1) or (2) above - starve people or pollute the plant with deadly chemicals - maybe that's the real agenda of the anti-GMO folks?
1) Organically grown - here yields are often half and costs are two to three times as high because of manual processing of the reduced yield.
2) Chemically managed crops - hundreds of millions of lbs of organo-phosphates and other chemicals are fed into the environment to assure maximal yield and quality.
3) GMO - where one goal is often reduction of chemical pesticide uses (the hundreds of millions alluded to above). GMO's can also have dramatic reductions of deadly side-compounds like (like erucic acid in canola - damages the heart).
There is no free lunch. Go organic and people potentially starve, go without GMO's and the environment is fouled with pesticides, go with GMO's and you face largely irrational fears.
Plant breeders have been attempting to achieve over the last several millennials what GMO's allow rather quickly. The ability to inject new genes, allowing bananas to produce vaccines, or boost drug production (half of all drugs are still derived from plants), can be viewed as a positive.
Much of the verve against GMO's springs from people who hate Monsanto and their glyphosate resistant plants - glyphosate is one of the safest, best, least persistent, most environmentally-friendly, herbicides there is.
Take this away and you are left with options (1) or (2) above - starve people or pollute the plant with deadly chemicals - maybe that's the real agenda of the anti-GMO folks?
2
The author is no scientist. The article is a political rant loaded with insults and wild accusations. The author seems to know little about genetic modification. It is not like breeding. It is the insertion of a specific piece of DNA, for example a gene giving resistance to Roundup, or a gene to produce an insecticide, into a host. The insert is usually from a different species that cannot breed with the host. The location of the new piece of DNA determines where the new gene will be expressed in the host and how strongly. Each insertion is different, so it makes no sense to say GMOs are safe. It only makes sense to say THIS particular GMO is safe, based on testing.
What drives the public nuts is that the testing isn't specified and the data isn't available. "Trust us! Scientists made this GMO, and therefore it's Science, If you object you are anti-Science." Baloney! Science is about experiments and data, not about secrecy and faith (and money). GMOs should be defended by educating the public.
There are things to be concerned about. Is the inserted gene expressed in the parts of the plant you eat? If so, is the gene product safe to eat? It cannot be washed off, unlike an externally applied insecticide. If the inserted gene gives the host immunity to an herbicide like Roundup, farmers will use much more Roundup, which will select for weeds immune to Roundup just like overuse of antibiotics produced antibiotic resistant bacteria. It's an arms race.
What drives the public nuts is that the testing isn't specified and the data isn't available. "Trust us! Scientists made this GMO, and therefore it's Science, If you object you are anti-Science." Baloney! Science is about experiments and data, not about secrecy and faith (and money). GMOs should be defended by educating the public.
There are things to be concerned about. Is the inserted gene expressed in the parts of the plant you eat? If so, is the gene product safe to eat? It cannot be washed off, unlike an externally applied insecticide. If the inserted gene gives the host immunity to an herbicide like Roundup, farmers will use much more Roundup, which will select for weeds immune to Roundup just like overuse of antibiotics produced antibiotic resistant bacteria. It's an arms race.
4
Mass ignorance in Europe - and reading the comments it appears widespread in the US too. Humans have been cross-breeding plants for ten thousands years to achieve desirable results. If humans hadn't engaged in cross breeding all the fruits and vegetables we now consume as natural would be pea sized, taste awful, indigestible and impossible to feed the seven billion earth inhabitants.
Scientists know this and appreciate that GMO's are basically an advanced method of achieving similar effects of cross breeding that makes modern living possible. The intent of GMOs is to produce greater crop yield at less stress on the environment, less use of water, and less use of both fertilizers and chemicals. How is that not a good thing? The complaint on Roundup usage is particularly silly and emotional because if anything GMOs require less of it.
There is a measure of anti-Americanism in Europe's reaction to GMOs - a bit of phobia that extends from Monsanto to Google, Microsoft, Apple - in other words to any industry in which American technology and companies are the master. Basically Europe can't compete - and their frustration to this fact leads to irrational and damaging behavior. And opposition to GMOs is irrational, anti-science, uneconomic, silly and firm proof that ignorance for too many is bliss.
Scientists know this and appreciate that GMO's are basically an advanced method of achieving similar effects of cross breeding that makes modern living possible. The intent of GMOs is to produce greater crop yield at less stress on the environment, less use of water, and less use of both fertilizers and chemicals. How is that not a good thing? The complaint on Roundup usage is particularly silly and emotional because if anything GMOs require less of it.
There is a measure of anti-Americanism in Europe's reaction to GMOs - a bit of phobia that extends from Monsanto to Google, Microsoft, Apple - in other words to any industry in which American technology and companies are the master. Basically Europe can't compete - and their frustration to this fact leads to irrational and damaging behavior. And opposition to GMOs is irrational, anti-science, uneconomic, silly and firm proof that ignorance for too many is bliss.
The author does unfortunately not understand, where the GMO Objection in Europe comes from:
- Bioengineering is often associated with glyphosate resistant crops and mayor companies like Monsanto
- there is also an objection, that newly engineered crops are the intellectual IP of an multinational enterprise, which makes policy makers uncomfortable
- and there is a mistrust in transparent food labeling practices
What I'm still puzzled by this piece though is that the author tries to point the finger to a continent, which is able to manage population health and lifetime and burden of disease more efficiently then the USA. I'm not saying that GMOs are the key to this result, but consumers seem to make the better choices in Europe.
- Bioengineering is often associated with glyphosate resistant crops and mayor companies like Monsanto
- there is also an objection, that newly engineered crops are the intellectual IP of an multinational enterprise, which makes policy makers uncomfortable
- and there is a mistrust in transparent food labeling practices
What I'm still puzzled by this piece though is that the author tries to point the finger to a continent, which is able to manage population health and lifetime and burden of disease more efficiently then the USA. I'm not saying that GMOs are the key to this result, but consumers seem to make the better choices in Europe.
4
As I read the Lynas article I was waiting for a rationale statement on the safety of GMOs in the context of the potential long-term safety issue of incorporating modified genetic molecules into users' own RNA and DNA, I am of the current mind that the Europeans are correct in rejecting these substances until, and if, science can demonstrate there is no long=term negative potential. As a (much) younger man I worked for a U.S. pharmaceutical company where we were taught that physicians who were concerned that the company's number one product might cause cancer were 'ignorant cancerophobes', i.e., much like Lynas' characterization of Europe as the 'coalition of the Ignorant.' Ten years later, when woman taking the product daily developed endometrial cancers and a variety of other abnormal tissue growths, these 'cancerophobes' were proven correct. It should be hoped that an analagous world-wide epidemic of yet unknown GMO problems do not surface, but to disparage those who share such a concern is counter-productive and Trump-like in style. How about a rational discussion rather than mud-slinging? An earlier comment made the following comment and suggestion. "I hope the Times will invite someone with strong credentials to write an opinion piece on the many reasons why the GMO approach poses dangers to our society, food supply and environment. The issue is of grave importance and deserves to be addressed thoroughly."
6
The author of this piece is not a natural scientist. He has no expertise in genetic engineering, microbiology, or even in agriculture. Rather, he has a degree (undergraduate, presumably, since there is no mention in his bio of a Master's or doctorate) in history and politics. That's it. And yet he nevertheless feels qualified to tout the virtues of G.M.O.s and to condemn Europeans as being anti-science since they choose not to eat these wonderful products?
I am not anti-science and yet I still do not want to feed Monsanto corn to my children. If other people choose to do so, that is their business. But I want the right to choose not to. I also do not buy into the trope that G.M.O.s are going to end hunger in the Third World. Nonsense. Biotech companies are not developing these products out of the goodness of their hearts -- and they are not giving them away for free. In fact, these companies -- like the pharmaceutical industry -- are really not interested in the Third World at all. Their most lucrative markets are the United States and Europe, and they are obviously displeased that Europe is not going along. Guess that's why they have to send out people like this author to advocate for them.
