Ben Goldacre
Saturday March 3, 2007
The Guardian
In 1998 Arpad Pusztai claimed on national television and in the media that GM potatoes stunted rats’ growth and damaged their immune system. When the research was finally published, over a year later, it turned out to be significantly flawed.
During the crucial two days after the GM ‘Frankenstein Foods‘ story broke, in February 1999, on the back of an article in this newspaper, not a single one of the news articles, opinion pieces or editorials on the subject – in any British newspaper – was written by a science journalist, and again the work was unpublished, so nobody could comment on the science anyway. It was the turning point in public opinion against GM crops.
And now we have “Suppressed report shows cancer link to GM potatoes” by the Deputy Political Editor of the Independent, all about cancers and tumours, in rats fed a genetically modified potato in Russia. According to the article, the Russian report was released by Welsh anti-GM campaigners, after a battle to obtain it from the biotech industry.
I found the English commentary on the Russian report at the GM Free Cymru website. It’s 2,000 words long, by a Russian neuroscientist and green campaigner, the only english document on the project that seems to be available. Reading it, I’m not entirely convinced this study warrants the headline, or indeed any coverage at all. It doesn’t mention the word “cancer” – or indeed the word “tumour” – once, anywhere, for example, which rather undermines the cancer connection, to my mind.
I chase it up. The Russian activist tells me in an email that they did find “tumours”. I don’t know why she didn’t mention cancer in the 2,000 word commentary. Then I ask for clarification, and it turns out the researchers actually reported “cysts in the kidney and in the liver”. Cysts are not cancer, I suggest? They’re not. She agrees. This is headline news in the Independent about GM food causing cancer, remember.
Look. I’d like to know if GM foods are dangerous. Unless you take a very big bag of packed lunches with you, every time you go to America, you probably want to know too. But in reality, this seems to have been an amateurish piece of old science from which no meaningful results can be drawn in any direction. The first line of the commentary says the studies “were not carried out according to the accepted protocols for the biomedical assessment of GM food and feed”.
It was a three armed trial, where rats were fed Russet Burbank potatoes, or GM Russet Burbank potatoes, or “standard chow”. They measured things like body weight and organ size: there is a huge amount of data missing, but you can see that there were massive differences between the “standard chow” rats, and the rats eating the Russet Burbank potatoes, whether those potatoes were GM or not. We are told that some of the differences between the potato and the GM potato rats were significant.
But one other thing might make you think that the results of this kludged study are less relevant to your life. “Both types of Russet Burbank potatoes” the commentary concludes, “lead to changes in the blood and internal organs of laboratory rats (in the liver, the kidneys, the large gut, a change of the dimensions of heart and prostate gland and others)” They say: “and on the basis of this evidence they CANNOT be used in the nourishment of people.”
This will come as a great surprise to many farmers, since the Russet Burbank is one of the most commonly grown varieties of potato in the world. They’re a bit like Maris Pipers, and you’ve eaten them many times. They’re often used for french fries.
I can readily identify with the antipathy. I’m no friend of big biotech. I think GM has created a dangerous powershift in agriculture in the favour of multinational biotechnology corporations, and “terminator seeds”, which die at the end of the season, are a venal way to increase farmers’ dependency. Monsanto are clearly a nasty company (apart from anything else they made Agent Orange).
So I’m cautious about GM, and each crop needs to be assessed on a case by case basis, but they seem safe overall. If there’s something new and frightening, then I want to see it published, in full, so we can all sit down and get frightened by it together, on the basis of well conducted research that we can see and read. Before that, I’m not sure anyone’s very well served by scare headlines about cancer.
Ben Goldacre said,
March 5, 2007 at 3:41 pm
industry is ugly: hold the front page!
still nothing unique about GM.
testtubebabe said,
March 5, 2007 at 3:50 pm
Still bloody scary. It SHOULD be on rthe front page if you ask me
DrJ said,
March 5, 2007 at 4:12 pm
testtubebabe
I would be interested to know what the effects on the enviroment were, was it the result of higher concentrations of pesticides or just that the GM crops prooved too resistant to insects thereby messing up the local ecosystem?
In an earlier post GM is written off as a ‘dud’ technology. I would argue that this is not the case. The tomatoes I buy are all labelled as being genetically modified – I assume by an offshoot of the flavr savr technology. I was also under the impression that the majority of the worlds soy was genetically modified.
I do agree with Ben – that every product needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis, however I also believe that responsible development of GM crops could reduce the incidence of famine and do a lot more besides.
testtubebabe said,
March 5, 2007 at 4:25 pm
Drj
‘Reduce the incidence of famine’ Not true. Could initally but long term effects are devastating, including destruction of biodiversity, ecosystems, soil erosion, resistance to chemicals enforcing more and more use and the ethics stink… the list is endless and very depressing I agree with the case by case argument in theory, but there is a strong argument to be had over the release of any GMO into the environment
Such a huge topic. Only really scratched the surface….. home time ,sorry
factician said,
March 5, 2007 at 5:16 pm
I’ve been a lurker for a while, this is my first post. I’m an academic microbiologist/geneticist.
