Thursday, January 30, 2020

What about GMOs?

This new blog article is an important follow-up to the article I posted on December 15 about Norman Borlaug, known as “the man who fed the world.” One of my respected Thinking Friends responded with a lengthy email about the problem of GMOs, and that is an important concern that needs careful consideration.  
Facts about GMOs
Since I am not a scientist and have limited knowledge about botany (plant biology) or genetics, I can say little about the technical aspects of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), I have, however, done some reading and thinking about ethical issues surrounding GMOs.
Beginning in 1944 in Mexico, “Borlaug developed simple techniques for cross-breeding, harvesting, and planting seeds in order to produce unusually disease-resistant strains of wheat. The result was a striking growth in wheat yields. By 1963, largely due to Borlaug's techniques, Mexico was producing six times as much wheat per year as in the year before Borlaug's arrival.” (The quote is from this website for biology teachers.)
Borlaug’s success in Mexico led to successes in other countries—and to the “Green Revolution,” for which he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970. His successes also led to geneticists developing techniques for extending his work by altering crops at the genetic level, resulting in the proliferation of GMOs.
The controversy that has arisen about GMOs is not linked so much to what Borlaug and others did before 1970 but rather to the way GMOs have been developed and marketed by large companies. The major U.S. company to do that was Monsanto, a chemical company that was started in St. Louis in 1901 and acquired by Bayer in 2018.
Monsanto scientists were among the first to modify a plant cell genetically, publishing their results in 1983. Five years later the company conducted the first field tests of genetically modified crops. After introducing Roundup Ready soybeans and corn in 1994, Monsanto steadily became an agribusiness giant.
The strong opposition in some circles to GMOs is not so much opposition to genetic engineering (GE) as such but to the ways that GE has been used (or misused) by large corporations such as Monsanto.
Opposition to GMOs
In the last half of the 1990s, there was growing opposition toward GMOs because of the way many thought GMO produced food could be detrimental to human health.
In 2000, when Borlaug was 86, the African News Service published an article (see here) titled “Norman Borlaug Blasts GMO Doomsayers.” He stated, “There is no evidence to indicate that biotechnology is dangerous.”
Nevertheless, opposition continued to grow in the first two decades of the 21st century. Although it is several years old now, the opposition to foods containing GMOs is strongly, and attractively, presented in a film with the clever title “GMO OMG” (2013). (June and I checked the DVD out from the local library and watched it earlier this week.)   
Affirmation of GMOs
In January last year, Charlie Arnot, a thought leader in food and agriculture whose office is in the Kansas City Northland, was the guest at the Vital Conversations study group June and I regularly attend. At that meeting we discussed his slim book, Size Matters: Why We Love to Hate Big Food (2018).
(It was that meeting and Charlie’s book that rekindled my interest in Norman Borlaug and led to last month’s blog article about him.)
During the discussion, I asked Arnot directly about whether he thought GMOs were dangerous to human health. He gave an unequivocally negative response.
Just this month I have read the “Saturday essay” written by Mark Lynas and published in the June 22, 2018, edition of the Wall Street Journal. The essay’s title is, “Confession of an Anti-GMO Activist”—and here is his main point:
Genetically modified crops have been vilified and banned, but the science is clear: They’re perfectly safe. And what’s more, the world desperately needs them.
Lynas (b. 1973) is also the author of Seeds of Science: Why we got it so wrong on GMOs” (2018). That is a work that merits careful consideration by anti-GMO people.
Attention also needs to be given to William Saletan’s Slate.com’s 2015 article titled “Unhealthy Fixation,” which contends, “The war against genetically modified organisms is full of fearmongering, errors, and fraud. Labeling them will not make you safer.” 
I have no complaint about people who wish to avoid GMOs in the food they choose to eat. But the most important ethical problem is seeking to curb all GMO-produced crops if, indeed, they are helping to feed the many people in the world who are chronically hungry.

21 comments:

  1. Here are pertinent comments by Thinking Friend Glenn Hinson in Kentucky:

    "So many modern developments, e.g., atomic energy and artificial intelligence, confront us with similar dilemmas. Ethically, I think it is good to question what some see as progress from the vantage point of the negatives. But I won’t venture an answer to the GMO question until I learn more about side effects and how companies like Monsanto do what they do for money rather than concern for human beings."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your comments, Dr. Hinson--and I agree that it is good to be cautious (skeptical) in thinking about this issue, as well as about the other "modern developments" you mentioned.

