It is always impressive when someone is willing to publicly state that they were wrong about a controversial topic. Such things happen rarely, but there have been a number of recent cases. For example, last July Richard Muller declared himself to be a "converted skeptic," saying that he now acknowledges that global warming is real and that humans are almost entirely the cause. Two days ago, another such example emerged when Mark Lynas publicly apologized for having helped to start the anti-GM movement in Europe, thus "demonising an important technological option which can be used to benefit the environment."
However laudable such recantations are, they can still be called into question, and indeed, I question the basis for Lynas's, as least as it is presented in the transcript linked to above. He begins by calling the anti-GMO movement "anti-science," a claim that I debunked here and here, at least with respect to the labeling of GMOs. Lynas subsequently states that "one by one [his] cherished beliefs about GM turned out to be little more than green urban myths," and lists six such purported myths. Below, I examine each of these, and show why they are not, in fact, myths.
Purported myth #1: I'd assumed that it would increase the use of chemicals. It turned out that pest-resistant cotton and maize needed less insecticide.
This is an astonishing half truth. On the one hand, it is true that so-called Bt cotton and Bt corn (I assume these are what he is referring to) do not require insecticide because the cotton and the corn produce the insecticide (Bacillus thuringiensis, or Bt) themselves. On the other hand, other crops are "Roundup Ready"; there is, for example, Roundup Ready Corn and Roundup Ready Soy. "Roundup Ready" means these crops are resistant to the herbicide Roundup. In practice, what this has meant is that farmers can and do spray the crap out of their RR Corn and RR Soy in order to kill other, "undesirable" plants, aka weeds.
So, in sum, consumers are eating Bt pesticide when they eat Bt corn (more on this below) and they are eating food that has been sprayed with Roundup when they eat RR Corn and RR Soy.
Moreover, the overuse of Roundup can and has lead to other weeds evolving resistance to Roundup. We will thus need to develop more toxic, or at least different, herbicides if we want to continue this type of practice. Of course, that will just lead to more resistance, and the need for more pesticides... where does this go? Nowhere good, as far as I can see.
And the widespread use of Bt crops may similarly lead to the evolution of Bt resistance in the "pests." So again, what's next? Which pesticide will be incorporated into future crops?
(By the way, an herbicide is technically a type of pesticide, in case anyone wants to quibble on that point).
Purported myth #2: I'd assumed that GM benefited only the big companies. It turned out that billions of dollars of benefits were accruing to farmers needing fewer inputs.
I understand, and often agree with, the urge to benefit the little guy over the big guy (ceteris paribus), and I think that many others agree with this as well. However, I don't think that this alone would have caused a furor over GM food in Europe. In other words, although its a factor in evaluating GMOs, it's not a decisive one. And I'd be curious to see his numbers, especially over time (in the face of weather changes, the need to use new and different GMOs and new and different pesticides, etc.)
Purported myth #3: I'd assumed that Terminator Technology was robbing farmers of the right to save seed. It turned out that hybrids did that long ago, and that Terminator never happened.
Another half truth. It is true that some hybrids are sterile, but not all hybrids are sterile. And certainly not all crops are sterile. In fact, Monsanto has a policy that prohibits farmers from saving or reusing the seeds once crops are grown, and has sued to enforce that policy. If they win that suit, then the law will "rob farmers of the right to save seed," even if the technology does not.
"Terminator never happened" – hmm. In fact, the technology has been developed, but it is not currently being used commercially. That was a decision made by Monsanto, but Terminator Technology is not outlawed in, for example, the U.S. Until recently, genetically modified animals were not being sold as food, either, but that may change soon. I would not be shocked to hear that Monsanto has changed its mind, especially if it loses its lawsuit.
And lets be clear – the harm of Terminator Technology is not only the inability to save seeds. It's also the potential for those genes to spread to related species or to non-GMOs of the same species. As this article notes, "interest is growing in strategies to impede transgene movement...driven, in part, by expanding interest in using transgenic crops to produce pharmaceutical and industrial products"; however, "[a]lthough there are a variety of different GURTs mechanisms that can be used to reduce transmission of a transgene, no strategy can completely stop gene movement."
Purported myth #4: I'd assumed that no-one wanted GM. Actually what happened was that Bt cotton was pirated into India and roundup ready soya into Brazil because farmers were so eager to use them.
Maybe so; again, I am not sure what incidents Lynas is referring to. But perhaps Lynas missed the recent headlines about the unhappiness of Indian farmers with the high costs of Bt Cotton. There have even been some accusations that these costs have led to an increase in farmer suicides; this article seeks to debunk that claim, while being forced to admit that "in specific districts and years, Bt cotton may have indirectly contributed to farmer indebtedness, leading to suicides, but its failure was mainly the result of the context or environment in which it was planted." I'm sorry, but that seems like a distinction without a difference. The issue is not whether Bt Cotton is good for farmers in some idealized world; it is whether it is good for farmers in the actual world.
Purported myth #5: I'd assumed that GM was dangerous. It turned out that it was safer and more precise than conventional breeding using mutagenesis for example; GM just moves a couple of genes, whereas conventional breeding mucks about with the entire genome in a trial and error way.
First, GM can move genes between distantly related species, whereas conventional breeding does not (more on this below). So, they are not "mucking about" with the same sort of genes. Second, GM technology is not nearly as "precise" as Lynas makes it out to be. In fact, the genes are simply inserted into the genome, and they end up wherever they end up. If the desired result is produced, then the company has the GM product it wants. But genes don't operate in isolation; other new proteins may be produced as well, with unknown effects.
Which brings us to testing. GMOs have been tested by the biotechnology companies themselves, not by independent organizations. Moreover, the tests are short term ones. Yet, one would expect that if there were harm to, for example, ingesting the Bt pesticide in Bt corn, those harms would come from exposure over time. As Michael Pollan notes, if you buy a bottle of Bt pesticide, it has a warning label that says to avoid inhaling the spray or getting it in an open wound. That's because Bt is an EPA-registered pesticide. But Bt corn and other Bt foods are not considered pesticides, but foods. And the FDA has decided that the inclusion of Bt in corn is not a "material change."
So, are GMOs safe? As I have said elsewhere on this blog, I don't pretend to know the answer to that. I suspect that there is no univocal answer to the question, and that it depends on the GMO. However, I don't think that GMOs have been tested for long enough periods of time to know the answer; as I point out here, there have certainly been other substances that were initially thought to be safe only to be later found dangerous.
Purported myth #6: But what about mixing genes between unrelated species? The fish and the tomato? Turns out viruses do that all the time, as do plants and insects and even us – it's called gene flow.
This is exaggerated. As even proponents of "lateral gene transfer" note, the mechanisms and frequency of this type of gene flow in plants and other eukaryotes is not well understood.
As for "feeding the world" (as though that were the motivation of companies like Monsanto!), such claims have yet to be substantiated or weighed against the concerns identified above. But as this is a huge topic, I will try to address it in a future post.
In sum: Lynas certainly has the right to change his mind about GMOs, and to do so publicly. However, I am afraid he has not yet made the case for doing so.
Recent Comments