New at Reason

April 6, 2007

Ron Bailey examines why enviromentalists embrace scientific consensus when it comes to global warming, but eschew it when it comes to genetically modified foods.

Comments

|4.6.07 @ 11:54AM|#

The same reasons why the Ron Bailey's of the world embrace scientific consensus when it comes to genetically modified foods, but eschew it when it comes to global warming.

VM|4.6.07 @ 11:56AM|#

anon - shills for BIG CARROT?

|4.6.07 @ 11:58AM|#

Ronald, I'd say that in both cases environmentalists are against humans making drastic changes to the natural environment. So I'm not sure there's any real inconsistency there.

|4.6.07 @ 12:00PM|#

Ever heard of the principal of erring on the side of caution?

thoreau|4.6.07 @ 12:05PM|#

Hooked-

They are certainly consistent in the nature of what they oppose. However, if they specifically cite the scientific consensus as an argument for their side in one context but reject it in another, then they are certainly inconsistent in their arguments.

BTW, whenever this comes up it's usually pointed out (quite correctly) that science isn't about "consensus", at least not in the sense of whether an idea is popular. That is certainly true. However, there are some scientific ideas that are widely accepted because there is a wide variety of evidence coming from independent and competing researchers using a variety of different methods to collect and analyze data. To the extent that a large volume of data from diverse sources leads to widespread agreement, it is natural that people would speak of a "consensus". It is of course a linguistic shorthand, and it would be more proper to say that it is a consensus of informed experts based on a large amount of data and analysis.

We can of course debate whether the scientific consensus on any particular topic really is an informed one based on a wide variety of independent experts examining a large body of evidence collected and analyzed by a variety of methods. To the extent that this is called a "consensus", however, I think it's better to discuss the nature of the consensus (i.e. well-informed vs. groupthink) rather than the word itself.

uncle sam|4.6.07 @ 12:20PM|#

Because this is the lesson of the sucesses of the left (and copied by the right), use whatever arguments and data support your agenda and reject thsoe that do not.
Truthfulness is to be rejected when it does not serve your purpose.

|4.6.07 @ 12:21PM|#

Wow, a similar article by Don Luskin (NRO), on comparing global warming and the free markets (and skeptics of both), can be found here.

|4.6.07 @ 12:25PM|#

GM foods are being blamed for the recent shortage of North American bees.

|4.6.07 @ 12:31PM|#

Whereas GW is being blamed for anything and everything. I think it may be responsible for cutting myself while shaving this morning.

Can we just cut to the chase and start calling the anti-GM crowd "deniers?"

thoreau|4.6.07 @ 12:32PM|#

Thanks for linking to that article, sage.

FWIW, when it comes to economics I'd rather be governed by the first 535 names in the abstracts book at an economics conference than the first 535 names on, well, just about any other list.

thoreau|4.6.07 @ 12:33PM|#

Can we just cut to the chase and start calling the anti-GM crowd "deniers?"

I'd prefer the term "idiots", but we can compromise on "idiotic deniers", perhaps?

Grotius|4.6.07 @ 12:38PM|#

thoreau,

You are right, there a difference (at least over the short term) between how science is practiced and it is supposed to be practiced.

Bee|4.6.07 @ 12:43PM|#

Ironchef, I have been reading about bees lately (I like bees, what can I say), and I thought the bee shortages of the last couple of years were thought to result from lack of genetic diversity in the colonies. These insta-bees are not able to resist recently-introduced parasites as well as hardscrabble native bees.

|4.6.07 @ 12:53PM|#

Sorry, global warming is not responsible for you cutting yourself while shaving -- it's the fault of second hand smoke.

|4.6.07 @ 12:59PM|#

Bee,

Hardscrabble native bees??? "White Man's Flies" are not a native species. Perhaps after several centuries of exponential expansion, the population is bound for a crash leading to equilibrium.

|4.6.07 @ 1:04PM|#

Sounds like a case for GM bees.

