An Open Letter From Nobel Laureates Supporting GMO's

(This photo of Golden Rice is from naturalproductsinsider.com.)

Many of my progressive sisters and brothers will probably be angry at this post, but I have never been sold on the idea that genetically-modified food (GMO) is dangerous. The truth is that man has been genetically modifying crops as long as faring has been in existence -- and almost all of the food we eat today (including that grown on "organic" farms) has been genetically-modified. In short, I believe it is more important to feed the world than to give in to myths and unfounded fears.

Here is the letter signed by 110 Nobel Prize laureates in support of GMO's (particularly Golden Rice):

To the Leaders of Greenpeace, the United Nations and Governments around the world

The United Nations Food & Agriculture Program has noted that global production of food, feed and fiber will need approximately to double by 2050 to meet the demands of a growing global population. Organizations opposed to modern plant breeding, with Greenpeace at their lead, have repeatedly denied these facts and opposed biotechnological innovations in agriculture. They have misrepresented their risks, benefits, and impacts, and supported the criminal destruction of approved field trials and research projects.

We urge Greenpeace and its supporters to re-examine the experience of farmers and consumers worldwide with crops and foods improved through biotechnology, recognize the findings of authoritative scientific bodies and regulatory agencies, and abandon their campaign against "GMOs" in general and Golden Rice in particular.

Scientific and regulatory agencies around the world have repeatedly and consistently found crops and foods improved through biotechnology to be as safe as, if not safer than those derived from any other method of production. There has never been a single confirmed case of a negative health outcome for humans or animals from their consumption. Their environmental impacts have been shown repeatedly to be less damaging to the environment, and a boon to global biodiversity. 

Greenpeace has spearheaded opposition to Golden Rice, which has the potential to reduce or eliminate much of the death and disease caused by a vitamin A deficiency (VAD), which has the greatest impact on the poorest people in Africa and Southeast Asia.

The World Health Organization estimates that 250 million people, suffer from VAD, including 40 percent of the children under five in the developing world. Based on UNICEF statistics, a total of one to two million preventable deaths occur annually as a result of VAD, because it compromises the immune system, putting babies and children at great risk. VAD itself is the leading cause of childhood blindness globally affecting 250,000 - 500,000 children each year. Half die within 12 months of losing their eyesight. 

WE CALL UPON GREENPEACE to cease and desist in its campaign against Golden Rice specifically, and crops and foods improved through biotechnology in general;

WE CALL UPON GOVERNMENTS OF THE WORLD to reject Greenpeace's campaign against Golden Rice specifically, and crops and foods improved through biotechnology in general; and to do everything in their power to oppose Greenpeace's actions and accelerate the access of farmers to all the tools of modern biology, especially seeds improved through biotechnology. Opposition based on emotion and dogma contradicted by data must be stopped.

How many poor people in the world must die before we consider this a "crime against humanity"?

Sincerely,

LIST OF SIGNERS OF THIS LETTER

Only 30% of Americans Trust Scientists To Tell The Truth

No nation has benefitted more from the advances of science than the United States -- and those benefits are evident in all aspects of the society, from farming to industry, from technology to warfare, from health to space exploration, from safety to communication. Science has made the lives of all Americans better.

One would think that in a society that has benefitted so much from the advances of science, a significant majority of the public would have a lot of trust in scientists -- but that is not the case. Only about 30% of the American people (less than one out of every three Americans) say they have a lot of trust in scientists to tell them the truth, while 31% say they have no trust or very little trust in scientists. About 40% say they have only a moderate trust in scientists.

The groups that trust scientists the most are college grads (42%/15%), those with some college (32%/28%), ages 18 to 29 (38%/23%), Whites (33%/28%), Democrats (38%/27%), Midwesterners (32%/27%), Westerners (33%/24%), those making $40k to $100k (36%/23%), and those making above $100k(39%/16%). Sadly though, none of these groups even approaches a majority having complete or a lot of trust in scientists.

Three groups are evenly split on the question -- men (33%/33%), those in the Northeast (27%/27%), and political Independents (31%/31%). All other demographic groups show more distrust than trust of scientists -- with the worst being those with a HS education or less (20%/42%), Republicans (21%/31%), Southerners (27%/39%), Blacks (24%/39%), Hispanics (18%/35%), those making less than $40k (21%/42%), and those between 30 and 44 years old (27%/35%).

These are rather shocking numbers for all groups -- especially considering scientific pronouncements are peer-reviewed, and are subject to repeated experimentation for verification. I would love to be able to say this distrust of science is just because of attacks on science from the right-wing, but that would not be true. Science has been attacked from both the right and the left. The right has attacked science over evolution and global warming, while the left has attacked science over genetically-modified foods -- and both groups have been somewhat successful in their efforts, causing a deterioration in the trust of scientists.

These results are from a recent YouGov Poll (conducted between February 15th and 17th of 1,000 randomly selected nationwide adults, with a margin of error of 4.2 points).

Are Genetically-Modified Foods Bad ?

(The cartoon image above is by Peter Schrank, and appeared in The Economist on 2/25/2010.)

I'm probably going to make some of my liberal friends mad with this post. But my purpose in writing this blog is not to placate anyone, but to tell the truth as I see it.

There is a debate raging in this country (and the world) right now over genetically-modified foods (commonly called GMO's). Corporate entities like Monsanto say the GMO's are safe and want to rush them to the market, while many on the left say they are inherently unsafe and should be banned. I have always suspected that the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.