There are some misconceptions here about what terminator technology does. The original idea was to have something that would allow control of seeds to prevent them from spreading. If you can require some additive to keep a plant from being sterile, then you can keep it from cross-pollinating with neighbours crops. This is actually a good thing. There are GM modified crops that would be disatrous to spread (i.e. ones which aren’t intended to be used as food, but rather to make pharmaceuticals). This is the original intent of said technology.
Obviously, this has the other side that the company that made this plant could keep the chemical secret, and thus keep the seed from being made by anyone they haven’t licensed. This would be about as successful as the various copy protection schemes have been on the web. A biologist would crack the particular scheme being used to control the plant, and provide details on the web. People would then buy generic versions of the chemical, and produce their own seed. Any biotech company also knows this. They know terminator technology won’t protect their seeds, it’s expensive to do, and not worth it except as a public safety measure.
That’s right, no one has even tried to make plants with terminator seeds. The example of the patent above is using the term terminator completely differently (look it up in a basic biochemistry textbook if you don’t believe me). Every gene has a “transcriptional terminator” to stop transcription at the end of the gene (to prevent long run-on RNAs being produced). That is what they mean in the patent above and in any other patents.
The truth of the matter is, that anti-GM campaigners did society a great disservice by making villains out of a concept paper that discussed the potential of terminator seeds. Now no one will dare to use the technology to prevent seed spread as they’re worried that they’ll be accused of trying to lockdown their seeds. They don’t *need* to lockdown their seeds, because in most western countries, they have intellectual property law on their side.
I hope this clears things up for people.
Lurkinggherkin said,
March 5, 2007 at 5:32 pm
Hmmm. Some very emotive arguments here.
Regardless of the rights or wrongs of the specific report under discussion, Ben’s basic premise – that there are no ‘inherently dangerous’ technologies – only poorly researched applications – is sound. There’s no such thing as ‘dud’ technology.
Nuclear, Biotech, Nanotech, GMOs – once we start labelling them as taboo techniques we are surrendering to superstition. Certainly they need to be handled with care, and whether profit-driven commercial organisations can be trusted to exercise that care, and the extent to which industries need to be regulated and monitored, are all pertinent questions.
This blog is called ‘Bad Science’. Good science requires us to set aside our personal biases and pursue objectivity. Branding any sort of technology or field of human knowledge ‘dud’ is an expression of personal bias, and as such is not good science.
evidencebasedeating said,
March 5, 2007 at 6:21 pm
1. The cherry tomato
2. The seedless grape
3. Low erucic acid rapeseed oil (aka Canola, or in UK cheapy veggie oil. Rich in monounsaturates, and containing UK daily suggested dose of 450mg omega-3 as ALA per single 5ml teaspoon).
All genetically modified from original version.
All useful additions to the daily diet.
Discuss.
manigen said,
March 5, 2007 at 6:46 pm
@Factitian
Thanks for the summary of the patent. I know patents, but not biotech, so I was all at sea.
profnick said,
March 5, 2007 at 10:07 pm
Leo4
“Pusztai has pleaded ever since 1998 for his experiments to be repeated and extended by others — and to date they have NOT been repeated, let alone “improvedâ€.
The majority view was that it was no use repeating the same experiments, precisely because they were deemed to be flawed. However if you read the Royal Scociety report of 2002, (www.royalsoc.ac.uk/displaypagedoc.asp?id=11319), there is the statement that “…. the only way to clarify Dr Pusztai’s claims
would be to refine his experimental design and carry out further studies to test clearly defined hypotheses focused on the specific effects reported by him. Such studies, on
the results of feeding GM sweet peppers and GM tomatoes to rats, and GM soya to mice and rats, have now been completed and no adverse effects have been
found (Gasson & Burke, 2001).”
Andrew Clegg said,
March 6, 2007 at 1:29 am
Factician, 61:
“Obviously, this has the other side that the company that made this plant could keep the chemical secret, and thus keep the seed from being made by anyone they haven’t licensed. This would be about as successful as the various copy protection schemes have been on the web. A biologist would crack the particular scheme being used to control the plant, and provide details on the web. People would then buy generic versions of the chemical, and produce their own seed.”
Err, not if the original manufacturer patented the control chemical too. Then it would be illegal to manufacture a generic version until the patent had expired, like with a drug.
At which point the manufacturer can stop making the original strain of the seed, and start making a new one which is controlled by a different chemical under a new patent. Surely?
Andrew.
DrLeonard said,
March 6, 2007 at 3:44 am
Like factition:
“I’ve been a lurker for a while, this is my first post. I’m an academic microbiologist/geneticist.”
Only I can’t really claim the geneticist bit.***
_________
Dr Ben Goldacre’s prattish behaviour on this post speaks for itself. I will say this, however. To simply repeat the mantra “Nothing unique about GM” doesn’t a point prove – instead it reeks of dogma. Can you, Dr Goldacre, point to any peer-reviewed study which demonstrates this with an adequate degree of certainty?