Bee|4.6.07 @ 1:17PM|#

Well, yes, honeybees are not native. The wild colony in my back yard was certainly hardscrabble, however. They hung on for a long time, until the great flood year we had a couple of years ago in LA finished them off. I really miss them! =)

What I was really trying to say, was that I didn't see the relationship between GM crops and crises in either wild or factory-pumped-out hives. If there is a relation, I would be interested to know. I'll Google it.

|4.6.07 @ 1:23PM|#

|4.6.07 @ 1:24PM|#

Damn you server squirrels!

|4.6.07 @ 1:30PM|#

Bee- The devastation of bee colonies, as you probably know, is primarily the result of a parasitic mite. I'd say that the situation has more to say about the effectiveness of the parasite than anything having to do with GM.

|4.6.07 @ 1:37PM|#

But, don't you see the truthiness of GM crops being responsible for a decline in bee populations?

It feels right. And feelings trump all!

|4.6.07 @ 2:08PM|#

It seems like many of you are assuming that because some GM foods have been found safe (in the short-term, at least), therefore all of them will be safe going forward.

I suppose this is a possibility, but doesn't the Law of Unintended Consequences suggest otherwise?

|4.6.07 @ 2:09PM|#

Whenever I read "GM Crops" I imagine cars growing like stalks of corn.

No wonder environmentalists are against them--they represent SUV monoculture.

|4.6.07 @ 2:15PM|#

Hooked,

No, it's just that there is no way to know until they've been used for a long time.

You may not realize it, but pretty much everything you eat is a GM food. GM is a scary way of saying "domesticated".

Ayn Randian|4.6.07 @ 2:20PM|#

Ronald, I'd say that in both cases environmentalists are against humans making drastic changes to the natural environment.

Because, you know man, human beings are so artificial and stuff...so fake. They're like, barely mammals at all!

|4.6.07 @ 2:21PM|#

Hooked,

No, it's just that there is no way to know until they've been used for a long time.


Right, so how can you say that the concerns about GM food are totally irrational?

You may not realize it, but pretty much everything you eat is a GM food. GM is a scary way of saying "domesticated".

Kind of the same way that a nuclear bomb is just a scary way of saying a "weapon".

It's scary for a reason.

|4.6.07 @ 2:28PM|#

It's scary for a reason.

Yes, but for a different reason. Nukes are scary because everyone knows they're incredibly dangerous and cause vast amounts of damage. GM foods are "scary" because hysterical non-scientists with an agenda of controlling everyone else CLAIM they're dangerous. Whereas the actual scientists who actually study this stuff say that, no, they aren't.

|4.6.07 @ 2:31PM|#

Right, so how can you say that the concerns about GM food are totally irrational?

Yes. No harm has ever been demonstrated, yet "concern" remains. I'd call that irrational.

Really, I'd call it dishonest, craven, ideologically driven propaganda, but I'm being polite here.

|4.6.07 @ 2:55PM|#

JW:
Yes. No harm has ever been demonstrated, yet "concern" remains. I'd call that irrational.

Genetic modification of food continues. It's not like we made one change 20 years ago, and all that we're doing now is occasionally porting that change to another crop.

I find most of the GM hysteria stupid, but I do agree that caution is pretty important. Each change requires study to see how it interacts with the enviroment -- including those eating it.

Higher yields, not as much of a problem. Some of the pest and disease resistance stuff -- well, don't want to risk something like antibiotic resistance spreading and yielding super-pests and super-bugs. So that takes a bit more study.

grylliade|4.6.07 @ 2:56PM|#

It seems like many of you are assuming that because some GM foods have been found safe (in the short-term, at least), therefore all of them will be safe going forward.

No one's claimed that (though you didn't say they did, just said that they "seemed" to; nice use of weasel wording there). It's just that, unless there's a good reason to think that foods are unsafe, they probably should be assumed to be safe. For example, one greatly beneficial modification would be having major food crops (rice, wheat, maize, etc.) be able to fix their own nitrogen from the air, thus reducing the amount of either rotation or fertilization necessary (or eliminating it altogether). Legumes (such as peas and beans) can already fix nitrogen, through bacteria found in root nodules. If we modify food crops to use this same process, there should be no presumption that it's dangerous. If, for some strange reason, it proves to be dangerous in practice, then we can stop doing it. But there's no reason to think that it would be dangerous.

