Genetic Engineering News List
|
|
|
|
Dear Readers,
Michael Traugot was kind enough to provide excellent and accurate responses to the article I sent out on Friday. I present his replies for you to see how these points are twisted for the benefit of the corporate good. Thank you Michael!
However, this information is more for you to know. Getting into an argument about this topic even if you know the truth is rarely productive.
Stacy Malkan, one of the campaign leaders at the California Right To Know Campaign ( www.carighttoknow.org) has this to say about conversations with the opposition:
The reason is because the more their messages get repeated, the more confusing things get, the more people get frustrated, and the more we lose support. I am trying to think of how I might respond to the attached with a beginner mind new to the issue, or as a supporter trying to feel confident explaining the issue, and my reaction is -- ack, confusing! overwhelming! too much to remember. It doesn't help to see "The Initiative Is Extreme" in large letters because that ties our initiative to the concept of extreme, even if it is refuted afterward. It's like the old example of Nixon saying "I am not a crook" and all anybody can remember is something about Nixon being a crook.
Of course we are sometimes forced to answer to questions about their lies. In that case it is best to do it quickly and simply. You could say, here's what people need to know about the opposition -- they are lying. One obvious example is that they claim on this sheet that our initiative would authorize "bounty hunter" lawsuits -- this isn't true and makes no sense. There are no bounty hunter fees in our initiative and so there is no incentive for lawyers to sue. The opposition just isn't credible.
This page on our website has their main storylines refuted as simply as we could make it, and we tried to do it in a way that doesn't repeat their lies. www.carighttoknow.org/myths. The articles linked in the last paragraph are also helpful in telling the story that the opposition has no credibility because it's a front group orchestrated by a former tobacco lobbyist and climate change denier who has made a career out of lying to the public.
The bottom line is that people are attracted to the positive value-based messages about our right to know and the stories about the heroes (such as the three of you!) who are passionate about this cause, and making it happen, and if we stick to those story lines and evoke those feelings, and stay away from intellectual arguments and confusion, we have the best shot at winning. "
Onward,
Thomas
From: Michael Traugot
Date: Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 8:40 AM
Subject: Re: Why labeling of GMOs is actually bad for people and the environment
Hi Thomas,
Well you asked for some help, and this is my response (below in message, and attached as a Word file). It is not in brief "talking point" form, but I think I have answered most or all of their false points. All these could also be documented for a scholarly article, but that would take some work. I did my PhD dissertation [UC Davis sociology] on the Measure M campaign [I live in Sonoma County] with chapters on the history of GMOs and the scientific arguments around GMOs.
Hope you find this useful, let me know what we can do from here.
Thanks for doing such a great job with the GMO news list; I cited many articles from your list in my dissertation.
Michael
On November 6th, California voters will be asked to vote on a proposition about labeling of genetically modified (GM) products. On the surface this seems quite reasonable: people should have information about what they consume. In my view, labeling requirements are appropriate when there is undisputed scientific evidence that a food component is damaging, which, for example, is the reason for warning labels on cigarettes.
My objection to this statement is that it puts the burden of proof on society as a whole to prove it is unsafe rather than on the developer to prove it is safe. This is especially true with GMOs because they are a completely new, novel technology. Humans have never until recently crossed genes from one species with those of a totally different species. In cases like this where these active, reproducing transgenes are being released into the environment in a widespread manner, the burden of proof of safety should be on the developer.
But with GMOs this is not the case. For example, a recent NRC report states that GMOs are as safe if not more safe than conventional food which is also consistent with most of the published research.
Actually there have been many published reports of damage to animals from consuming GMOs, and of new genetic combinations being unstable. Most of these have come from other countries, since the research in this country is carried out by developing corporations or people hired by them. The US regulatory agencies-EPA, FDA, and USDA-conduct NO RESEARCH THEMSELVES, but rely on corporate reports of research they have conducted themselves.
Many of the fruits and vegetables we eat are already modified as they have been generated through techniques such as selective breeding and hybridization of crops among others.