I am not anti-science and yet I still do not want to feed Monsanto corn to my children. If other people choose to do so, that is their business. But I want the right to choose not to. I also do not buy into the trope that G.M.O.s are going to end hunger in the Third World. Nonsense. Biotech companies are not developing these products out of the goodness of their hearts -- and they are not giving them away for free. In fact, these companies -- like the pharmaceutical industry -- are really not interested in the Third World at all. Their most lucrative markets are the United States and Europe, and they are obviously displeased that Europe is not going along. Guess that's why they have to send out people like this author to advocate for them.
8
When a presented argument starts out with an insult "Coalition of the Ignorant." Already credibility is questionable.
So the European decision to not accept genetically modified crops is a decision that is based on a wait and see attitude. Europe sees no urgency to adopt these crops. There is no reason for them to do so. Too many unanswered questions to ask, too many assumptions. Then why not wait until a verdict becomes evident from the guinea pigs elsewhere who have rushed ahead?
So the European decision to not accept genetically modified crops is a decision that is based on a wait and see attitude. Europe sees no urgency to adopt these crops. There is no reason for them to do so. Too many unanswered questions to ask, too many assumptions. Then why not wait until a verdict becomes evident from the guinea pigs elsewhere who have rushed ahead?
3
It is not irrational or "ignorant" to seek to avoid eating foodstuffs bred to tolerate toxic chemicals. Or to eat residues of the chemicals themselves. Or to eat, or promote the growing of, organisms which are products of the laboratory and cannot exist un-"assisted" in nature--which is an entirely different thing from the centuries-old farm practice of natural hybridizing according to the rules of nature. Or to know that the long-term effects of such products are not yet known, or to expect that if substantial numbers of people develop disease entities or other distortions of health, many years from now, the manufacturers of such things will predictably say "you can't prove it." Or to wish to refrain from enriching the corporations who do these things.
The entire Earth is in trouble because--whether it's about uncontrolled mineral extraction and fuel burning, or expectations of infinite growth on a finite planet, or biological tampering with things that ought not be tampered with--the human species shows a fatal lack of humility.
The notion that GMO crops will solve "hunger" is also a dodge, because the existence of hunger in the world is in substantial part due to economic distortions and not to crop choices. In a food system based on ability to pay, even the desperately poor and malnourished do not represent economic "demand," regardless of the way groceries are bred, and the real need is not frankenfoods but economic justice.
The entire Earth is in trouble because--whether it's about uncontrolled mineral extraction and fuel burning, or expectations of infinite growth on a finite planet, or biological tampering with things that ought not be tampered with--the human species shows a fatal lack of humility.
The notion that GMO crops will solve "hunger" is also a dodge, because the existence of hunger in the world is in substantial part due to economic distortions and not to crop choices. In a food system based on ability to pay, even the desperately poor and malnourished do not represent economic "demand," regardless of the way groceries are bred, and the real need is not frankenfoods but economic justice.
90
All this misses the point.
The DOG is the most prominent GMO, no doubt about it, a species created by man.
So, it's perfectly logical that people who don't like dogs HATE GMO's.
Better safe than sorry!
The DOG is the most prominent GMO, no doubt about it, a species created by man.
So, it's perfectly logical that people who don't like dogs HATE GMO's.
Better safe than sorry!
1
Darwin was right; survival of the fittest. Eventually the crazies will die off.
Ah yes, GMOs, the left wing's version of climate change denial. I look forward to the scientifically illiterate, emotional and illogical comments to follow.
1
It is important to think clearly about what the science does and doesn't show, for each genetically engineered trait. The author is certainly correct on Bt plants, where a common harmless bacterial protein expressed inside the plant deters insect pests and saves on pesticides as well as allowing greater crop yields. But HR crops are another matter, since they lead to more use of at least arguably hazardous glyphosate based herbicides. The WHO declaration of glyphosate as a potential carcinogen should not be lightly dismissed.
58
An anti-GMO stance is hardly unscientific. The reason most GMO plants are created is to sell herbicides. It is not about making food better or improving the environment. It is about forcing farmers to buy more chemicals from the makers of GMO seeds. Committing to GMO foods is very unscientific and an environmental catastrophe. The health of the environment relies on us having healthy, biologically diverse soils, and cultivating thousands of seed varieties of our crops. This isn't possible with a GMO regimine which is based on a handful of seed varieties created by a handful of conglomerates requiring farmers to spray tons of herbicides and synthetic fertilizers on their fields.
Healthy soils need 75,000 species of bacteria, 25,000 species of fungi in every teaspoon of soil. In GMO fields sprayed with herbicides like roundup and soaked in synthetic fertilizers, fields have minuscule species of bacteria and fungi in their soils.
The entire GMO concept of farming reduces farming to a chemical process of applying poisons and fertilizers and amendments, whereas farming is a biological process with plants cultivating a vast variety of bacteria and fungi to create a healthy soil which will nourish them.
Healthy soils need 75,000 species of bacteria, 25,000 species of fungi in every teaspoon of soil. In GMO fields sprayed with herbicides like roundup and soaked in synthetic fertilizers, fields have minuscule species of bacteria and fungi in their soils.
The entire GMO concept of farming reduces farming to a chemical process of applying poisons and fertilizers and amendments, whereas farming is a biological process with plants cultivating a vast variety of bacteria and fungi to create a healthy soil which will nourish them.
120
Huh, just how are farmers forced to buy GM seeds? If they are forced, how are some farmers able to switch back and forth and even, simultaneously grow both non-gmo and gmo in the same season?
You also imply that farmers are dumb and can't see whether GM crops lead to greater real world yields or not. You also claim that, somehow, GM crops kill off soil organisms and imply that will affect yields. Yet yields have been on a steady march upwards for the past two decades. Just when is this death soil apocalypse supposed to occur?
You also imply that farmers are dumb and can't see whether GM crops lead to greater real world yields or not. You also claim that, somehow, GM crops kill off soil organisms and imply that will affect yields. Yet yields have been on a steady march upwards for the past two decades. Just when is this death soil apocalypse supposed to occur?
A very moving and articulate plea. But think about what you are saying, and assume that your agricultural nirvana comes through with the wave of a magic wand. Who will farm the land, and how many more acres will we need to sustain the 7 bilion going to 9 billion mouths we need to feed. And will you, with the wave of your magic wand decide on the 3 or 4 billion you will be condemning to die due to starvation?
An opinion piece about GMOs with no mention of Roundup or glyphosate, and from a writer citing scientific evidence! How can anyone take this seriously?
6
Try some travel in Europe. Meet ordinary people who are close to their food, Danes who have candles at meals, Italians who want to know exactly where their olive oil came from , and how it was made. Not compatible with mega-farms, which pay their workers starvation wages to work in the factory that produces the material found in our supermarkets. Bio-engineered food is not good for society.
89
This article was written by a pesticide industry shill. Europe is leading in clean energy, Europe DOES listen to science--which is many of its countries are banning GMO foods. The New York Times needs to post the opposing side, which IS backed by science.
16
I can't believe how NYT has fallen. This article by a shill is depressing, inaccurate and tawdry.
The NYT is not interested in becoming a target of the Chemical Industry's lawyers. There is no integrity left in the media to provide any background or real analysis beyond the thin hype required to get you to buy their "news".
Who would pay for your article? The research? You know who paid this articles author...
Who would pay for your article? The research? You know who paid this articles author...
I'm glad to see so many commenters call out this corporate shill.
20
It's really sad to me how many of the comments here fall back on propaganda without engaging with the facts. I wish more people were scientifically literate.
2
http://www.alternet.org/food/uncovering-real-story-behind-mark-lynas-con...
"In 2011, leaked documents were obtained from the Brussels-based EuropaBio, the continent's “largest and most influential biotech industry group,” detailing an intricate plan to fracture the European green movement in hopes of undermining its near unanimous opposition to the biotech industry agenda.
EuropaBio's members read like a who's who of multinational pesticide and biotech corporations notorious for endangering human health, polluting the environment and deceiving the public. Members include Monsanto, Bayer, Dow, BASF, Eli Lilly, and Dupont. According to the leaked documents, Mark Lynas was one of the biotech industry's most sought after “ambassadors” (i.e. undercover spokespeople)." Read more at the link to put this oped in context.
"In 2011, leaked documents were obtained from the Brussels-based EuropaBio, the continent's “largest and most influential biotech industry group,” detailing an intricate plan to fracture the European green movement in hopes of undermining its near unanimous opposition to the biotech industry agenda.