And again, at least some activists would want the nitrogen fixing ability to be proven safe in every strain that is modified to have it. If we decide to prove its safety to begin with, there's no reason to have to prove it again for every strain.

|4.6.07 @ 3:04PM|#

I find most of the GM hysteria stupid, but I do agree that caution is pretty important. Each change requires study to see how it interacts with the enviroment -- including those eating it.

Prohibition and propaganda isn't caution.

But yes, I would say that would be the case for *any* new foodstuff, even GM'd the old fashioned way.

Look at it this way, if you're Keebler, aren't you going to insist that the proper tests have been performed before your elves magically cook the biotech in their cookies? You don't make money by deliberately injuring your customers.

Is there any evidence to suggest that proper protocols are not being practiced?

|4.6.07 @ 3:15PM|#

I suppose this is a possibility, but doesn't the Law of Unintended Consequences suggest otherwise?

Really, the best place to find the law of unintended consequences at work is in the big world of government mandates. Like a ban on GM.

Among the most obvious unintended consequences of such a ban would be more cropland plowed and more artificial chemicals used in agriculture.

|4.6.07 @ 3:18PM|#

Yes. No harm has ever been demonstrated, yet "concern" remains. I'd call that irrational.

So your logic is that if something is not known to be harmful now, it's irrational to even consider that it might be shown to be harmful in the future?

|4.6.07 @ 3:19PM|#

The great thing about the "all GM food is safe" hypothesis is that it is falsifiable.

Like this Reuters link
http://tinyurl.com/yrnu2y

"It is the first time that independent research, published in a peer-reviewed journal, has proved that a GMO authorized for human consumption presents signs of toxicity," Arnaud Apoteker, a spokesman for Greenpeace France said in a statement.

|4.6.07 @ 3:21PM|#

Really, the best place to find the law of unintended consequences at work is in the big world of government mandates. Like a ban on GM.

Among the most obvious unintended consequences of such a ban would be more cropland plowed and more artificial chemicals used in agriculture.

Right - every action may have unintended consequences. So the point is not that we need a mass banning of all GM products, only that there's no way to really sit here and say that no problems could possibly ever arise from tinkering with the genetic codes of plants and animals.

|4.6.07 @ 3:36PM|#

So your logic is that if something is not known to be harmful now, it's irrational to even consider that it might be shown to be harmful in the future?

No, that it's irrational to assume that it will be in the absence of any evidence to the contrary.

Remember, I'm being polite. I'm not saying that the precautionary principle was thought up by a bunch of hemp-wearing, epistomologically challenged, command and control freaks as a way to stymie technological progress and expand the role of the state, all the while trying to force everyone else to share in their beliefs and live their chosen lifestyle.

That would be rude to say that.

GILMORE|4.6.07 @ 3:45PM|#

Ironchef | April 6, 2007, 12:25pm | #
GM foods are being blamed for the recent shortage of North American bees.

Well, I saw a 30min piece about the bee die-off on PBS, and dammit if they never mentioned anything about GM foods. they mentioned the same stuff cited above = lack of diversity in the 'factory' bees, parasitic mites...

I've written about organic foods and GM foods since 1992 (for business equity research etc, occasionally for magazines, trade journals)...

the short of it all is that a) 'packaged' organic isnt healthier or safer (with the exception of fresh meat, dairy) and b) GM foods arent dangerous to humans, and in fact present tremendous potential upsides for sustainability.

Its all fashion

VM|4.6.07 @ 3:48PM|#

gotta do better than a press release.

but that's right - you test, you log AEs, and you go from there.

press release from group that's been against GM food from moment one simply doesn't cut it.

the great thing about the filter is that assholes like Maurkov get put in them

go fuck yourself.

|4.6.07 @ 4:02PM|#

Remember, I'm being polite. I'm not saying that the precautionary principle was thought up by a bunch of hemp-wearing, epistomologically challenged, command and control freaks as a way to stymie technological progress and expand the role of the state, all the while trying to force everyone else to share in their beliefs and live their chosen lifestyle.

Yes, the favorite libertarian boogeymen: the Hybrid Hippie-Nazi Luddite.

It's odd how these guys came to attain so much power, given that I've never even met or seen one.

VM|4.6.07 @ 4:22PM|#

TAINT CHOMP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

|4.6.07 @ 4:35PM|#

These insta-bees are not able to resist recently-introduced parasites as well as hardscrabble native bees.