Certainly not all, but many geneticists (and it seems you are not one) would disagree. As geneticist and Emeritus Professor Richard Lacey puts it:
“The number of scientists who are not convinced about the safety of genetically engineered foods is substantial enough to prevent the existence of a general recognition of safety. I am not aware of any study in the peer-reviewed scientific literature that establishes the safety of even one specific genetically engineered food let alone the safety of these foods as a general class. Those who claim that genetically engineered foods are as safe as naturally produced ones are clearly not basing their claims on scientific procedures that demonstrate safety to a reasonable degree of certainty.â€
Dr Goldacre, are you basing your belief on intuition and ideology, or science? If you claim it is the latter, please point us in the direction of the body of peer-reviewed studies that demonstrate your belief that there is nothing novel in GE foods as opposed to traditionally-bred foods. Conversely, many of the studies I’ve seen seem to suggest many properties unique to GE products as a food class: novel and often incorrectly folded and allergenic proteins being a couple of them. (This is why, as Ms Moreland suggests, GE is good for medical research rather than food. Model organisms can be engineered to carry genetic diseases which we can observe.)****
Given this, I would suggest science’s age-old precautionary principle is the best approach for food, rather than the industry-endorsed case-by-case scenario you suggest. Your approach might perhaps work in an ideal world, but in the real world the systemic reguatory checks and balances that this technology requires simply aren’t there. In the US, GE soy was approved because of political directive which overrode the FDA toxicologists’ own advice and warnings. (And DrJ, the majority of the world’s soy is still traditional. Refer to the ISAAA website.) Science does not exist, you see, in an apolitical context.
________
Evidencebasedtesting:
Even my first-year undergrads would not make such a disingenuous assertion. We’re talking about genetic engineering, not traditional breeding methods like those that produced the cherry tomato. They are worlds apart.
***In the interests of disclosure, I am also Ms Moreland’s partner.
****Again in the interests of disclosure, I also have interests in a biotech medical product.
DrLeonard said,
March 6, 2007 at 6:04 am
#
DrLeonard said,
March 6, 2007 at 3:44 am
Like factition:
“I’ve been a lurker for a while, this is my first post. I’m an academic microbiologist/geneticist.â€
Only I can’t really claim the geneticist bit.***
_________
Dr Ben Goldacre’s prattish behaviour on this post speaks for itself. I will say this, however. To simply repeat the mantra “Nothing unique about GM†doesn’t a point prove – instead it reeks of dogma. Can you, Dr Goldacre, point to any peer-reviewed study which demonstrates this with an adequate degree of certainty?
Certainly not all, but many geneticists (and it seems you are not one) would disagree. As geneticist and Emeritus Professor Richard Lacey puts it:
“The number of scientists who are not convinced about the safety of genetically engineered foods is substantial enough to prevent the existence of a general recognition of safety. I am not aware of any study in the peer-reviewed scientific literature that establishes the safety of even one specific genetically engineered food let alone the safety of these foods as a general class. Those who claim that genetically engineered foods are as safe as naturally produced ones are clearly not basing their claims on scientific procedures that demonstrate safety to a reasonable degree of certainty.â€
Dr Goldacre, are you basing your belief on intuition and ideology, or science? If you claim it is the latter, please point us in the direction of the body of peer-reviewed studies that demonstrate your belief that there is nothing novel in GE foods as opposed to traditionally-bred foods. Conversely, many of the studies I’ve seen seem to suggest many properties unique to GE products as a food class: novel and often incorrectly folded and allergenic proteins being a couple of them. (This is why, as Ms Moreland suggests, GE is good for medical research rather than food. Model organisms can be engineered to carry genetic diseases which we can observe.)****
Given this, I would suggest science’s age-old precautionary principle is the best approach for food, rather than the industry-endorsed case-by-case scenario you suggest. Your approach might perhaps work in an ideal world, but in the real world the systemic reguatory checks and balances that this technology requires simply aren’t there. In the US, GE soy was approved because of political directive which overrode the FDA toxicologists’ own advice and warnings. (And DrJ, the majority of the world’s soy is still traditional. Refer to the ISAAA website.) Science does not exist, you see, in an apolitical context.
________
Evidencebasedtesting:
Even my first-year undergrads would not make such a disingenuous assertion. We’re talking about genetic engineering, not traditional breeding methods like those that produced the cherry tomato. They are worlds apart.
***In the interests of disclosure, I am also Ms Moreland’s partner.
****Again in the interests of disclosure, I also have interests in a biotech medical product.
Len said,
March 6, 2007 at 6:21 am
#
DrLeonard said,
March 6, 2007 at 3:44 am
Like factition:
“I’ve been a lurker for a while, this is my first post. I’m an academic microbiologist/geneticist.â€
Only I can’t really claim the geneticist bit.***
_________
Dr Ben Goldacre’s prattish behaviour on this post speaks for itself. I will say this, however. To simply repeat the mantra “Nothing unique about GM†doesn’t a point prove – instead it reeks of dogma. Can you, Dr Goldacre, point to any peer-reviewed study which demonstrates this with an adequate degree of certainty?