EuropaBio's members read like a who's who of multinational pesticide and biotech corporations notorious for endangering human health, polluting the environment and deceiving the public. Members include Monsanto, Bayer, Dow, BASF, Eli Lilly, and Dupont. According to the leaked documents, Mark Lynas was one of the biotech industry's most sought after “ambassadors” (i.e. undercover spokespeople)." Read more at the link to put this oped in context.
11
Because they can't find any legit research about the predicted harms of GMOs themselves, people always regress to this bizarre fixation on glyphosate/roundup. You know what the biggest herbicide in the GMO-free EU is? I'll give you one guess.
It's too bad the leadership of the GMO-haters keeps misleading their followers. Some of them actually think GMO = Roundup. It doesn't. It makes their arguments so easy to dismiss. If they could actually disengage their fixation on this one herbicide, they might actually be able to have rational discussions about the topic. But I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to happen.
I also can't figure out why they seem to think this is the only herbicide out there, and why they don't understand that non-GMOs use herbicides too. If they hate herbicides so much, why not aim at them instead?
It's too bad the leadership of the GMO-haters keeps misleading their followers. Some of them actually think GMO = Roundup. It doesn't. It makes their arguments so easy to dismiss. If they could actually disengage their fixation on this one herbicide, they might actually be able to have rational discussions about the topic. But I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to happen.
I also can't figure out why they seem to think this is the only herbicide out there, and why they don't understand that non-GMOs use herbicides too. If they hate herbicides so much, why not aim at them instead?
5
Less than two months ago the NY Times published an article titled "Food Industry Enlisted Academics in G.M.O. Lobbying War, Emails Show"
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/06/us/food-industry-enlisted-academics-in...
This article seems to be mush in the same vein - using talking points typically used by the GMO companies and ignoring the elephants in the room.
GMOs have drastically INCREASED the use of pesticides - both Round-up itself an the pesticides built into GMO seeds and plants.
Round-up has now been declared a carcinogen.
There is no proof that GMOs increase yield in the long run.
Proper testing has not been done to prove safety. The testing is being done - without controls in us.
The GMO companies have spent over $100,000,000 to prevent labeling requirements and further to make it nearly impossible to voluntarily label a product as non-GMO. Why if they are so proud of what they do?
The anti-science meme is one that the pro-GMO folks have taken up with a vengeance. That is nonsense. Science is about facts and about how those fats are used - for good or evil. Nukes are evil, thalidomide is evil. Both were developed by science. There is ever increasing evidence that GMOs are evil and it is for sure that they have not been properly tested so we can be sure.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/06/us/food-industry-enlisted-academics-in...
This article seems to be mush in the same vein - using talking points typically used by the GMO companies and ignoring the elephants in the room.
GMOs have drastically INCREASED the use of pesticides - both Round-up itself an the pesticides built into GMO seeds and plants.
Round-up has now been declared a carcinogen.
There is no proof that GMOs increase yield in the long run.
Proper testing has not been done to prove safety. The testing is being done - without controls in us.
The GMO companies have spent over $100,000,000 to prevent labeling requirements and further to make it nearly impossible to voluntarily label a product as non-GMO. Why if they are so proud of what they do?
The anti-science meme is one that the pro-GMO folks have taken up with a vengeance. That is nonsense. Science is about facts and about how those fats are used - for good or evil. Nukes are evil, thalidomide is evil. Both were developed by science. There is ever increasing evidence that GMOs are evil and it is for sure that they have not been properly tested so we can be sure.
24
Let's hope Lynas's GM virus-resistant cassava isn't the same one that failed Africa so miserably some years ago. Thankfully a non-GM virus-resistant cassava was developed at a fraction of the cost and in a fraction of the time that the GM one took--and last time it was reported on, it was a wild success--healthy and with high yield. Lynas doesn't seem interested in that cassava--wonder why? Does it not fit his agenda of "Only GM can save the third world"? http://www.gmwatch.org/gm-cassava-our-only-hope
7
You should know by now that scientific research is only valid if it affirms what I already decided was true. That goes for vaccines, climate change, or GMOs.
3
Can I ask Mr. Lynas to disclose his connections with the GMO manufacturing community including grants or other funding he may have received?
Also Mr. Lynas employs many red herrings in his column, is belief in the sexual effect of GMO's really pertinent or whether Russia or Zimbabwe ban them or not. Also how bad would it have been environmentally if the US had not adopted the automobile in the early 1900's. Not all things propounded by science turn out to be such a good idea. Some work out well, some work out poorly and some fix one problem and cause another. I won't speak to the inherent safety of eating GMO groups but I can say that the result will be further remove from anything remotely organic, including dangerous overuse of Herbicides (something he conveniently does not mention when touting the reduced use of pesticides). Further result will be more and more mono culture farming dependent on more and more herbicides as the plant world evolves and likely an uptick in pesticides too as the insect world evolves. We play a dangerous game when we act with such arrogance to nature. There are serious concerns about the efficacy of this kind of scientific meddling for the long term. They should be discussed in a thorough and scientific way not with use of straw men and ridicule.
Also Mr. Lynas employs many red herrings in his column, is belief in the sexual effect of GMO's really pertinent or whether Russia or Zimbabwe ban them or not. Also how bad would it have been environmentally if the US had not adopted the automobile in the early 1900's. Not all things propounded by science turn out to be such a good idea. Some work out well, some work out poorly and some fix one problem and cause another. I won't speak to the inherent safety of eating GMO groups but I can say that the result will be further remove from anything remotely organic, including dangerous overuse of Herbicides (something he conveniently does not mention when touting the reduced use of pesticides). Further result will be more and more mono culture farming dependent on more and more herbicides as the plant world evolves and likely an uptick in pesticides too as the insect world evolves. We play a dangerous game when we act with such arrogance to nature. There are serious concerns about the efficacy of this kind of scientific meddling for the long term. They should be discussed in a thorough and scientific way not with use of straw men and ridicule.
12
With a world population approaching 9 billion-plus by the middle of this century, it amazes me to see how people are so willing to believe what they want about GMOs, regardless if the scientific evidence supports them or not. The consensus amongst scientists on both sides of the Atlantic is that GMOs have no harmful effects to people and animals that consume them, and a deeper knowledge of the science would assuage their fears. It's almost painful to read the comments of the anti-GMO people obviously don't know what they are talking about and selectively pick and choose what science they use to back up their claims about any danger from the consumption of GMO-modified crops.
As far as the African attitude to GMOs, I recommend reading the book "Starved for Science: How Biotechnology is Being Kept Out of Africa" by Robert Paarlberg (ISBN #978-0-674-02973-6). Sadly, most Africans are essentially following their colonial masters more than 60 years after independence.
Nicola Sturgeon's acknowledgement that Scotland's banning of GMO use "wasn't based on scientific evidence" is scary in that it gives undeserved power to those who don't want to use rational scientific reasoning in the decision whether or not to use GMO crops.
As far as the African attitude to GMOs, I recommend reading the book "Starved for Science: How Biotechnology is Being Kept Out of Africa" by Robert Paarlberg (ISBN #978-0-674-02973-6). Sadly, most Africans are essentially following their colonial masters more than 60 years after independence.
Nicola Sturgeon's acknowledgement that Scotland's banning of GMO use "wasn't based on scientific evidence" is scary in that it gives undeserved power to those who don't want to use rational scientific reasoning in the decision whether or not to use GMO crops.
1
Persuasive argument, but those of us who are cautious on this issue, are most skeptical when the labeling issue is ignored or clumsily pushed back upon. If industry whole heartedly embraced labeling, they would be way more convincing. They could then make their case.
The average American does not read these articles nor even comprehends what GMO crops are. The vast majority of Americans gather their knowledge not from higher education but instead from local TV news. PERIOD! So for anyone on this side of the pond to challenge the other side is either naïve, ignorant, political motivated or bias, or just plain stupid! If you have lived 50 years or more in America and have been driving around for at least 30 of those years, one would be completely blind not to see the physical changes in Americans' body shape and size. GMO crops have been doing something, "we are what we eat" and Americans have changed. I know food has nothing to do with all the health problems and cancer causing issues, nor does it have anything to do with obesity either, and oh, Americans do not need air to survive either... Stupidity at every level....Just saying it has I see it....