Is "hardscrabble" some kind of new code word for "swarthy"?

|4.6.07 @ 4:35PM|#

Yes, the favorite libertarian boogeymen: the Hybrid Hippie-Nazi Luddite.

What boogeymen? I see them at the Greenpeace rallies all the time.

Even so, I bet your boogeymen smell better than mine.

It's odd how these guys came to attain so much power, given that I've never even met or seen one.

Yes, it is odd, given how often they are wrong. But that's the beauty of the state: you always fail upwards.

Disinterested Scientist|4.6.07 @ 4:39PM|#

VM, my screennamelinks to the original article referenced in the story Maurkov linked, but my library has a subscription so it might not work for you. I'll post the abstract here.

New Analysis of a Rat Feeding Study with a Genetically Modified Maize Reveals Signs of Hepatorenal Toxicity

Gilles-Eric Séralini1, 2, Dominique Cellier1, 3 and Joël Spiroux de Vendomois1

(1) Committee for Independent Information and Research on Genetic Engineering CRIIGEN, Paris, France
(2) Laboratory of Biochemistry, Institute of Biology, University of Caen, Caen, France
(3) Laboratory LITIS, University of Rouen, Mont-Saint-Aignan, France

Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology

Received: 18 July 2006 Accepted: 20 November 2006 Published online: 13 March 2007

Abstract: Health risk assessment of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) cultivated for food or feed is under debate throughout the world, and very little data have been published on mid- or long-term toxicological studies with mammals. One of these studies performed under the responsibility of Monsanto Company with a transgenic corn MON863 has been subjected to questions from regulatory reviewers in Europe, where it was finally approved in 2005. This necessitated a new assessment of kidney pathological findings, and the results remained controversial. An Appeal Court action in Germany (Münster) allowed public access in June 2005 to all the crude data from this 90-day rat-feeding study. We independently re-analyzed these data. Appropriate statistics were added, such as a multivariate analysis of the growth curves, and for biochemical parameters comparisons between GMO-treated rats and the controls fed with an equivalent normal diet, and separately with six reference diets with different compositions. We observed that after the consumption of MON863, rats showed slight but dose-related significant variations in growth for both sexes, resulting in 3.3% decrease in weight for males and 3.7% increase for females. Chemistry measurements reveal signs of hepatorenal toxicity, marked also by differential sensitivities in males and females. Triglycerides increased by 24-40% in females (either at week 14, dose 11% or at week 5, dose 33%, respectively); urine phosphorus and sodium excretions diminished in males by 31-35% (week 14, dose 33%) for the most important results significantly linked to the treatment in comparison to seven diets tested. Longer experiments are essential in order to indicate the real nature and extent of the possible pathology; with the present data it cannot be concluded that GM corn MON863 is a safe product.

|4.6.07 @ 4:41PM|#

And the Monsanto paper that was re-evaluated by the above authors:

Results of a 90-day safety assurance study with rats fed grain from corn rootworm-protected corn

B. Hammonda,, J. Lemena, R. Dudeka, D. Warda, C. Jianga, M. Nemetha and J. Burnsb

aMonsanto Company, 800 North Lindbergh Blvd., St Louis, MO 63167, United States
bCovance Laboratories, Inc., 9200 Leesburg Pike, Vienna, VA 22182-1699, United States

Food and Chemical Toxicology

Received 1 June 2005; accepted 22 June 2005. Available online 9 August 2005.


Abstract

The results of a 90-day rat feeding study with YieldGard® (YieldGard Rootworm Corn is a registered trademark of Monsanto Technology, LLC.) Rootworm corn (MON 863) grain that is protected against feeding damage caused by corn rootworm larvae are presented. Corn rootworm-protection was accomplished through the introduction of a cry3Bb1 coding sequence into the corn genome for in planta production of a modified Cry3Bb1 protein from Bacillus thuringiensis. Grain from MON 863 and its near isogenic control were separately formulated into rodent diets at levels of 11% and 33% (w/w) by Purina Mills, Inc. Additionally, six groups of rats were fed diets containing grain from different conventional (non-biotechnology-derived) reference varieties. The responses of rats fed diets containing MON 863 were compared to those of rats fed grain from conventional corn varieties. All diets were nutritionally balanced and conformed to Purina Mills, Inc. specifications for Certified LabDiet 5002. There were a total of 400 rats in the study divided into 10 groups of 20 rats/sex/group. Overall health, body weight gain, food consumption, clinical pathology parameters (hematology, blood chemistry, urinalysis), organ weights, gross and microscopic appearance of tissues were comparable between groups fed diets containing MON 863 and conventional corn varieties. This study complements extensive agronomic, compositional and farm animal feeding studies with MON 863 grain, confirming that it is as safe and nutritious as existing conventional corn varieties.

