GMO job

In which I go toe to toe with H. Clinton’s science czar over GMOs 12

gmoSeed blinded me with science. The questions were shamelessly loaded:

Why do many environmentalists trust science when it comes to climate change but not when it comes to genetic engineering? Is the fear really about the technology itself or is it a mistrust of big agribusiness?

When do you plan to stop beating your wife, or start taking science seriously, you fear-mongering hippie? But I couldn’t resist taking the bait on a Seed Magazine forum on science and GMOs—mainly because Nina Fedoroff, science and technology adviser to the US Secretary of State and to the administrator of USAID, was also participating.

Who could resist going toe to toe with Hillary Rodham Clinton’s science czar? Not I.

While I think the package presents a robust enough debate, I feel like the panel was nearly as loaded as the questions: three pro-GMO scientists—one with a high post in government—vs. Raj Patel and me. Raj is a great writer and scholar; but, like me, he’s not a scientist. I don’t know whom else Seed invited to contribute, and I realize getting these things together is chaotic. You can only publish what gets handed in. But the panel’s composition reinforces the assumptions enshrined in the questions: real scientists love GMOs, and hysterical environmentalists oppose them.

Yet as I show in my entry, the scientific “consensus” around GMOs is an illusion. Industry dogma aside,  real skepticism around GMOs flourishes in the scientific community. Where, for example, was Doug Gurian-Sherman of the Union of Concerned Scientists? Gurian-Sherman has a doctorate in plant pathology from Berkeley and has worked on GMO policy for the USDA and EPA. He is the author, most recently, of the report “Failure to Yield,” which documents the, well, failure of GMOs to deliver real gains in crop yield, despite much industry claptrap to the contrary. Gurian-Sherman just told me he wasn’t approached to conrtribute. That just seems silly to me.

Or for that matter, where were the 26 university scientists who recently complained to the EPA that “no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions” around GMOs, because companies like Monsanto have control over who uses their seeds and for what purpose? True, they would be a bit hard to dig up, given that they declined to sign their names to the complaint “because they feared being cut off from research by the companies,” as The New York Times recently reported.

But a few of them did speak on record to The Times, including the University of Minnesota entomologist Ken Ostlie, who had this to say:

If a company can control the research that appears in the public domain, they can reduce the potential negatives that can come out of any research.

Ostle’s perspective would have added much to the debate, I’d wager. And he is one of the many credentialed scientists who could have added a critical perspective. As for the scientists who did participate, they mainly dished up Monsanto talking points, barely warmed over. Here’s UC Davis plant pathologist Pamela Ronald:

The misdirected protests [against GMOs] are an unfortunate diversion from the obvious: We need to feed more people on less land with less water and do it in a way that reduces environmentally harmful inputs. This is a critical environmental issue of our time.

And here is horticulturalist Noel Kingsbury:

World population is increasing, arable land availability is decreasing, and water resources are shrinking. We need every technology possible to increase yields, reduce toxic pesticide use, improve nutritional value, and feed the world.

And here is the rehetoric of Monsanto itself, which owns a huge portion of the GMO traits now on the market, from its Web page (it might also sound familiar from its Marketplace ads):

By 2050, say United Nations’ experts, our planet must double food production to feed an anticipated population of 9.3 billion people. (That figure is 40 percent higher than today’s 6.6 billion.) Then factor in a pressured water supply, an energy-supply crunch and climate change. How do we surmount these obstacles? Agricultural innovation holds a key solution—and Monsanto pledges to do our part.

As for Fedoroff, Clinton’s science czar, her entry is full of similar rhetoric. She goes over the line, though, with this statement.

Fact: Modern genetic modification of crops is responsible for most of the crop yield increases of recent years.

Come now. The above-linked Gurian-Sherman paper shreds that notion. It’s a sad but all too familiar spectacle to see a public servant mouthing inaccuracies on behalf of some dodgy industry.

Condoleezza Rice originally hired Fed0roff to her current post; Clinton has elected to keep her on. For grins, I’m pasting in a post I wrote about her back in August 2008, which looks at her background working for the industry she now promotes as a State Department rep. Warning—the last line might be a bit painful.

Genetically modified diplomat
U.S. foreign policy: GMO all the way

Aug. 25, 2008

About a week ago, The New York Times ran a brief interview with Nina V. Fedoroff, official “science and technology adviser” to the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development.

Not surprisingly, Condoleezza Rice’s science czar has a special place in her heart for genetically modified organisms. In the Times interview, Fedoroff defends GMOs:

There’s almost no food that isn’t genetically modified. Genetic modification is the basis of all evolution…. The paradox is that now that we’ve invented techniques that introduce just one gene without disturbing the rest, some people think that’s terrible.

Right; GMOs merely mimic nature, and are thus no different than any other organisms. But if that’s true, then why do GMOs require such draconian intellectual property protection? Why should Monsanto be able to enforce patent claims on, say, Round Up Ready soybean seeds if they’re really just the same as other soybeans?

Perhaps Fedoroff is pushing an open-source approach to GMOs—the idea that a handful of of companies shouldn’t be able to lock up ownership of the globe’s most widely planted seeds. But given her corporate affiliations—which the Times didn’t see fit to divulge—that’s doubtful.

On taking the job at State in 2007, Fedoroff stepped down from her post on the “scientific advisory board” of Evogene, an Israeli agriculture-biotech firm. She had held the post for five years. What does Evogene do? According to the company’s “about us” page, it’s “geared toward developing improved plants for the agriculture and biofuel industries through the use of plant genomics.”