7
The political director who wrote this article is ignorant regarding scientific research and its impact on humans. Where are the research data assessing long term effects of Frankenfood on humans and animals?
The condescending attitude does not make an expert.
The condescending attitude does not make an expert.
36
Whatever you might think about at biotechnology, Mr. Lynas is clearly someone who cares deeply about the environment, and especially about climate change. It might be worth asking, then, why he favors using science also when looking at biotechnology, and talks about its benefits in reducing fertilizer use. As to long-term research: if literally hundreds of millions of people in the US alone have eaten GM-soy and corn based products every year for two decades without a single incident of illness, that would seem to be a fairly robust study about the safety of the products on the market. Biotechnology is a process, and obviously could also be used to create dangerous products. But those available for use now are safe.
3
Genetically selective breeding is no different than "GMO", it is just a matter of time scale. And if you have a problem with selective breeding ... there is not much for you to eat in a regular grocery store.
2
Frankenfood? What a ridiculous, hysterical word. We routinely digest mixed DNA and proteins from many different species simultaneously.
This is the most hilarious opinion piece I have ever read. 36 countries have banned the cultivation of GM crops worldwide and only 28 grow these crops (most of which grow under 1000 hectares in total). The question Lynas (who is not an expert on this issue in any way), should be asking is why does the U.S. continue to support GM crops worldwide when consumers do not and never will want to eat GMOs, if given the choice. GM crops are a dying form of agriculture. It is time to stop the very ignorant approach of Lynas and his friends in the Biotech industry and U.S. government. GM crops will never Feed The World, Agroecology based farming methods that support and feed microbes in the soil will and have been shown to be able to Feed The World (as stated by the American Academy of Microbiology with 40,000 members).
41
You use the ISAAA stats on the number of countries commercially growing biotech crops, and also point to the small size of many plots. That points to the fact that the same source elaborates that 94% of the 18 million farmers that grow the crops are in developing countries. I've talked to some of these farmers in Brazil and Africa, and consistently found that they adopted the crops because they worked; the fields were clear of weeds, more productive and brought in more income for families who need the money in a way we here in Europe can't fully appreciate. The rate of adoption is increasing in these countries for that reason. If 38 countries choose to ban the use of successful crops, that is their choice, of course.
1
@HR: "GM crops are a dying form of agriculture."
Not in the US. For several crops, the acreage that is planted with a genetically engineered variety is over 80%. For example, in 2014 and in 2015, 94% of soybean acreage was planted with a genetically engineered variety. See the very informative graphs here:
Recent Trends in GE Adoption
US Dept. of Agriculture
http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/adoption-of-genetically-engineered...
Not in the US. For several crops, the acreage that is planted with a genetically engineered variety is over 80%. For example, in 2014 and in 2015, 94% of soybean acreage was planted with a genetically engineered variety. See the very informative graphs here:
Recent Trends in GE Adoption
US Dept. of Agriculture
http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/adoption-of-genetically-engineered...
I could not disagree more with the author.
Firstly, governments are elected to represent the people. A lot, probably the majority of people do not want to eat GM foods. In Europe, it has been the law for many years that any food product containing GMO's must be labelled accordingly. This is a courtesy that Monsanto et.al. has fought vehemently to stop in North America. If the science is so good, and so flwaless, why not tell the people what they are eating?
Secondly, it is a fact that since the introduction of GMO's in North America, herbicide usage of Roundup, containg glyphosate, has increased 25-30%. The World Health Organization has said that glyphosate is probably a carcinogen. There is increasing evidence that glyphosate is harmful to human health. There is also a strong correlation between the increased use of glyphosate and the increased rate of diseases like Alzheimers, obesity and cancers to name just a few. Extended tests done in the lab on rats when fed GM crops treated with glyphosate, show the rats developing tumours, and birth defects.
Thirdly, over 60 countries around the world require these ingredients to be labelled, including China and Russia. North America does not - why is this?. Also, there are almost 40 countries around the world that have banned these crops, not just European countries. Are they all wrong?
Firstly, governments are elected to represent the people. A lot, probably the majority of people do not want to eat GM foods. In Europe, it has been the law for many years that any food product containing GMO's must be labelled accordingly. This is a courtesy that Monsanto et.al. has fought vehemently to stop in North America. If the science is so good, and so flwaless, why not tell the people what they are eating?
Secondly, it is a fact that since the introduction of GMO's in North America, herbicide usage of Roundup, containg glyphosate, has increased 25-30%. The World Health Organization has said that glyphosate is probably a carcinogen. There is increasing evidence that glyphosate is harmful to human health. There is also a strong correlation between the increased use of glyphosate and the increased rate of diseases like Alzheimers, obesity and cancers to name just a few. Extended tests done in the lab on rats when fed GM crops treated with glyphosate, show the rats developing tumours, and birth defects.
Thirdly, over 60 countries around the world require these ingredients to be labelled, including China and Russia. North America does not - why is this?. Also, there are almost 40 countries around the world that have banned these crops, not just European countries. Are they all wrong?
37
Your argument is confusing - are you opposed to GM (maybe we should call it accelerated selective breeding?) or are you opposed to Roundup used on GM (and lots of other) crops?
1
I am not against the science of genetic engineering. The science may prove to save lives or even species. I am against the use of this science simply as a vehicle to sell more herbicide, patent life or control the seed supply.
There are enough examples in our history of scientifically proven products going to market only later to be found to be harmful to humans (DDT, PCBs etc. .. and now glyphosate).
The article implies that by banning GM crops these European countries are anti-science. Actually they are carrying out the wishes of the people by erring on the side of caution. This is what a government is supposed to do.
There are enough examples in our history of scientifically proven products going to market only later to be found to be harmful to humans (DDT, PCBs etc. .. and now glyphosate).
The article implies that by banning GM crops these European countries are anti-science. Actually they are carrying out the wishes of the people by erring on the side of caution. This is what a government is supposed to do.
According to an Internet searcH: "In 2011, leaked documents were obtained from the Brussels-based EuropaBio, the continent's “largest and most influential biotech industry group,” detailing an intricate plan to fracture the European green movement in hopes of undermining its near unanimous opposition to the biotech industry agenda. EuropaBio's members include multinational pesticide and biotech corporations ... Monsanto, Bayer, Dow, BASF, Eli Lilly, and Dupont. According to the leaked documents, Mark Lynas was one of the biotech industry's most sought after “ambassadors” (i.e. undercover spokespeople)."
85
There's a lot of money in GMOs, so you can imagine the attraction.
And the NYT certainly knew his "ambassador" status! It is blatant propaganda for big money interests.
1
I'm looking to purchase more fruit and vegetables, dairy, meats and poultry from the EU, pursuant to their policies in this matter. The opposite impact has been occurring in the US, sponsored with and by big ag, big ag chem, and big gmo seed companies pushing the opposite policies here in the US, bolstered by the Koch's ALEC and Congress lobbies, precluding the labeling of gmo products. I want to have the choice, and not be precluded by their edicts, if I choose not to imbibe roundup laden products,
52
Seems that more commentators are concerned with Roundup than the actually genetics of the food.
2
Agreed. Wondering where this writer is getting his paycheque from. From the same who argued that Thalidomide would be a godsend to my mother's generation.
No, you don't get that choice. The FDA will allow what they have been paid to allow into the foodstream here in the USA. And no, you don't get to know if any part of that food product has been modified.
What do you think would happen if Americans knew that plants had been changed to produce internal pesticides that, while protecting the plant, have NOT been tested to see if human consumption is harmful? Don't make the mistake of trusting a government institution bought and paid for by BigAg.
"It's fine. Trust us."
What do you think would happen if Americans knew that plants had been changed to produce internal pesticides that, while protecting the plant, have NOT been tested to see if human consumption is harmful? Don't make the mistake of trusting a government institution bought and paid for by BigAg.
"It's fine. Trust us."