|4.6.07 @ 4:57PM|#

The weirdest explanation I heard for the drop in the bee population was that increased solar activity generated extra quantum effects that caused bees to get confused and lose their way back to the hive. (I said it was weird, didn't I?)

I'd want to see the error bars on that study (and it repeated many times) before I believed it to be of any use.

And isn't the whole "Frankenfoods" thing a bit of an EU thing?

I'm on the fence, myself. For major modifications in genetic coding I'd like to see more testing. I think GM foods are on the whole going to be far less harmful than the plethora of new molecules we've ended up creating through chemistry, such as trans-fats. At least the stuff the GM swappers are playing around with is probably munched on by at least one species or another.

|4.6.07 @ 5:01PM|#

Initial conclusion:

Overall health, body weight gain, food consumption, clinical pathology parameters (hematology, blood chemistry, urinalysis), organ weights, gross and microscopic appearance of tissues were comparable between groups fed diets containing MON 863 and conventional corn varieties.

None of these were actually contradicted by the re-study, which found the following:

We observed that after the consumption of MON863, rats showed slight but dose-related significant variations in growth for both sexes, resulting in 3.3% decrease in weight for males and 3.7% increase for females.

Meh. Also:

Triglycerides increased by 24-40% in females (either at week 14, dose 11% or at week 5, dose 33%, respectively); urine phosphorus and sodium excretions diminished in males by 31-35% (week 14, dose 33%) for the most important results significantly linked to the treatment in comparison to seven diets tested.

If we have any rat vets in the audience, I would love to know if these changes in urine composition are of any concern. The layman really can't say.

with the present data it cannot be concluded that GM corn MON863 is a safe product.

And here we have the precautionary principle in full bloom. The real question should be, can we conclude that GM corn MON863 is not a safe product.

|4.6.07 @ 5:04PM|#

I'm kind of a bee guy, though I only have 3 hives. Every year we treat for tracheal mites. So far so good. In any event, though, apparently the free market has taken the lead, because the price for the bees is going up faster than inflation.

Unless, it's the price gougers working the bee market, trying to create a cartel of big producers so the honey can be put in storage in caves with the cheese and butter. Where's my congressman? I need some action, now !!Sue Bee has probably got their lobbyists working right now.

|4.6.07 @ 5:05PM|#

Thanks, scientist. Here are some specific observations brought up by CRIIGEN:

http://www.criigen.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=118&Itemid=47


I've never seen VM lay into anyone before. Did rootworms kill his family or something?

Bee|4.6.07 @ 5:25PM|#

Is "hardscrabble" some kind of new code word for "swarthy"?

Well, I resisted efforts by my swarthy neighbors to ethnically cleanse my little hive right outta the hood.

Their feral yard dogs and packs of children had no business in my back yard anyway.

If something can survive in my back yard, which is mostly unyielding granite with a thin skin of dead leaves and home depot potting soil applied to the top, then it is "hardscrabble" and wins my admiration.

|4.6.07 @ 6:10PM|#

What irks me about the Global Warming "True Believers" is how they like to lump the skeptics in with the mental midgets who "doubt" evolution. As the Geico caveman would say, "Not! Cool!"

|4.6.07 @ 6:32PM|#

Regarding bees, I'm on a listserv with biologist Wayne Parrott who observes:

Of the main GM crops in the USA, soybean is a self pollinator seldom visited by bees. Cotton is primarily self pollinated as well. Maize is wind pollinated-- I do not think bees go to it at all. There was some RR alfalfa planted, but honey bees are not very good pollinators of alfalfa-- breeders use leaf cutters instead. Papaya is not grown in the mainland. That just leaves squash-- not really a major crop in terms of hectarage planted.