Humans have been genetically-modifying foods since the invention of farming many centuries ago. Almost all of the foods we eat today have been modified. For instance, the original wheat plant had a very tiny head of grain and the original tomato was about the size of a thumbnail. Both were modified through genetic cross-breeding of the plants to produce the vegetables we enjoy today.

The difference is that in the past this genetic-modification took a long time through the process of cross-breeding to achieve the desirable result, while today it is done much faster through gene-splicing in a laboratory. Does that mean the new way is unsafe? Not necessarily.

One of the best things I have read on this issue comes from the writer of a blog called Saul of Hearts. The writer identifies himself this way:

I'm a crazy hippie.  I go to Burning Man every year.  I teach yoga.  I live in a co-op.  For the past two years I've been delivering organic vegetables for a local delivery service.  I've been eating vegetarian for years, and vegan for the past four months.

I'm also fascinated by genetics.  I read every book that comes my way on evolutionary theory, population genetics, and mapping the genome.  I took several classes on the subject at the University of Pennsylvania.  All told, I have a pretty solid understanding of how genes work.

The writer has written an excellent post on this subject, and I urge you to go over and read the entire post. I am reprinting here only a part of that post that I consider especially important -- a discussion of 3 common myths being circulated about GMO's. Here is what was written about these myths:

1. GMOs create more "unnatural" mutations than traditional breeding methods.

    Genetic manipulation is nothing new.  Humans have been breeding plants and animals for thousands of years.  Many of our staple crops (wheat, corn, soy), would not exist without human intervention.  The same goes for domesticated farm species.

    Whether we're using genetic modification or selective breeding, we're playing God either way.  But some people seem to think that selective breeding is "safer" -- that it allows less opportunity for damaging mutations than genetic engineering does.  This couldn't be more wrong.

    The entire process of evolution is dependent upon mutation.  UV radiation changes the structure of the DNA code in each individual organism.  Most of these mutations aren't beneficial.  Some leave out necessary proteins.  Others add useless information.  And yet, a percentage of these "errors" are helpful enough that they're passed along to future generations and become the new normal.

    If there's any danger with genetic engineering, it's that we can be too precise in our manipulation.  We can ensure that each new generation of seeds contains the exact same DNA sequence, double-checked for errors and mutations eliminated.  The "unnatural" process actually produces less mutations, not more.

2. GMOs contain animal DNA that has been "spliced" into plants.

    One of the most enduring myths about genetic engineering concerns a GM tomato which, as legend would have it, contained flounder genes spliced into tomato DNA.  While it's true that Calgene experimented with a freeze-resistant tomato, they used a "synthesized ... antifreeze gene based on the winter flounder gene" -- not a cut-and-pasted copy of the gene itself.

    Those freeze-resistant tomatoes never made it to market, but a different version called the Flavr Savr did.  Tomatoes contain a protein called polygalacturonase (PG), which breaks down the pectin in the cell walls, causing the tomato to soften as it ripens.  To create a tomato that would ripen more slowly, Calgene took the gene that encodes for the PG protein and reversed it.  This backwards strand of DNA, known as an "antisense" gene, binds to the forward-running strand and cancels it out.  Without PG, the pectin (and therefore the tomato) breaks down more slowly.  The simplicity of the process is remarkable.  No toxic chemicals, no mysterious bits of DNA.  Just a simple tweak of the tomato's own genetic code.

    But hold on a minute.  What if they had used a gene from a fish in creating this tomato?  Would the tomato taste fishy?  Would you have to watch out for fish bones in your pasta sauce?  Not unless you've added anchovies.

    Genes are basically bits of computer code that are interchangeable from species to species.  When you isolate a tiny bit of gene, it doesn't retain the essence of whichever species it came from.  You might have a bit of DNA that says simply, "Grow appendage X on the abdomen," but doesn't specify what kind of appendage.  If you put that code into a fly, it activates the part of DNA that grows a wing.  Put that same code into a mouse and it grows a foreleg.  It doesn't make the mouse any more like a fly.

3. GMO's are radioactive, cause cancer, and are bad for the environment.

    This is a trickier question to answer, and I'll be the first to admit that we need more research into the health effects of GM products.  But I'm going to bet that the answer turns out to be something like this: some GMOs are safe, and others are not.  Lumping all GMOs into the same category is like lumping all fertilizers or all pesticides into the same category.  Genetic changes are only as dangerous as the proteins they encode for -- just as in any plant.  Consider how many "natural" plants have genes that produce poisons and toxins. 

    In the case of the Flavr Savr tomato, I wouldn't be too worried.  It simply blocks a protein that the tomato itself produces.  In the case of herbicide-resistant soybeans, I'd want to know more.  What kind of herbicide is being sprayed on the plants?  Are traces of the herbicide still found in the food when it reaches our plate?

    While I voted for the labeling act that was on the California ballot last year, a simple "contains GMOs" label would be of little use to me.  I want to know what specifically about the organism was modified so I can reach my own conclusions.

I agree with the author of this post. GMO's are not inherently bad -- especially in a world where the population is growing fast. Modifications that make foods more nutritious and more productive are needed. My only concern is that some of these foods may be rushed to the market too fast -- before they have been proven to be safe. We need to find some middle ground -- that will allow modifications that increase yield and nutrition, while insuring safety. 

The government should take a leading role in this effort, but this cannot be done until we get control of the government back. Corporations currently have too much control over our government, and because of that they will automatically come down on the side of corporations. This is just one more area where corporate control of government is not in the best interest of the citizens. The issue of GMO's is not unsolvable, but it cannot be solved until we wrest back control of our government from the corporations.