The hysteria over GMOs has become so bad that 1) people who have no idea what a GMO is still think they are bad and try to avoid them (see Jimmy Kimmel questioning people on the street about this) and 2) even those of us who do understand what they are and realize that they are good and definitely preferable to more chemical applications no longer have a choice. I recently purchased some margarine containing plant sterols, which are supposed to reduce cholesterol. Now I would have purchased it even without the "No GMOs" labeling, but, in buying it and other such labeled products, it now looks as though I agree with the anti-GMO stance. I've seen many products for which there would not be a GMO version, in any case, that are yet labeled "No GMOs".
Nearly all of the foods that we eat have been genetically modified, whether in the laboratory or by Nature. We have a choice between just allowing Nature to take its course, not caring whether the plant is to be consumed by a human or a fungus or, for that matter, an insect, or stepping in to ensure that our fellow humans have enough to eat.
Now I do appreciate things being labeled organic, since I personally like to avoid crops fertilized with manure.
Nearly all of the foods that we eat have been genetically modified, whether in the laboratory or by Nature. We have a choice between just allowing Nature to take its course, not caring whether the plant is to be consumed by a human or a fungus or, for that matter, an insect, or stepping in to ensure that our fellow humans have enough to eat.
Now I do appreciate things being labeled organic, since I personally like to avoid crops fertilized with manure.
28
Sorry, but you cannot confuse breeding and natural selection with GMOs. Nature does not take flounders and mix them with tomatoes, which is what the genengineers do. There is a deep ethical problem here that needs to be thought out carefully (as in where does it stop), and that can't be solved with positivist American gung-ho-can-do-shoot-first-ask-questions-later thinking. Secondly: the real problem (see my post above) is the intention behind the GMOs and the companies promoting them and their ulterior motive, which, like big supermarket chains, is to sweep in the cash that small farmers are trying to earn... The sheer stupidity of saying that Europeans are backwards is a telltale sign that Lynas is an ideologue. And those are the last people to trust.
1
GMO modification "by nature" as you put it is hardly the equivalent of GMO modification in the laboratory...disingenuous to say the least
Thank you for some common sense. Why is it that so many folks do not seem to understand GM is just accelerated selective breeding?
1
"Why would anyone spend years developing genetically modified crops in the knowledge that they will most likely be outlawed by government fiat?"
That's the point, obviously.
"This decision of a majority of European countries to apparently ignore their own experts may undermine any claim to the moral high ground at the coming Paris talks on climate change."
On the contrary, and Mr. Lynas is just being deliberately obtuse here. On both genetically modified crops and climate change the Europeans are following the same basic principle: the principle of precaution. When there are huge, uncertain risks, it is better to act to prevent rather than to wait and see if problems develop.
European (and many American) consumers don't want G.M.O. food. For whatever reason, it is their right to have a food chain which satisfies them. Why does Mr. Lynas want to overthrow this basic right to choose?
That's the point, obviously.
"This decision of a majority of European countries to apparently ignore their own experts may undermine any claim to the moral high ground at the coming Paris talks on climate change."
On the contrary, and Mr. Lynas is just being deliberately obtuse here. On both genetically modified crops and climate change the Europeans are following the same basic principle: the principle of precaution. When there are huge, uncertain risks, it is better to act to prevent rather than to wait and see if problems develop.
European (and many American) consumers don't want G.M.O. food. For whatever reason, it is their right to have a food chain which satisfies them. Why does Mr. Lynas want to overthrow this basic right to choose?
108
Um, if the government bans one of the alternatives, there is no choice. And the decision wasn't made by consumers or scientists, but politicians.
1
But there are not huge uncertain risks. That's an invention out of whole cloth. "A basic right to choose what satisfies you," when it's motivated by bad ideas, is nothing other than ignorance in nutrition.
Is Europe turning against science or against agribusiness and the scientists involved with it? Each agribusiness entity can be trusted at most to look after its own bottom line. Herbicide and insecticide makers would insist that their products are unrelated to colony collapse disorder because any relation would likely cost them money. If they needed evidence, they would pay handsomely for it and chances are it would appear.
European farmers and consumers are more protected from agribusiness than we are. Consumers get more complete product information, and farmers are not pushed towards a monoculture that would destroy centuries of history. Europe is content to let us be the guinea pigs for the long-term effects of G.M.O.s, and so, of course, is agribusiness.
European farmers and consumers are more protected from agribusiness than we are. Consumers get more complete product information, and farmers are not pushed towards a monoculture that would destroy centuries of history. Europe is content to let us be the guinea pigs for the long-term effects of G.M.O.s, and so, of course, is agribusiness.
97
Long term effects of GMO's? You need to take some biology and genetics. I challenge you to stop eating everything that has not had its genes modified. And that goes for things where the genes were modified in a lab and those where the genes were modified on a farm.
As a liberal and progressive, I find the repetition of corporate babble-speak ideology in the face of facts to be about as stupid as Republican hatred of climate science. Please, oh please take some actual science so you can understand how evidence works.
As a liberal and progressive, I find the repetition of corporate babble-speak ideology in the face of facts to be about as stupid as Republican hatred of climate science. Please, oh please take some actual science so you can understand how evidence works.
1
Something I don't see the author addressing is the big problem created when a genetically modified seed can then receive a unique patent, meaning that money must be paid to the seed's 'creator' in order to use that particular strain. And what of nature’s pollinators, whether bees or wind, knowing not which crops are GMO and which are not. What happens when an organic or traditional farmer finds GMO plants growing amidst his crops, through no fault of his; is he to be sued or held liable?
It has also been noted the grave danger of monoculture plants leading to the demise of many wild and commonly used non GMO varieties. What of an insect or disease scourge of GMO widespread crops, with few alternatives left after Big-Ag has taken over much of the land being cultivated.
How can we possibly know, at once, the long term health benefits or detriments of genetically modified plants? But of course when very big money is involved, those who are concerned are deemed 'irrational' and phobic'.
It has also been noted the grave danger of monoculture plants leading to the demise of many wild and commonly used non GMO varieties. What of an insect or disease scourge of GMO widespread crops, with few alternatives left after Big-Ag has taken over much of the land being cultivated.
How can we possibly know, at once, the long term health benefits or detriments of genetically modified plants? But of course when very big money is involved, those who are concerned are deemed 'irrational' and phobic'.
193
You raise questions, here are some answers -
1. The patent you receive is specific to the modification and only last for twenty years. We've had many of these for almost that amount of time now so we'll be seeing generics pretty soon. Besides, competition will always be able to find a better seed.
2. You can certainly sue if you suffer any economic damage from having your plants pollinated, but actually Monsanto for one will pay for the removal of those plants because they are valuable patented property and they don't want to give them to anyone without a license being paid.
3. Monoculture danger is a problem that has nothing to do with GMO. People are not forced to buy the best yielding plants, but farmers have always done this. Nothing changes this practice by making crops resistant to pests.
4. We've been eating them for (see point 1) years with no scientifically proven negative health effects. We permitted biological modification of plants with no regulation whatsoever since the dawn of cultivation and no one died from that either. There's no such thing as "real" maize or wheat. The issue is purely they method of modification.
1. The patent you receive is specific to the modification and only last for twenty years. We've had many of these for almost that amount of time now so we'll be seeing generics pretty soon. Besides, competition will always be able to find a better seed.
2. You can certainly sue if you suffer any economic damage from having your plants pollinated, but actually Monsanto for one will pay for the removal of those plants because they are valuable patented property and they don't want to give them to anyone without a license being paid.
3. Monoculture danger is a problem that has nothing to do with GMO. People are not forced to buy the best yielding plants, but farmers have always done this. Nothing changes this practice by making crops resistant to pests.
4. We've been eating them for (see point 1) years with no scientifically proven negative health effects. We permitted biological modification of plants with no regulation whatsoever since the dawn of cultivation and no one died from that either. There's no such thing as "real" maize or wheat. The issue is purely they method of modification.
2
Non-GMO crops that are derived from traditional breeding are also patented, and the rights of the patent-holder are rigorously and vigorously upheld. Since each variety of fruit or vegetable has a unique genetic signature, it is easy to sample from a field and then show in court that a non-licensed grower has violated a patent. This has resulted in major monetary awards to patent holders and the enforced uprooting of fraudulently-planted apple trees, strawberry fields, and large acreages of tomato plants. In contrast to the romantic image that many wish to portray of farming, agriculture is the business that feeds the world, and as in any business, legal rights must be protected.