As far as the Greenpeace study goes (and it was financed by Greenpeace), they delayed releasing it until after the press releases went out thus making sure that other biologists and, more importantly, biostatisticians couldn't analyze it before the news stories ran. I am aware that such an analysis is now being done (which I don't have access to yet) but the general conclusion is that a whole lot of fancy data slicing took place. As soon as I have access to it, I will blog it and provide a link.

BTW, as far as I know this is about the only anti-GM study that Greenpeacers have ever managed to get published in the peer-reviewed literature. On the other hand, there are several studies that suggest that various aspects of global warming are not nearly as dire as the IPCC says it is. Remember "consensus" doesn't mean "certain truth" nor scientific unanimity.

biologist|4.6.07 @ 7:23PM|#

VM, your behavior is disappointing.

the linked Reuters article got the name of the journal wrong. As Disinterested Scientist posted, the name of the journal is Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, not "Archives of Environmental Contamination and Technology"

Ron, I'd like to offer belated thanks for correcting me on a previous GM thread regarding misinformation I had heard on allergic reactions to GM corn. The Greenpeace study was financed by Greenpeace, and the original study was financed by Monsanto. Can we get a neutral third party to conduct a study? Don't you think that some peer-reviewer that has some expertise in biostatistics reviewed this paper before it hit the journal? I'd also like to see both sets of statistical analyses, from Greenpeace and Monsanto. If you're clever, you can hide real effects or show false effects.

tarran | April 6, 2007, 2:15pm | #

...You may not realize it, but pretty much everything you eat is a GM food. GM is a scary way of saying "domesticated".

no. can we stop this? in the vernacular, "genetically modified" can be used in the way you describe, tarran. In the context of biotechnology, "genetically modified" is used as jargon to mean "transgenic", that genetic recombinant technology has been applied to the organism's genome.

highnumber|4.6.07 @ 7:31PM|#

I've never seen VM lay into anyone before. Did rootworms kill his family or something?

Somebody probably interrupted him when he was 'bating.

That or he misses Mr Steven Crane.

|4.6.07 @ 8:09PM|#

biostatisticians couldn't analyze it before the news stories ran.

Hmm. Sneaky. I look forward to your analysis.

I admit I'm not thrilled by the idea of pesticides bred into food, the impossibility of recalling a defective GMO, or the use of antibiotic-resistance genes as markers. Still, I'm excited by the promise of improved yields and better nutrition. I don't consider myself a GM denier. If a company has the capacity to inflict harms that greatly exceed its ability to remedy, controls are required. Is one allowed to privatize profit and socialize risk?

Gahan|4.6.07 @ 8:22PM|#

I think the real question to ask here is what Monsanto researchers eat. If they're chowing down on the GMOs, I guess that's good enough for me. If they shop at Trader Joe's for the organic stuff, though, it would make me nervous. Kinda like when Dagny Taggart rode on the train when everybody was saying that Rearden metal wasn't safe just to prove them wrong. I guess an Ayn Rand reference is kind of gratuitous at a site like this, but if it fits...

|4.6.07 @ 8:24PM|#

"enviromentalists embrace scientific consensus when it comes to global warming, but eschew it when it comes to genetically modified foods"

I see a serious lumping problem here.

Bailey uses the label "environmentalist" a bit like Carlos Mencia uses "Beaner."

Try writing the sentence with

"Libertarians do _____________ while _____________ and see if you can find a combination that you think fits ALL libertarians.

|4.6.07 @ 10:56PM|#

"Ron Bailey examines why enviromentalists embrace scientific consensus when it comes to global warming, but eschew it when it comes to genetically modified foods."

Environmentalists, being logically inconsistent? Who would've thunk it?

VM|4.7.07 @ 9:29AM|#

sorry guys!

bad day. series of bad events. (including almost getting run into twice within five minutes - that was very scary)

thanks for the heads up and alerting me to the attitude! appreciate it. sorry again.

*sneaks back under the bed

biologist|4.7.07 @ 7:23PM|#

sorry you had a bad day, VM

yoo still da man, though

Dave W.|4.9.07 @ 9:41AM|#

When is Reason gonna get a new science writer?