Transgenetic manipulation is an entirely new technology. Plant breeding of the past has been done with plants or animals that are already closely related. No plant breeder of the past has ever crossed, for example, fish genes or bacterial genes with tomato genes. We haven't been doing this long enough to really know what will happen when we release these new combinations into the environment.
The discovery of DNA and advances in modern molecular biology allow us to develop more refined and precise crop breeding techniques where we slightly modify existing varieties by adding a specific trait.
These techniques are not necessarily more precise.For instance, the new genes do not always take hold in the same places on the host DNA. Adding genes from other species can cause unintended changes in existing DNA that may not manifest until extreme conditions, for example drought or blight, or simply the passage of time create hazards.
Obviously, genetic engineering is in its infancy, and has already led to major developments in medicine.
True, but medical GMOs utilize transgenic bacteria producing medical substances in vats in laboratories, whereas agricultural GMOs are in the environment, producing pollen and able to reproduce and cross with naturally occurring species. Medical substances when administered to humans do not contain any of the transgenic DNA, whereas the food we eat and pollen we breathe from GMO crops do contain the transgenic DNA.
Even though it has been underutilized in agriculture, existing GMOs have had significant impact. The most popular traits address pest control (Bt varieties) and tolerance to herbicides (Round-up ready varieties). These traits have been adopted with corn and soybeans in the US, Brazil, and Argentina among others and also in cotton in India, China, and some developing countries. Studies show that GM varieties of cotton and corn in developing countries increased in per acre yield by more than 50%, and GMOs contributed significantly to the more than doubling of the production of soybeans.
This is false. Yields of cotton and soybeans have NOT gone up, according to Benbrook and other researchers. Farmers in India have been committing suicide over failed crops of GMO cotton. The total production of soybeans, especially in South America, has risen, but not due to increased yield per acre, but to vast conversion of forest and other farmland to industrial soybean production, largely for feed for the meat market in Europe.
The importance of GMOs has to be viewed within a global context.
Agreed.
Population and income growth have led to increased demand for food and especially meat. Meat production is feed intensive.
True, and good reason to change our methods of meat production, perhaps reducing total consumption of meat. It is environmentally expensive to produce meat the way we do, feeding much more grain and bean protein to these animals than we get back in meat, and also expending a huge volume of water for every pound of meat. It is time to rethink the whole meat complex.
This and the introduction of biofuel has resulted in increased prices of agricultural commodities.
Yes we need to be careful not to remove food resources in order to produce biofuels.
When food becomes scarce (and expensive), it is the global poor that suffers most.
True.
Our calculations suggest that the magnitude of the impact of GMOs on reducing food commodity prices was the same or even bigger than biofuels had on increases of these prices (15-30% reduction in the price of corn and soybeans overall).
They are government subsidized. Their true cost of production has not really been reduced.
Furthermore, the prices of cotton did not rise with the prices of other commodities in 2008 due to increased supply from the adoption of GMOs. If African nations and Europe would have adopted GMOs, current prices of food would have decreased significantly, and much of the suffering associated with the food shortages could have been avoided. Thus even in its early stages GMOs have made significant contributions to reducing food shortages and saving lives.
You can't know what the costs would have been, since markets are volatile, but the actual true costs of production have not gone down, they have risen. More chemicals, more fertilizers, more transportation costs are involved. And this does not even begin to factor in the social costs of smaller farmers being put out of work, and the environmental costs of the conversion of so much land to industrial agricultural production, and the pollution that has been widely reported in areas of South America where glyphosate applications on industrial sized soybean fields are large and relentless.
Adoption of GMOs is not only good for food commodity prices and the well being of the poor, it is also good for the environment. Adoption of herbicide tolerant varieties enabled transition to minimal tillage techniques, which reduced the GHG effect of agriculture equivalent to hundreds of thousands of cars annually.
Minimal tillage has existed for quite a whole before GMOs were invented, and can be done in non-GMO ways.
Herbicide tolerant varieties have encouraged massive increases in the use of herbicides, to the point where some areas have become thoroughly poisoned with them, causing changes in basic soil microorganisms and affecting water resources.
GMOs make it possible to produce food on less land, reducing the incentive of converting wild land into agricultural land.