3
Your questions and concerns are valid. I also ask, are we not to trust the science behind the G.M.O. crops, are the benefits of reducing and perhaps eliminating the use of pesticides not worth the effort of such scientific cultivation. I agree on the points you have made concerning patents and the liability unfairly imposed on farmers whose crops might inherit these G.M.O. traits through no fault of their own, this scenario does appear unjust, and rightly so.
This author tells us that concern about GMO crops is an "irrational phobia."
Forbes magazine featured him in an article about how he is a high profile conversion to GMO. So he was irrational in the same phobia, until he wasn't. Now he is a darling of Forbes.
GMO is a powerful tool. That is the benefit, but that is also the problem. It makes big changes, with great power, and then we find out later what all of them are.
Unintended consequences are consequences all the same, and more trouble for being unexpected and unintended. That makes this stuff dangerous. It isn't an irrational phobia to worry about that.
There may be ways to do this safely. Saying "irrational phobia" and then throwing open the gates to whatever happens is not a way to do this safely.
Caution is appropriate. The more powerful the ability to change things we only half understand (or less) the more caution is necessary.
Forbes magazine featured him in an article about how he is a high profile conversion to GMO. So he was irrational in the same phobia, until he wasn't. Now he is a darling of Forbes.
GMO is a powerful tool. That is the benefit, but that is also the problem. It makes big changes, with great power, and then we find out later what all of them are.
Unintended consequences are consequences all the same, and more trouble for being unexpected and unintended. That makes this stuff dangerous. It isn't an irrational phobia to worry about that.
There may be ways to do this safely. Saying "irrational phobia" and then throwing open the gates to whatever happens is not a way to do this safely.
Caution is appropriate. The more powerful the ability to change things we only half understand (or less) the more caution is necessary.
155
Excellent comment. The only thing I would add is that this piece seems to have many of the same faults as others I have seen. This submission starts with "I know what I am talking about, those who agree with me are simply wrong," and continues onward into "if you insist on disagreeing with my conclusion you are essentially indistinguishable from a backwards homophobe." From my perspective, this seems intellectually lazy, at minimum. And as others here have rightly pointed out, the fact that scientists have yet to detect harm does not mean that a very real potential for harm does not exist. As I read this, I repeatedly found myself wondering - and I would welcome a thoroughly documented response - who is paying for all of this research. Is the consensus referenced here relatively unbiased, or largely the product of research funded by those looking to profit from the development and sale of such products?
1
GMO corn has been around for 19 years. Look it up. If it was somehow unsafe we'd have figured it out by now. Unless there is a conspiracy by the scientific communities in the United States who are threatened with death by Monsanto.
1
And while people are cautious, in spite of strong evidence that the benefits vastly outweigh the negatives, people starve, not in the first world, but in the third world where they desperately need whatever enhanced crops we can pass onto them.
Same with climate change, people say it's too dangerous to rush ahead and give up on oil. So we do nothing.
And i bet if you talked to a geneticist they would say they understand far more than you want to think. (Not half or less.) It's criminal to stop research like this when so many people need it.
Same with climate change, people say it's too dangerous to rush ahead and give up on oil. So we do nothing.
And i bet if you talked to a geneticist they would say they understand far more than you want to think. (Not half or less.) It's criminal to stop research like this when so many people need it.
1
This anti-science mantra is as deliberate a lie as the tobacco companies of yester year. I am encouraged to see the EU has some common sense and are outlawing the GMO's.
215
No, it's not. The scientific consensus that tobacco caused cancer had been established for several decades, and is as strong as the evidence that the process of genetic modification is not inherently unsafe.
It is true that some GMOs enable unsustainable and unsafe practices. Roundup is indeed "probably carcinogenic", enabled by a GMO.
Howver, the fundamental point is that GMOs are not all the same. Some GMOs prevent unsafe practices, by enabling reductions in pesticide usage. Blanket bans on GMOs only exacerbate the problems in our agricultural system.
It is true that some GMOs enable unsustainable and unsafe practices. Roundup is indeed "probably carcinogenic", enabled by a GMO.
Howver, the fundamental point is that GMOs are not all the same. Some GMOs prevent unsafe practices, by enabling reductions in pesticide usage. Blanket bans on GMOs only exacerbate the problems in our agricultural system.
3
They are trying to turn the argument against GMOs to look like the arguments used by climate skeptics. This is a sinister use of language. Another example is how the GOP, after the serious problems with our election system were revealed in 2000 and 2004, twisted the original intent of efforts to fix these problems and ensure everyone's vote was counted to instead deny as many people as possible the vote who were likely to vote Democratic.
1
In the yester year, scientists discovered health problems associated with cigarettes, and tobacco companies attempted to cover up the evidence, even paying doctors to endorse cigarettes. At the time, you could read about the studies linking cigarettes to cancer, and anyone who cared to know the truth could find it out. Most people didn't care, though, so they were more than happy to believe a story that made them feel good.
Now, scientists have tried very hard to find health problems with GMOs, but haven't found any. Now the cover-up comes from people who are afraid of technology. The story they tell is that GMOs are harmful to health and the environment. Just like in the yester year, anyone who cares to know the truth can read journals and find it out. But most people are more than happy to believe the anti-GMO story, because it makes them feel good.
I think if there were known health problems associated with GMOs that companies have attempted to cover up, your comment would be true. But, it seems, your comment is not a part of reality.
Now, scientists have tried very hard to find health problems with GMOs, but haven't found any. Now the cover-up comes from people who are afraid of technology. The story they tell is that GMOs are harmful to health and the environment. Just like in the yester year, anyone who cares to know the truth can read journals and find it out. But most people are more than happy to believe the anti-GMO story, because it makes them feel good.
I think if there were known health problems associated with GMOs that companies have attempted to cover up, your comment would be true. But, it seems, your comment is not a part of reality.
2
Both the article and the responses so far are one-sided.
The problem is not with genetic modification of plants per se. It is with the use to which it is mostly put these days. That is of course facilitating agriculture production using pesticides on crops. Some of it gets into food for humans or for animals that we eat. GMO crops themselves are indeed safe food. Accompanying pesticides not so much.
A more invidious bad result of that type of modification is that the massive use of patented pesticides (Round-up ,etc.) encourages the natural selection of weeds with Round-up, etc. resistant genes, just like overuse of antibiotics in animals and people produces superbugs able to live with those antibiotics.
Human beings have been making genetically modified organisms for millennia (cross-breeding)) and in plants have long been doing it cross-species with some success. Modern methods of manipulating DNA just make it faster and make it much easier to move genetic traits across species. Some modifications that give crops resistance to naturally occurring phenomena (drought, blights) have been very useful and benign. Rather than spurning altogether "GMO" methods of producing hybrids we need to figure out how to regulate DNA-manipulated hybrids. Scientists can do their part by being forthcoming that GMO crops may be beneficial or harmful depending on how their new characteristics allow them to be raised and/or processed.
The problem is not with genetic modification of plants per se. It is with the use to which it is mostly put these days. That is of course facilitating agriculture production using pesticides on crops. Some of it gets into food for humans or for animals that we eat. GMO crops themselves are indeed safe food. Accompanying pesticides not so much.
A more invidious bad result of that type of modification is that the massive use of patented pesticides (Round-up ,etc.) encourages the natural selection of weeds with Round-up, etc. resistant genes, just like overuse of antibiotics in animals and people produces superbugs able to live with those antibiotics.
Human beings have been making genetically modified organisms for millennia (cross-breeding)) and in plants have long been doing it cross-species with some success. Modern methods of manipulating DNA just make it faster and make it much easier to move genetic traits across species. Some modifications that give crops resistance to naturally occurring phenomena (drought, blights) have been very useful and benign. Rather than spurning altogether "GMO" methods of producing hybrids we need to figure out how to regulate DNA-manipulated hybrids. Scientists can do their part by being forthcoming that GMO crops may be beneficial or harmful depending on how their new characteristics allow them to be raised and/or processed.