      Although I have just read just a bit of it, Sheldon Krimsky's book "GMOs Decoded: A Skeptic's View of Genetically Modified Foods" (MIT Press, 2019) seems to be a valuable resource.

      A blurb on the back cover of that book says, "'GMOs Decoded' is an authoritative and balanced examination of the scientific and policy debates about GMOs, from the perspective of a scholar who prioritizes public and environmental health over short-term corporate interests."

      Delete
  2. Local Thinking Friend Greg Brown interjects this important consideration:

    "But Leroy, I think we already produce sufficient food to feed the planet. The problem with hunger is NOT insufficient food, it is how our economic systems distributes the food available to all of us."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Greg, I think you make an important, and most likely a correct, point. But do you realistically see the likelihood that we here in the U.S. will stop eating so much in order that more food can be shipped to areas of the world where there is the most hunger? Who is going to pay for the shipping charges? And how will the malnutritioned people in the poor countries of the world afford to buy the food shipped in from the U.S. or Europe?

      It seems to me that part of how GMOs can help people in the poorer countries have more food is for them to be able to grow additional crops--wheat, corn, rice, etc.--locally in southern Asia, Africa, and Latin American countries.

      The Green Revolution spurred by the outstanding work of Norman Borlaug helped people in poor countries produce more food locally, and that is what is still badly needed today.  

      Delete
  3. And then a few minutes ago I received these comments from Thinking Friend Les Hill in Kentucky:

    "Thanks Leroy for the good information.

    "I've suspected GMOs would not harm health. But I had no scientific way to support my thinking. I've worried most when Monsanto GMO produced plants by nature cross property lines; the company has sued farmers who use the results. No one should have that much control over the means toward improved food production, in my thinking at least. I'm curious if seed resulting from Monsanto purchased seed source cannot be collected and used by the original farmer purchaser for follow up crops?"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your comments, Les.

      The "GMO OMG" film that I mentioned in the article had a bit about how Monsanto has sued farmers for benefitting from GMO-produced plants that spread from their neighbor's farms, but I don't know much about that or how prevalent that has been.

      Delete
  4. Here are comments from Thinking Friend Truett Baker in Arizona:

    "If the GMO food is safe for human consumption, what is the problem? I think it is sad that we live in a world that has no problem with the ethics of a nation's leadership, but get's bent out of shape about the ethics of improving the yield of food. We demand purity in so many venues of life except morality in our leaders."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, the problem is that some people seriously question the safety of GMO food--and the Thinking Friend who wrote me the strong letter in opposition to GMOs is also a person who strongly expects morality in our political leaders.

      Delete
  5. And then this afternoon I received the following comments from Thinking Friend Eric Dollard in Chicago:

    "Thanks, Leroy, for your observations about GMO foods, or 'Frankenfoods.'

    "Although there is a deep skepticism in Europe about GMO foods, as far as I know, GMO foods are perfectly safe and there is no evidence to believe otherwise. Mansanto, however, has received some adverse publicity about how it strongarms farmers into using its products. Monsanto is also in trouble for its weed killer, Roundup, but the scientific jury is still out on that one.

    "Peace--something that more and better food can help to promote."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, it seems to me that the use of Roundup is the most questionable aspect of the GMO controversy--and there are thousands and thousands of lawsuits claiming that Roundup has caused cancer.

      Wikipedia has a good summary of the Roundup issue:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundup_(herbicide)

      Delete
  6. There are real issues... more than noted. But the positive are also real.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Part of the opposition to GMO foods is no doubt due to the same kind of resistance to change seen in anti-vaxxers and gold-standard nostalgists, but I think a lot of it is fueled by antipathy to the imperialistic methods used by Monsanto and other large agribusinesses against traditional family farms both here and abroad. Monsanto has blocked farmers' repeat soybean plantings if they contain the Roundup-ready gene, and then sued for patent infringement if they are using saved beans to replant their fields. If they do not immediately surrender, pay fees, and agree to only plant Monsanto seeds in the future, then they are almost always successfully bankrupted by lawsuits from Monsanto. See, for example, this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowman_v._Monsanto_Co.