Certainly not all, but many geneticists (and it seems you are not one) would disagree. As geneticist and Emeritus Professor Richard Lacey puts it:
“The number of scientists who are not convinced about the safety of genetically engineered foods is substantial enough to prevent the existence of a general recognition of safety. I am not aware of any study in the peer-reviewed scientific literature that establishes the safety of even one specific genetically engineered food let alone the safety of these foods as a general class. Those who claim that genetically engineered foods are as safe as naturally produced ones are clearly not basing their claims on scientific procedures that demonstrate safety to a reasonable degree of certainty.â€
Dr Goldacre, are you basing your belief on intuition and ideology, or science? If you claim it is the latter, please point us in the direction of the body of peer-reviewed studies that demonstrate your belief that there is nothing novel in GE foods as opposed to traditionally-bred foods. Conversely, many of the studies I’ve seen seem to suggest many properties unique to GE products as a food class: novel and often incorrectly folded and allergenic proteins being a couple of them. (This is why, as Ms Moreland suggests, GE is good for medical research rather than food. Model organisms can be engineered to carry genetic diseases which we can observe.)****
Given this, I would suggest science’s age-old precautionary principle is the best approach for food, rather than the industry-endorsed case-by-case scenario you suggest. Your approach might perhaps work in an ideal world, but in the real world the systemic reguatory checks and balances that this technology requires simply aren’t there. In the US, GE soy was approved because of political directive which overrode the FDA toxicologists’ own advice and warnings. (And DrJ, the majority of the world’s soy is still traditional. Refer to the ISAAA website.) Science does not exist, you see, in an apolitical context.
________
Evidencebasedtesting:
Even my first-year undergrads would not make such a disingenuous assertion. We’re talking about genetic engineering, not traditional breeding methods like those that produced the cherry tomato. They are worlds apart.
***In the interests of disclosure, I am also Ms Moreland’s partner.
****Again in the interests of disclosure, I also have interests in a biotech medical product.
testtubebabe said,
March 6, 2007 at 12:25 pm
evidencebasedeating
Agree with above. Cherry toms and seedless grapes are selectively bred over time, using evolutionary techniques to do the job for us, not ‘sideways’ evolution that does not exist in nature. You do not find a flounder gene in tomatoes usually, you do in genetic modification.
jj_hankinson said,
March 6, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Why is it that the anti-GM people here don’t seem to have basic manners when it comes to posting? 3000 word comments from patents? The same long post three times over a number of hours? Jeez…
I can’t work out what all the fuss is really. Ben is saying that we should apply the scientific method on a case by case basis for GM products. I agree with this – why should GM foods be a special case where we veto science?
You might as well do the same for certain medical treatments…
“The MMR vaccine?! I don’t like the idea of it so we should lock it in a cupboard and throw away the key. Properly conducted scientific trials you say? Nonsense – MMR vaccines are evil!!”
Odd behaviour. You either believe in science or not – you can’t just pick and choose where you apply it based on subjective views…
BrickWall said,
March 6, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Absolutely jj_hankinson.
Its not as if Ben’s original article was saying everyone should accept GM food as a great global saviour he was just highlighting yet again the uninformed bonkers media approach to the slightest chance of a shock headline and that GM foodstuffs should neither be rejected OR accepted on the basis of dogma but on the basis of scientific results.
In some cases those very scientific results might be difficult or even dangerous to get but that’s not a reason not to do something that’s a reason to do it carefully!!
As for the mad length repeated bloggings lets just generously assume the two people concerned are just web/blog challenged rather than that they think length = quality!!
CaptainKirkham said,
March 6, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Oooh lovely, there’s nothing like a bit of “othering” to allow you to reject people’s opinions. The “anti-GM people”? Who are they then? Aliens? Or just interested parties with different views from your own that you choose to label and thus dismiss.
I speak here as an disinterested party, with fluctuating views on the subject of GM, and I have yet to see any decent rebuttal of some of the points being made by DrLeonard. All I see is some snarky comments about accidental multiple posting.
calmooney said,
March 6, 2007 at 3:41 pm
The main problem that I see with this thread (stupidly long posts and insults aside) is a complete absence of links to peer-reviewed studies. I really couldn’t give a monkey’s who thinks GM is bad, so no more lists of people or quotes please, could we just have some proper data?
Ben, was your statement that “they seem safe overall” based on the any peer-reviewed studies or the fact that lots of Americans are already eating GM foods without any apparent ill effects? I can’t access the Gasson&Burke paper cited in the Royal Society review that profnick mentionned but it doesn’t appear to be an original study?
BrickWall said,
March 6, 2007 at 3:50 pm
Accidental multiple posting? Several hours apart and with different user names?
There has been plenty of discussion throughout this thread on the points raised admittedly not from myself.
This is an internet blogging thread – you don’t seriously expect people to listen or take notice of these lengthy repeated posts here do you? If people want to cite papers/research then cite them so others can follow links to cut and paste such volumes is just plain bad etiquette in such a forum whereas being a bit “snarky”?/slightly rude and a bit off-hand isn’t such bad etiquette. Don’t like it? Oh well.
factician said,
March 6, 2007 at 3:51 pm
Dr. Leonard suggests that we need to look at GM food safety on a case by case basis. He lists one possible worry as allergies to the gene added to the crop. I think in an ideal world, I would agree with him. In a world of unlimited resources, we should run every conceivable safety test on every GM crop created. But let’s not stop there, right? Novel allergens can reach the market when wild relatives of crops are crossbred with the domesticated varieties (a very common technique in crop breeding that has been used for over 100 years – perhaps longer). Should we test all of these extensively for allergens?