163
"Human beings have been making genetically modified organisms for millennia (cross-breeding)) and in plants have long been doing it cross-species with some success. Modern methods of manipulating DNA just make it faster and make it much easier to move genetic traits across species." Just because advocates of GMOs say this over and over again does not make it true. Cross-breeding, selective breeding and hybridization are biologically entirely different from transfer of individual or groups of genes from one type of organism to another. Organisms are not bags of genes, and normal and cross-species reproduction are not just the mixing of genes. In documented cases where genes have been "horizontally" transferred between distant species during the course of evolution the result has been pathologies (i.e., tumors in plants), or phylogenetic novelties, which are typically ecologically disruptive. If genetic engineering is the same as traditional selection, as advocates claim when they want to minimize its effects, the patents they have won on these techniques must be invalid.
I agree: This anti-GMO mantra is too simplistic.
By being simply ant-GMO without considering what the modifications are for (rice, for example, is being modified to be more nutritious), I'm concerned they're rejecting both the good and the bad of genetic modification. Creation of new crops through genetic means isn't necessarily worse than doing it via the slower process of selection and cross-breeding, though it does open the possibility of things not so easily achieved naturally, like herbicide resistance.
Even "organic" is not a panacea for all, it may eliminate herbicide and pesticide contamination, but may add contamination and damage from weeds, molds, fungus, and natural pests, which reduce yield and increases costs (and prices) per unit produced, and reduces the ability to feed a growing population.
By being simply ant-GMO without considering what the modifications are for (rice, for example, is being modified to be more nutritious), I'm concerned they're rejecting both the good and the bad of genetic modification. Creation of new crops through genetic means isn't necessarily worse than doing it via the slower process of selection and cross-breeding, though it does open the possibility of things not so easily achieved naturally, like herbicide resistance.
Even "organic" is not a panacea for all, it may eliminate herbicide and pesticide contamination, but may add contamination and damage from weeds, molds, fungus, and natural pests, which reduce yield and increases costs (and prices) per unit produced, and reduces the ability to feed a growing population.
5
carol goldstein, you've raised an important point: that plants genetically engineered to resist synthetic pesticides -- or to manufacture their own in their own tissues -- benefit the companies that own the rights to the plants and to the pesticides. I don't know of any crop plant currently in commercial use that has any other useful traits engineered into them, such as drought resistance. Though these, too, benefit the companies that own the rights to these plants. As far as these plants are concerned, I think we all too often fail to heed the warning: Beware the unintended consequences.
1
Europeans just don't want to eat food soaked in Roundup and owned by Monsanto, and thankfully, and extraordinarily unlike in the USA, we have and believe in choice.
Lynas, bought and paid for clearly, has no understanding of "science" and is just using his convenient and limited usage of that term to support narrow corporate interests; and choosing to write a piece such as this in a US newspaper, seems to imply that his only real aim is to prevent US citizens from having the same rights as European citizens, i.e. the right to choose whether to eat GM crops or not.
perhaps because his "science" and his rhetoric has been rejected in his homeland he feels the need to wander the globe and interfere in other countries affairs, or perhaps his palm has been crossed with silver.....i am sure the readers can decide...even if they are not allowed to decide whether they want to eat Roundup Ready crops or not.....
Lynas, bought and paid for clearly, has no understanding of "science" and is just using his convenient and limited usage of that term to support narrow corporate interests; and choosing to write a piece such as this in a US newspaper, seems to imply that his only real aim is to prevent US citizens from having the same rights as European citizens, i.e. the right to choose whether to eat GM crops or not.
perhaps because his "science" and his rhetoric has been rejected in his homeland he feels the need to wander the globe and interfere in other countries affairs, or perhaps his palm has been crossed with silver.....i am sure the readers can decide...even if they are not allowed to decide whether they want to eat Roundup Ready crops or not.....
314
It's hard to know where to begin with this. Have you read anything but Roundup advertisements? Use of glyphosates, as found in Roundup, begin a vicious cycle, where as the weeds grow tolerant, more herbicide application is necessary. Adding other potions such as 2,4-D and Dicamba to the mix is soon deemed necessary. Glyphosate is now found in the atmosphere and drinking water supplies. The World Health Organization has linked it to cancer. An hour or two on the internet might help with your "comprehension of science". Every true scientist knows that there is no final proof of anything, that an open mind regards all new evidence as possible destruction of even the most cherished theory. The money invested in Roundup and Roundup-ready crops make them cherished indeed. I think Europe is acting wisely in suspecting GMOs. and I support, at the very least, accurate labeling so that we in the U.S. have a choice in what to eat.
3
Roundup may be off patent, but the Frankenfood seeds are not.
Ask organic farmers about how their crops have been ruined by contamination from Monsanto's monster seeds and how innocent farmers have been sued because their crops have been infected by their Frankenseeds without license.
Turning this ill advised messing with nature into a patent scheme for profit has harmed people, will harm people and will produce outcomes years from now that will make people yet unborn shake their heads in disbelief.
Seeds and genes should not be patentable. Companies should not be able to turn loose into nature humanly mutated seeds that were designed for profit. We do not have enough long term data to make informed decisions regarding does treat effects from this tampering with nature.
Ask organic farmers about how their crops have been ruined by contamination from Monsanto's monster seeds and how innocent farmers have been sued because their crops have been infected by their Frankenseeds without license.
Turning this ill advised messing with nature into a patent scheme for profit has harmed people, will harm people and will produce outcomes years from now that will make people yet unborn shake their heads in disbelief.
Seeds and genes should not be patentable. Companies should not be able to turn loose into nature humanly mutated seeds that were designed for profit. We do not have enough long term data to make informed decisions regarding does treat effects from this tampering with nature.
2
You like Roundup. So does my neighbor. He didn't know that when it was introduced in Europe the label said biodegradable. Finally, when
tested, over a period of 28 days, there was no degrading. When questioned, Monsanto simply took the word off the product. My neighbor finally stopped using it. We are still friends.
tested, over a period of 28 days, there was no degrading. When questioned, Monsanto simply took the word off the product. My neighbor finally stopped using it. We are still friends.
1
Ah, yes. Our old friend Mr. Lynas. Well, Mr. Lynas, maybe they are not so big on the GMOs created by the PESTICIDE industry. I guess they see the application of glyphosate to our wonderful Roundup Ready crops might not be such a good idea, you know, based on the SCIENCE of it having been declared a carcinogen- it might be better not to eat it. About 80% of GMO crops are Roundup Ready. This seems problematic. And, as far as your old insecticide argument goes, maybe they figured out that we are simply PLANTING the Bt insecticide now, you know, since the plants (and their "phude") are patented insecticides themselves. And maybe, just maybe, our nation's crumbling health and skyrocketing health and developmental problems with US children is rousing their curiosity. And maybe, just maybe, the Scots remember their scientist, Arpad Pusztai, who was destroyed by the influence of biotech when he found problems with the GM potatoes. Too many questions. Isn't questioning things what science is all about? And then those pesky scientists who were basically on the payroll of biotech. That is problematic, too. Check this out: https://www.independentsciencenews.org/science-media/the-puppetmasters-o...
360
You are well informed, thank you for your opinion
2
Well, even if the fear of glyphosate was the driving force behind the GMO ban, it would be a very awkward way to get rid of it from our food chain. Glyphosate is Europe's top selling herbicide, while there is exactly 0 hectares of glyphosate resistant crops grown here in EU. I presume if the herbicides were the real reason for the anti-GMO policy, then it would be easier to directly restrict or ban herbicide use and/or set strict regulatory thresholds for their residues in the imported grain. Also non-GMO herbicide resistant crops would be somehow scrutinised. But none of this has happened or even was discussed. By restricting the whole GM technology on continental scale we are severely undermining its use for other applications than the old known herbicide resistance in major crops- the same technology can be used to preserve the environment, lower the levels of allergens and toxins in food crops, improve the stress tolerance, antioxidant levels, taste and millions of other applications which will never reach the field because we prioritize ideology and prejudice over reason and science. It is very very sad.
1
maybe not
I hope the Times will invite someone with strong credentials to write an opinion piece on the many reasons why the GMO approach poses dangers to our society, food supply and environment.
The issue is of grave importance and deserves to be addressed thoroughly.
I'm no expert and cannot do justice to the response this opinion piece demands.