    This past growing season large parts of the midwest were so flooded that crops could not be timely planted. Harvests were considerably off. This is one of the many signs of the anthropogenic global warming that is burning Australia, flooding much of eastern states, and spreading deserts in Africa. We may well switch from a food-surplus to a food-deficit world soon. Once people are hungry, I doubt many will worry about whether what they eat is GMO. A much more serious concern is the denial mentality of the governments in places like Australia and the US. We know the scientific foundations of the warming, it is all there in the life-cycle of infrared radiation. Like zombies we are marching into an environmental apocalypse. Compared to that, what does GMO matter?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Craig. I fully agree with you--and especially with the rhetorical question you closed with. You will remember, I think, that my first blog article this year was titled: "Climate Crisis: Challenge of the Decade."
      https://theviewfromthisseat.blogspot.com/2020/01/climate-crisis-challenge-of-decade.html

      Delete
  8. Leroy,
    Thanks for skating on the edge of this pond and reporting what folks who have been swimming around it have to say. As you, I am no scientist and have to rely on reputable scientists. I think you alert us to to the basic scientific fact that scientists can alter the genetic make up of plants and chemicals affecting plants. Then enter the facts of who is doing what, under what conditions of marketing and usage. Given where we are headed with world populations and food issues, the ability to control parts of production would seem a valuable asset. Given we have seen industrial giants trying to control markets based on high profit margins (aka greed) and not best uses for the common good, much needs to be watched closely. Thanks for the reminder.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Larry, for your helpful comments. It was good to hear from you again.

      Delete
  9. This has already been alluded to, but local Thinking Friend Ed Kail emailed me this brief comment:

    "Another related issue in the GMO discussion is Monsanto’s (et. al.) move to patent the genetics of seeds so only they could produce and market them. Farmers could no longer utilize seed from their own harvests for planting the next crop. Monsanto and other multi-national corporations were seeking a monopoly."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, as I have said, it seems that the biggest problem is not with genetic modification itself but with the way companies such as Monsanto has used/misused that process for their own greedy gains.

      Delete
  10. Here are longer comments from Thinking Friend Charles Kiker in Texas. (Like me, he is an old white guy in his 80s and a graduate of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary."

    Thanks Leroy for a very interesting article. I was a farmer before I was a preacher/theologian, and am very interested in such stuff. A church friend and husband of Patricia's cousin is a very successful farmer, majored in plant genetics at Texas Tech U. He insists that GMOs are safe, and also that Roundup is safe when used properly. I believe him on both counts. Thanks to GMOs and other advances in agriculture, supply is no longer the major factor in hunger. Distribution is."

    It has been nigh on to three score and ten since I made my living in agriculture, in Swisher County where I now reside. Crop yields have more that doubled in that time. When I was farming and growing grain sorghum and cotton, 5,000# per acre was an excellent yield for irrigated grain sorghum. Now 10,000# per acre is more common that 5,000 was back then. A bale of cotton per acre was an excellent yield. Now three bales per acre is not uncommon. 30 bushels of wheat per acre in Swisher County was an excellent yield; 40 bpa very rare. Now 100 bpa, while not commonplace, is certainly not uncommon.

    "Back to Roundup. With the introduction of GMO Roundup Ready cotton and corn, Roundup replaced the hoe hands in the cotton fields and the mechanical cultivator in the corn fields. . . .

    "I believe in Capitalism over pure Socialism. Almost all of our politicians do; the difference is in the degree of socialism. To borrow a phrase from the Second Amendment, I believe in "well regulated" Capitalism. I believe (w/o research to back it up) that Monsanto and other giant chemical and agricultural corporations, have taken unfair advantage of farmers in developing countries."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your helpful comments, Charles, and for sharing specific information.

      I hope your friend/cousin is correct in what he insists is true about GMOs and even Roundup--but I am not at this point convinced one way or the other.

      I do think that your concluding statement is most probably true.

      Delete
  11. Thinking Friend Tom T. from my home county in northwest Missouri wrote,

    "I had thought that the opposition to GMOs wasn't completely oriented to the modifications to the genome, but rather to the increased use of glyphosate. In response to William Saletan's article that labelling GMOs will not make you safer I would wonder if labelling GMOs would make you less safe."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for writing, Tom. It was good to hear from you again.

      Yes, the real problem with GMOs, as I understand the situation, is not the genetic modification itself (although some people have trouble with that idea) but the use of herbicides such as glyphosate.

      It is several years old, but one source I read reported that "over 80% of genetically modified (GM) crops grown worldwide are engineered to tolerate being sprayed with glyphosate herbicides, the best known being Roundup."

      Saletan's point seems to be that GMO labeling "can lull you into buying a non-GMO product even when the GE alternative is safer." So, in the cases where the GE alternative is safer, because less herbicide was used, labeling GMOs could make one less safe, I guess.

      Delete