Nonetheless, people *are* testing GM plants for safety. Just because the quoted expert Richard Lacey is lousy at using PubMed, doesn’t mean it’s not true. Try this one paper I found in less than 30 sec on PubMed Allergy 2006: 61: 491–497 where they show no difference in allergic reactions to a particular GM and a convential mustard. There are thousands of others.
I am not advocating a system in which GM food is completely unregulated. There are cases where it clearly should be regulated, and tested for safety. Take, for example, crops that make pharmaceutical products. *Great* care should be taken to ensure that these crops never crossbreed with other plants and get into the food supply. We should also take care with putting in genes from known allergenic species (for example peanuts). But should we be spending millions to test the safety of plants where scientists have merely knocked out an individual gene? Or what about BT-plants, where organic farmers have been spraying BT on their plants for decades, but if genetic engineers put it in the plant, now it needs to be tested for safety?
Biotech companies made a strategic public relations error in releasing the first generation of GM crops that were beneficial to the farmer. The next generation of crops will be ones that consumers will clamour for, and will reduce the fear of this technology. Caffeine free coffee (without having to use nasty solvents). Allergen-free peanuts. Lower fat meat.
There is no good reason to think that GM foods as a class could be more dangerous than conventional food. There are reasons to be concerned about a very small subclass of GM foods. Let’s keep our limited regulatory muscle on the ball, working to keep us safe from the very few GM plants that have a potential for harm.
profnick said,
March 6, 2007 at 5:14 pm
Factician,
Sane, measured and thoughtful; clearly out of place in this thread. At the risk of reducing the level again, Richard Lacey is not unknown for stirring up controversy, so wouldn’t be my expert of choice if I had to rely on one only.
To answer calmooney’s point, (and to show that I’m an unbiased combatant), the Gasson & Burke paper is indeed a review and there is some doubt about the quality of the original studies they cite . I have tried to find an impartial link to illustrate that last point but perhaps not surprisingly all the articles I’ve found are either strongly pro- or anti- Pusztai.
RS said,
March 6, 2007 at 6:30 pm
In case anyone isn’t aware, I thought I’d post an extract from the badscience forum ‘rules of engagement’: “if your post is more than one thousand words long then you are officially a loser”.
RS said,
March 6, 2007 at 6:35 pm
“Or what about BT-plants, where organic farmers have been spraying BT on their plants for decades, but if genetic engineers put it in the plant, now it needs to be tested for safety?”
I don’t want to talk about BT specifically, but there is an a priori reason to suppose that engineered pesticide expression could be more harmful than sprayed pesticide owing to greater residual levels of pesticide within the product.
factician said,
March 6, 2007 at 6:47 pm
“there is an a priori reason to suppose that engineered pesticide expression could be more harmful than sprayed pesticide owing to greater residual levels of pesticide within the product.”
Is there? Why would you care, if the stuff was safer than table salt? You’re more likely to be hurt by having a ton of it fall on you, than if you ingested all the BT-laden food you like.
I know you said you didn’t want to talk about BT specifically, but BT is the perfect example of a commonly used genetic modification that is clearly totally safe, and doesn’t require more testing. In fact, using scarce resources to test this clearly safe product takes away resources from testing products that are more ambiguous.
But if you find an example of plants that are being modified to make rat poison, I’m all ears.
Lurkinggherkin said,
March 6, 2007 at 7:48 pm
@ 70 – testtubebabe asserts that lateral gene transfer does not occur in nature.
I understand that there is in fact a body of evidence for the occurence of this type of transfer between microorganisms, and some evolutionary biologists believe that this type of transfer occurs amongst higher order species also, with bacteria and viruses acting as transfer agents.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateral_gene_transfer
This could be an argument either for or against the introduction of GMOs into natural environments depending on how you want to spin it.
factician said,
March 6, 2007 at 8:14 pm
Lurkinggherkin,
Lateral gene transfer is a *major* mechanism of speciation in bacteria. It’s a much smaller mechanism for larger organisms, but there is evidence that it occurs. (When closely related plants breed, this isn’t generally called lateral gene transfer, but when genes pass from rhinocerous to corn, that is).
I’ve thought that the Roundup ready crops (that are resistant to the broad spectrum herbicide Roundup) were a bad idea in the long run for the reason that interspecies breeding move the resistance genes around. As these genes get passed on to weeds, the weeds become Roundup resistant, and Roundup is made useless.
In the long run, seems like a bad move by Monsanto (producers of Roundup) but not a safety issue for those of us who eat it (Roundup is one of the few chemical herbicides that is relatively non-toxic to humans).
evidencebasedeating said,
March 6, 2007 at 8:22 pm
Beg to differ Len/ Dr Leonard/ Ms Moreland – and Testtubebabe
Cherry tomatoes/ seedless grapes/ low erucic rapeseed oil ARE ALL examples of ‘extreme’ genetic modification. To suggest that evolution alone was responsible for teeny alterations in genetic material gently drifting over centuries towards the foods we eat today is far too simple a premise, and of course not the only way in which current plant varieties evolved …
For instance, great big genetic shifts happened to get to some current foods…. In the case of the white grape, by Nature itself – www.csiro.au/news/ps2u5.html
and in the case of rapeseed oil – by Man, well, Men.