A few points:
Resistance to increasing dosages of pesticides reached the point where crops could no longer be treated at the necessary levels without damage to the crops themselves. Thus a need for new varieties that could resist higher doses.
In some cases, varieties were manipulated to produce in their own tissues pesticide compounds. This allows reduced pesticide applications, but in fact the level of dangerous chemicals in the environment is still high.
With the patenting of plant varieties the control by patent owners over farmers has grown much stronger in recent years, placing farmers in vulnerable positions, unable even to harvest their own seed for future crops.
Cross over of GMOs genes into nearby crops and wild plants
Claims that GMO is simply a sophisticated method of doing what farmers have always done, developing new varieties by selecting the best from past varieties is false. What one might call "encouraged" natural selection is entirely a different approach than the introduction of completely foreign genes into a plant. Taking an extreme example, there is no natural parallel to the splicing of scorpion genes into a cabbage.
The issue is of grave importance and deserves to be addressed thoroughly.
I'm no expert and cannot do justice to the response this opinion piece demands.
A few points:
Resistance to increasing dosages of pesticides reached the point where crops could no longer be treated at the necessary levels without damage to the crops themselves. Thus a need for new varieties that could resist higher doses.
In some cases, varieties were manipulated to produce in their own tissues pesticide compounds. This allows reduced pesticide applications, but in fact the level of dangerous chemicals in the environment is still high.
With the patenting of plant varieties the control by patent owners over farmers has grown much stronger in recent years, placing farmers in vulnerable positions, unable even to harvest their own seed for future crops.
Cross over of GMOs genes into nearby crops and wild plants
Claims that GMO is simply a sophisticated method of doing what farmers have always done, developing new varieties by selecting the best from past varieties is false. What one might call "encouraged" natural selection is entirely a different approach than the introduction of completely foreign genes into a plant. Taking an extreme example, there is no natural parallel to the splicing of scorpion genes into a cabbage.
237
"I hope the Times will invite someone with strong credentials to write an opinion piece on the many reasons why the GMO approach poses dangers to our society, food supply and environment."...It will be very difficult to find someone with a solid scientific background who would do that. In fact a higher percentage of scientists support GMOs than support global warming. As a scientist it is very concerning to read so many posts from people who are scientifically illiterate. Genetics is a fascinating field, and you can't consider yourself to be an educated person if you don't understand the basics. The level of illiteracy shown here is truly depressing.
58
It is very concerning to me to read the ignorant opinions of scientists who have no knowledge of the history of science. GMOs are, to me, much like the bleeding of patients to get rid of whatever ailed them. Both are heavily recommended by scientists who have done no research on the consequences of this kind of genetic engineering, who have no idea why American health is declining, why our child mortality rate is so high, or multiple other poor health statistics that concern the ordinary people of the U.S. The blinders required of those who would be scientists do not allow them to see the damage they are doing.
1
It is difficult for the Times to invite someone with your desired credentials to take the position you hope them to take. The reason is the same that it is difficult for the Times to invite someone with strong credentials to discuss why climate change is not real. The scientific evidence points strongly towards the safety of these crops.
Are there potential issues? Sure. But the point of this article, as I read it, is to say that the outright banning of GMOs is a shortsighted and shotgun way of addressing these issues, and is unfair to starving people in the world who could use food. Stifling innovation is anti-science, any way you look at it. Pro-science means to address the potential issues using the tools of science, not of emotion.
Are there potential issues? Sure. But the point of this article, as I read it, is to say that the outright banning of GMOs is a shortsighted and shotgun way of addressing these issues, and is unfair to starving people in the world who could use food. Stifling innovation is anti-science, any way you look at it. Pro-science means to address the potential issues using the tools of science, not of emotion.
7
We don't want your GMO crops here. We are happy and self sufficient without them. And brush up on your geography. England is not a country, it is part of the United Kingdom.
189
They are not just our GMOs. These crops have been created by people working across the globe, including in France. Those jobs and labs will now likely move to the US.
This reminds me of the time that the US lost a lot of research ground and talented scientists to Europe because the Bush Administration had a totally irrational ban on stem-cell research here in the US.
After a time, the hysteria may die down and the European politicians may change their tune. Until then, we can always increase our exports to China, which has accepted GMOs as safe.
This reminds me of the time that the US lost a lot of research ground and talented scientists to Europe because the Bush Administration had a totally irrational ban on stem-cell research here in the US.
After a time, the hysteria may die down and the European politicians may change their tune. Until then, we can always increase our exports to China, which has accepted GMOs as safe.
1
England is a country. Mr. Lynas is British, by the way.
3
I don't want GMO crops here, either. But England is a country.
But what are the long-term effects on both farm workers and our groundwater from Roundup and other herbicides that are used in abundance on GMO corn fields in the US and elsewhere? Have they been studied?
What about the impacts on the milkweed plant, and hence, the monarch butterfly?
And what about the herbicide-resistant weeds that are increasing becoming an issue because of (or despite) the widespread use of Roundup?
What about the impacts on the milkweed plant, and hence, the monarch butterfly?
And what about the herbicide-resistant weeds that are increasing becoming an issue because of (or despite) the widespread use of Roundup?
218
Spend a little time and learn something. GMOs are popular with farmers precisely because they require less herbicide use not more. GMOs also require fewer passes over the field so less fuel is used as compared to conventional crops. GMO crops are significantly more eco friendly than conventional crops.
43
Roundup Ready is not the only GMO. Roundup is probably carcinogenic, and Roundup enables higher herbicide use. There are other GMOs that enable lower pesticide use, which would enable significant environmental benefits.
2
They require less herbicide because the herbicide is already in the seed. That is not a comforting thought.
1
According to scientists everything is always perfectly safe, until it isn't. We only have to look at thalidomide, DDT, PCB, use of heavy metals and so on.
I recently saw an old American black and white short film from the early days of nukes. In it a major was instructing soldiers about to be used as guinea pigs in a trench, that the blast itself - heat and shock wave - are dangerous, but they should not worry too much about radiation.
Besides, if G.M.O. is such a terrific idea, why the industry is against G.M.O. labeling?
In my opinion people should be allowed to decide themselves what they and their kids eat.
Better safe than sorry.
I recently saw an old American black and white short film from the early days of nukes. In it a major was instructing soldiers about to be used as guinea pigs in a trench, that the blast itself - heat and shock wave - are dangerous, but they should not worry too much about radiation.
Besides, if G.M.O. is such a terrific idea, why the industry is against G.M.O. labeling?
In my opinion people should be allowed to decide themselves what they and their kids eat.
Better safe than sorry.
292
"Besides, if G.M.O. is such a terrific idea, why the industry is against G.M.O. labeling?"....The implication of labeling is that something is dangerous. Concern about the safety of GMOs is not supported by scientific fact. Be honest, the goal is to put a fraudulent burden on people who grow GMO crops. It makes more sense for people to label their products as non GMO if they want to, and no one is stopping them from doing so.
35
The pro pseudo scientist are being financed by the chemical industry like Monsanto.
2
Anti-GMO activists have themselves provided grocery manufacturers with the business case for not labeling. Andrew Kimbrell of the anti-GMO Center for Food Safety has described a "one, two" strategy of first forcing manufacturers to label GE content and then organizing consumers not to buy labeled products. Similarly, Ronnie Cummins of the Organic Consumers Association, has repeatedly likened a GMO label to the skull and crossbones of the poison label. Cummins, of course has an interest in promoting organic sales and he hopes once GE foods are labeled as poison, more consumers will choose organics. The Center for Food Safety has a somewhat different, but complementary agenda. It would like to overthrow modern "industrial" agriculture--and has no problem helping sell organic products in the process. Both of these organizations, along with Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps, Clif Bar and Mercola.com were major funders of the failed Oregon ballot measure that would have mandated GMO labels.
3
Europeans do not want GMO foods.Monsanto does!
How would Americans like a foreign company to tell you how and what about your foods?
The World Trade Organization has already done this against our beef from Mexico and Canada and where it originates and how it is grown,to slaughter ,to your table.With no consideration to American Law on the origin of our meats and how they are grown and processed for our table and most importantly what we want as American consumers.Plants are not far behind.