GMOs have actually caused much land to be converted TO industrial agriculture, rather than the reverse, due to the immediate, short-term convenience of spraying massive fields with herbicides by helicopter or airplane. This system encourages, in fact demands, overuse of herbicides and has created herbicide-tolerant weeds that are raising havoc in agricultural fields all over the planet, bringing back the use of more toxic herbicides such as 2,4D to counter the "Roundup Ready" weeds.
There is evidence that by replacing toxic chemicals in India and China, adoption of GMOs directly saved many lives. Reduction of exposure to pesticides and the resulting health effects has been a major cause for adoption in the US.
The introduction of insect resistant GMO cotton in China did reduce the amount of toxic pesticide exposure to farmers at first, but now the effect is wearing off as target insects become more resistant, but also other insect pests move into niches created when one pest is virtually eliminated in an area.
But what about Monsanto? This company has a monopoly on crucial patents and has made a lot of money from GMOs. This is undisputed. However, studies show that the economic gain from GMOs was divided between consumers, farmers, and seed manufacturers without anyone gaining the lion's share.
This is up front a ridiculous argument. Monsanto's curve follows the national and global trends: large corporations are doing great, a few individuals are profiting, but the rest of us are losing. A few large corporate farmers may be prospering, but independent family farmers are not. High contract costs and mandated use of Roundup instead of generic Glyphosate, plus the development of superweeds, have all negatively impacted many farmers in the US and the world.
Apple also makes a lot of money and no one complains.
Apple does not do the harm Monsanto does, and when Apple DOES do harm, they get sharply criticized by the same people who criticize Monsanto.
Of course there is room for increasing access to intellectual property, especially products that are of value to the poor, but labeling GMOs is not the optimal way to achieve this goal.
That's not the goal of GMO labeling. The goal is so that people can KNOW what went into their food, and can have a choice. In this postmodern information age, it is important for the public to understand the systems that affect our lives.
Now, what about emergence of resistance to GMOs? This is an unavoidable consequence because of evolution.
True, pests will adopt to any pesticide. Farmers have known this and adapted successfully for several millennia before modern industrial agriculture techniques such as large monocropping and widespread use of pesticides have CREATED pests!
This means that we need to have continuous research in the life sciences to find solutions for potential problems. I believe sustainability is different than Nirvana; we cannot find final solutions that do not give rise to new problems.
This is known as a "treadmill." We create glyphosate resistant soybeans, insects become resistant, so we need to create 2,4D resistant soybeans, till the insects adapt to 2,4D, and so on, forever.
GMO is a technology that allows us to better adapt to new diseases and climate change. Genetic tools will improve our adaptive capacities to climate change.
Humans were adapting to climate change for millennia. New diseases and phenomena like the dustbowl of the 1930s in the USA were created by human mismanagement, not by acts of nature.
The public is divided among individuals who believe that GMOs are bad, others who think they are valuable, and many who are basically indifferent.
True the American public is uneducated about GMOs, but this is purposely done by the corp[orations and the US Government agencies that refuse to discuss the negative information coming in from other parts of the world.
The last group may not see the damage of requiring labeling of GMOs since they do not see the big loss.
You have not shown that there is any loss involved in labeling, except perhaps to the corporations that develop GMOs.
However, labels make a difference. A labeling requirement creates a stigma effect that will reduce the demand for GM products and may reduce investment in new GM traits.
If GMOs prove themselves to be safe, they can overcome any labeling requirement. In the meanwhile, labeling will help an increasingly educated population to make increasingly intelligent decisions.
The net effect will be to slow the development of agricultural biotechnology, and this in turn may negatively affect health, the economy, and the environment.
It may do that, but it will be for good reason, and may positively affect health, the economy, and the environment.
It is actually counter-productive to the many environmental and social goals that we cherish. Therefore, labeling of GMOs will be a step in the wrong direction.
Or a step in the right direction. Hopefully the reader of this article will consult other sources and make decisions according to fact and not corporate propaganda.
|
| The Genetic Engineering News is produced by Thomas Wittman and EcoFarm, and supported by a generous donation from the Newman's Own Foundation. Please pass this vital information on. If you would like to get on this list go to www.eco-farm.org and select Newsletters. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