Dr R Keith Downey and Professor Baldur Stefansson of the University of Manitoba selectively bred a low erucic acid, low glucosinolate variety of rapeseed in 1974 – subsequently termed ‘Canola’ (Canadian Oil Low Acid), the basis of all edible rapeseed oil globally since then.
What is the real difference between Nature and Man in the above scenarios? Very little, it appears.
Of course man may accelerate what Nature would perform itself – but we’ve been around for enough millenia, munching a global salad of plant based materials, to make it likely that we are not going to suffer for it – but that disease-succumbing or drought-damaged ‘untampered’ staples still cause premature human suffering and death right now across the continents.
So guess I have to take some of your concerns, tempered with a modicum of common sense, and trust that the plant geneticists of today use a more sophisticated palette of research to develop, monitor and evaluate new plant variants – and that these will add to the common good.
Tony Jackson said,
March 7, 2007 at 6:44 am
I think this whole debate has suffered from a number of separate contemporary obsessions du-jour that have become hopelessly entangled and hindered understanding. These are:
1) A general distrust /outright hatred of big agribusiness – in this atmosphere, Monsanto’s cackhanded behaviour has of course played right into the hands of the anti-GM brigade.
2) A substitution of eagerly believed innuendo for hard facts. The anti-GM websites I have visited have been outrageous in their scaremongering and downright dishonesty, rather similar come to think of it to many of the anti-vaccination websites you find in the cranky corners of cyberspace. In this atmosphere, rumour effortlessly becomes hardened fact.
3) A failure to appreciate just how artificial our current foodstuffs are. Consider those nice fat carrots or gigantic strawberries you bought at the local organic food store. Do you really think they’re ‘natural’? Ah you say, but GM involves moving genes ‘beyond the species barrier’ and um…that’s not natural. But consider Triticale wheat/rye hybrids in which not just one, but tens of thousands of different genes from these two different species are scambled together in terrifying new combinations never before seen in nature (and you really don’t want to know how plant scientists managed to get the hybrids in the first place – lots of dubious sciencey stuff including treatment with scary chemicals like colchicine).
4) Finally, people seem to have an intuitive feeling that living things have an invisible ‘essentialist essence’ that should not be tampered with. I’m not psychologists enough to develop this further, but this irrationalist belief seems to lie at the heart of much opposition to GM technology and can be surprisingly strong even in otherwise well educated people. I suspect, this ‘gut feeling’ also underlies opposition to say stem cell research etc.
Like Ben and others here, I take a fairly pragmatic view that each GM construct should be examined on it’s own merits. What I don’t like is the dogmatic assertion that the technology can’t possibly work, or is dangerous BECAUSE OF THE TECHNOLOGY. The fact of the matter is that we are going to have to use all our ingenuity over the coming years if we are to feed an increasing population. Closing down a whole area of research for no good reason is just nuts.
RS said,
March 7, 2007 at 1:06 pm
“Is there? Why would you care, if the stuff was safer than table salt?”
Well salt might be a good example – it won’t do me any harm to put a bit of salt on my food – but if it comes premade packed full of the stuff that is potentially harmful. Whilst the pesticide residues left on a product (and to some extent in it) after spraying may be well below the max safe levels, there is no guarantee (unless you actually check) that the engineered in pesticide expression is within safe levels. It may well be that said pesticide is actually harmless, but you need to show that first before glibly asserting that because something has been safely applied in one way that it will be safe when expressed within the plant. Even then there is a theoretical risk of further metabolism to toxic products within the new environment – but that isn’t a risk I’d like to quantify.
factician said,
March 7, 2007 at 2:55 pm
First off, you’ll find that eating any BT-plant, you’re getting more salt than you are getting BT (even before you’ve lifted your salt-shaker).
“because something has been safely applied in one way that it will be safe when expressed within the plant.”
BT has been used for decades. People know all about the safety of it when sprayed on. However, I’m sure that they haven’t looked at the safety when sprayed on during a full moon. Or after a decent rain. Or after a drought. Or whether it is safe on corn and tomatoes or just on corn. Do you see what I’m trying to get at? It is *possible* that delivering BT inside the plant cell instead of on top of the plant cell will be different. But it is terribly unlikely. It’s also possible that umbrellas cause cancer (I doubt anyone has ever done an epidemiological study to look), yet we consider them safe. That’s why I suggest that we save our regulatory muscle for real issues. Rather than spending valuable research dollars looking to see if umbrellas cause cancer and BT-corn is safe, let’s use them for the real issues (as I outlined in my earlier posts).
Tony Jackson said,
March 7, 2007 at 3:22 pm
As factician points out, obsessing about miniscule hypothetical risks isn’t very helpful. Meanwhile back in the real world, guess what? Because Bt maize is less susceptible to insect attack, it’s less prone to fungal infections and so has lower levels of carcinogenic mycotoxins. See here:
Bakan, B et al., “Fungal growth and fusarium mycotoxin content in isogenic traditional maize and genetically modified maize grown in France and Spain.â€
J. Agric. Food Chem. (2002) 50, 728-731
Abstract: Fungi of the genus Fusarium are common fungal contaminants of maize and are also known to produce mycotoxins. Maize that has been genetically modified to express a Bt endotoxin has been used to study the effect of insect resistance on fungal infection of maize grains by Fusarium species and their related mycotoxins. Maize grain from Bt hybrids and near-isogenic traditional hybrids was collected in France and Spain from the 1999 crop, which was grown under natural conditions. According to the ergosterol level, the fungal biomass formed on Bt maize grain was 4-18 times lower than that on isogenic maize. Fumonisin B(1) grain concentrations ranged from 0.05 to 0.3 ppm for Bt maize and from 0.4 to 9 ppm for isogenic maize. Moderate to low concentrations of trichothecenes and zearalenone were measured on transgenic as well as on non-transgenic maize. Nevertheless, significant differences were obtained in certain regions. The protection of maize plants against insect damage (European corn borer and pink stem borer) through the use of Bt technology seems to be a way to reduce the contamination of maize by Fusarium species and the resultant fumonisins in maize grain grown in France and Spain.
Bean said,
March 7, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Would it be possible to put a proper debate about this on the website? It’s a topic I’m interested in but there’s a lot of repetition & sniping to sift through. The idea would be that anyone who is interested & feels qualified to take part, applies. Then visitors to the website vote on who takes part in the debate. Maybe you (Ben, or the webmaster or whoever) could email Arpad Pusztai and get him. Why not? If he’s a scientist surely he wants to argue with people who disagree with him.
CaptainKirkham said,
March 7, 2007 at 5:29 pm
Brickwall – you have taken exactly one (and not the main) point from my comment and ignored the rest. Well done on a superb example of good blog comment etiquette.
RS said,
March 7, 2007 at 9:19 pm
“BT has been used for decades. People know all about the safety of it when sprayed on… It is *possible* that delivering BT inside the plant cell instead of on top of the plant cell will be different. But it is terribly unlikely.”
Not it isn’t. As long as it has some inherent toxicity that is dose dependent (I don’t kow about BT, which is why I didn’t want to focus on it) there is a risk that by expressing it within the product (where it can reach a high concentration), rather than spraying it onto the outside (where it can be mostly washed off) there is a very real question of differential toxicity. [as an aside it is also possible that expressing within the plant might decrease the amount that is delivered into the environment from spraying – which would be a good thing]
factician said,
March 7, 2007 at 9:37 pm
*Everything* has an inherent toxicity. If you drink too much water, you mess up your electrolytes and die. I used the example of table salt as a comparison to BT, because it takes a *lot* of table salt to kill you. Any toxicologist will tell you “it’s the dose that counts”. And that’s with absolutely every compound on the planet. That said, you’re more likely to have a bunch of BT corn fall on you and kill you than you are to be able to ever eat in your lifetime enough BT corn to get a dose of BT that will harm you. You’d need to eat a little less than a pound of *pure* BT toxin to kill you. (I wonder, would you die from eating a pound of peanut butter? you’d sure get sick…) The BT toxin in corn is far from pure. There’s other stuff there (like corn, for example). If I had to put a conservative guess on it (conservative in the sense that I’ll err in your favour), I’d say you’d have to eat somewhere on the order of 1000 lbs of corn to get 1 lb of BT (probably a lot more than a 1000lbs, but let’s leave it at that). The real danger is that carrying the 1000lbs of corn into your home will put your back out.
manigen said,
March 8, 2007 at 2:42 pm
That’s an interesting idea Bean. I wonder if it would be possible to run something like that on the forums?
RS said,
March 8, 2007 at 6:45 pm
factician – I note that you refuse to engage with the point in the abstract – as if BT is the only possible engineered pesticide and the safety of all other GM products somehow comes down to the safety of BT.
factician said,
March 8, 2007 at 7:26 pm
RS,
I thought I had adressed the issue very directly. I’ll try to be more clear. How’s this? I agree that there are some GM plants that should be tested for safety. As described above, I think that producing pharmaceuticals in genetically modified plants presents some possible safety issues. I don’t think that the safety of all GM products rests on the safety of BT, just like I don’t think that the safety of all chemically produced products comes down to the safety of plastic.
As to BT being the only engineered pesticide in a plant? To my knowledge, at the moment, it is the only pesticide being produced in plants. Reason being, there are few pesticides that are as safe as BT. Most other pesticides have residual toxicity in humans, so genetic engineers are not going to try to get them produced in a plant.
The reason I take the example of BT, is that it illustrates my point very well. BT-corn is one of the most-common engineered foods available currently. And it is one of the more radical engineering projects that is available commercially. And it is safe. Most of the other available engineered foods are even less likely to be dangerous than BT-corn. (I’m not willing to say unequivocally that they’re not dangerous, as I mentioned above, I’m not willing to say that umbrellas are not dangerous). To the extent that we can call any food safe, most GM food *is* safe.
Bean said,
April 4, 2007 at 10:11 am
This article suggests that genetically modified corn is responsible for a fall in the bee populations in Germany (25% drop) & the US (60 5 – 70% drop):
www.truthout.org/issues_06/032307EA.shtml
Irate_Joe said,
January 22, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Wow!
Having just read Dr Goldacre’s book “Bad Science” I decided to take a look at this site and its associated forums. I was quite surprised to see how little discussion of genetic modification there was on either site, but know I think I can see why.
The efforts of Ms Moreland and her “partner” to counter the points raised in the article and subsequent discussion are obscene… and extremely effective.
In fact, I suspect that many laymen reading this page come away with the impression that she is the better informed, more reasonable and crucially, more correct voice in this little debate. Just like Luddite did “Ben… Your remarks are those of a rather absurd and condescending hypocrite… byee”. Her posts have the air of authority, claim to be referenced or at least have the backing of authoratative scientists such as Richard Lewontin (I just spent 5 minutes on the internet and could only find a single quote from him regarding GM, used on every anti website).
I appreciate that it may be a lot of work, but I really feel that a robust criticism of Moreland et al’s posts, with some references that are so lacking in her arguments, should be compiled and stickied at the top of this thread.
I volunteer Ben and Factician for this task 😉
wokao123 said,
October 15, 2009 at 9:35 am
i like this article Links of London Links of London Links of London Links of London Tiffany Tiffany Tiffany Tiffany ED hardy ED hardy ED hardy UGG BOOTS UGG BOOTS UGG BOOTS UGG BOOTS
longyan said,
October 28, 2009 at 12:37 pm
The ugg knightsbridge world is a comedy to those who thinks, a tragedy to those ugg classic cardy who feels.Look not mournfully into the ugg boots past, it comes not back again. Wisely improve the present, it is ugg lo pro button thine. Go forth to meet the shadowy future, without fear, and with a manly ugg bailey button heart.
diudiu said,
December 21, 2009 at 5:37 am
ed hardy ed hardy
ed hardy clothing ed hardy clothing
ed hardy jeans ed hardy jeans
christian audigier christian audigier
ed hardy t shirts ed hardy t shirts
ed hardy uk ed hardy uk
ed hardy bags ed hardy bags
ed hardy hoodies ed hardy hoodies
ed hardy mens ed hardy mens
ed hardy womens ed hardy womens
ed hardy kids ed hardy kids ed hardy kids
newswede said,
January 23, 2010 at 3:07 pm
How many of you understand that THERE ARE NO TERMINATOR SEEDS?
That false story was put out there by GMO opponents RAFI and it has had incredible staying power.
Here’s what’s true. There is a patent on a method of producing seeds so that the second generation seeds will be infertile.
Here’s what’s false — that any seed company sells such seeds.
Lots of ways you can know the story is false. First, look at any seed company’s web site, or to any agricultural supply store, etc. If they have such seeds they will want to sell them, right?
Second, go to GMO opponents web sites and look at the widespread complaints about Monsanto suing farmers who are alleged to have saved their seeds. Monsanto makes its farmer customers sign a contract that they won’t save seeds for replanting. Why would they bother doing that if the saved seeds won’t grow?
Third, look up publicity about a lawsuit involving Canadian canola farmer Percy Schmeiser. His farm fields were full of GMO canola plants which he claims were accidentally introduced, perhaps by seeds blown by the wind from a passing truck. Monsanto sued him, and won the suit, bu that’s irrelevant. What’s relevant is that the seeds were not infertile.
While you are checking out false stories from the GMO opponents, check on the tomatoes with fish genes. There are none. Don’t believe me? Lots of companies want to sell you tomato seeds for your backyard garden. Try to buy some. The origin of this story was when a California company transferred a gene for a frost tolerant protein form an arctic flounder to a tomato plant, in the hopes of getting a frost resistant plant. The experiment failed. End of story, except for the propaganda masters who love to show pictures of a fish with leaves.
Colonel_Mad said,
November 30, 2010 at 4:39 pm
“Third, look up publicity about a lawsuit involving Canadian canola farmer Percy Schmeiser”
Poor old Percy Schmeiser whose rape crop was contaminated by Monsanto’s GM roundup ready version that had “blown” into his field.
The court records[1] actually show he had 1000 acres (think 500 football pitches) that were 95-98% GM. Some wind has blown that lot in! No wonder the courts didn’t believe a word he said.
Jonathan
References:
[1] scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2004/2004scc34/2004scc34.html
Richard said,
April 25, 2015 at 8:36 am
Dr Goldacre
I can readily identify with the antipathy. I’m no friend of big biotech. I think GM has created a dangerous powershift in agriculture in the favour of multinational biotechnology corporations, and “terminator seeds”, which die at the end of the season, are a venal way to increase farmers’ dependency. Monsanto are clearly a nasty company (apart from anything else they made Agent Orange).
This seems remarkably unbalanced for you? The terminator seed never went to market so criticizing them on this seems a bit harsh. Also do you really think it was a way to increase farmers dependency or simply to gain a return from the highly costly research and technology that goes into developing GM seed?
Monsanto have a bad name for many reasons (mainly spin) but to claim they are evil for inventing agent orange seems again unfair. They helped develop the first nuclear bomb as well so does that make them more evil? Do some research on Monsanto and see some of their achievements and goals and the difficulty in patenting seed before calling them a nasty company which only makes you look like a hypocrite. I am currently enjoying your book Bad Science. Please have a look at the GM debate and Monsanto in the same light as you do medicine or withdraw from commenting on subjects you clearly dont know about.