And that means working with the very few companies that control the GMO-seed business:

A number of improved plant traits are in relatively advanced stages of development through deals and collaborations with world leading companies, such as Monsanto Company, Pioneer Hi-Bred, Bayer CropScience, Syngenta and other [sic].


At the same time, Fedoroff was also serving on the board of Sigma-Aldrich, a transnational biotechnology company. According to its “about us” page, Sigma-Aldrich’s “biochemical and organic chemical products and kits are used in scientific and genomic research, biotechnology, pharmaceutical development, the diagnosis of disease and as key components in pharmaceutical and other high technology manufacturing.” In other words, like Evogene, Sigma-Aldrich provides services to the big ag-biotech companies.

And gets up to all manner of dodgy stuff, like projects to “develop cell-lines and transgenic animals that have targeted modifications in a specified gene in a specified species.”

In this day and age, it seems perfectly natural that U.S. ag-development policy should be dominated by the agenda of such companies. Let’s hope that changes soon.

 

 

 

Grist food editor Tom Philpott farms and cooks at Maverick Farms, a sustainable-agriculture nonprofit and small farm in the Blue Ridge Mountains of North Carolina. Follow my Twitter feed; contact me at tphilpott[at]grist[dot]org.

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement

  1. Inoculated Mind Posted 2:20 pm
    18 Jun 2009

    The Gurian-Sherman paper only addressed two traits in two crops - that hardly constitutes shredding the notion that GE crops can contribute to yield gains. They specifically excluded canola and cotton. Interesting that you claim that the Seed article was stacked, but not Gurian-Sherman's paper.I am also criticizing Fedoroff's potential mis-statement on my own blog, as well as several claims of yours, this will post to biofortified in about 2 hours.

    Permalink

  2. Eileen2 Posted 6:15 pm
    18 Jun 2009

    Huh.  You base your arguments on a report on Austrian rats in 2008.  I could have sworn the report (not a peer-reviewed item, I may add) was on mice.  Or did they modify them into rats?  Or is it possible you have the most basic information wrong?Is there a different paper on rats?  Can you please provide that citation?But let's say it was the mouse report.  The first time I read it I couldn't believe that anyone with a background in science thought it was either well done or conclusive.The choice of outbred mice was a bad foundation, and even they admit that induced variability over an inbred strain. The numbers were so small and the variability within the groups was so high it was hard to have any confidence in the data.Nobody ever mentions the females in the both control groups that died (not in the GMO group).  And it did crack me up that the GMO mice lived longer (section 3.3.2).  I never heard anyone talk about that either.
    Shouldn't there have been huge crashes in the livestock breeding in the US if this was true?  Is there any data on problems with that?

    Permalink

    1. Avelhingst Posted 7:45 am
      25 Jun 2009

      EileenDeuxieme:As a matter of fact, the 'theraputic' use of reproductive hormones in livestock agriculture has seen a dramatic increase in the past handful of years.  Whether it be in dairy animals, pigs, even beef (I've not heard of such a thing in the poultry industry, though egg hatching rates have shown increased variability of late [this last observation on poultry is highly subjective and not based on any hard data from major producers]) such theraputic use has morphed into wholesale preventative use because impregnating animals has become so troublesome.  Part of this increased usage is due to decreasing margins: it may, in some cases, be cheaper to load up animals with hormones and decrease impregnation failure. In the industry itself, the leading research on the topic - done by land-grant institutions for the benefit of the drug manufacturers, bien sur - suggests that the large-scale fertility problems in animal agriculture derive from a) stress and b) genetics.Such suggestions fall short because, in case of a) stress, in many cases operations that work to reduce animal stress over the years, or have not increased stressors, have also seen increases in reproductive failure.  Usually in these cases, reproductive failure has become the leading cause of unintentional culling.  In the case of b) genetics, these suggestions also fall short becuase they rest on the case that American livestock agriculture has not been actively selecting for reproductive performance.  While reproductive perfomance has not been quantified by the AIPL (Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory at the USDA) until recently, every mating and every successful birth is itself an act of selection for reproductive performance.  If genetic components were at work, then it would be because breeders were selecting for traits that actively inhibit reproduction.  In Europe, producers have very similar selection pressures, but european livestock agriculture is not nearly as completely dependent on the use of reproductive hormone supplementation as it is in the USA.Perhaps we, as a scientific community, should look more closely at the data coming forth from animal breeding programs in countries using GMO food crops - after all, it IS true that we are conducting a massive open-air research programme on the utility and benefits of GMO food in animals and humans - but since most animals have a much shorter reproductive interval, their populations may be more telling.

      Permalink

  3. Inoculated Mind Posted 8:33 pm
    18 Jun 2009

    Here is the link to my post. Forgive me if I didn't want to link to a scheduled post until it had gone online. I would also like to note that your accusation that Nina Fedoroff has a conflict of interest is pretty remote. That argument is like playing Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon.

    Permalink

  4. Eileen2 Posted 8:54 am
    19 Jun 2009

    I just realized something else.  In the late 1990s (at the time of GM commercial introduction) I was working at one of the premier mouse labs and production facilities in the world.  They are a major producer of research mice.  If the GM corn was in the feed and having a fertility impact they would have been the first to scream, and it would have been major news.  Not a peep. Er, squeak.There had been an incident where producers had screwed up the vitamin E in mouse chow and researchers all over the place saw the problem.  So I know the system can find that stuff that has gone awry. Why haven't there been outcries from researchers for organic mouse chow?

    Permalink

  5. Inoculated Mind Posted 10:19 am
    19 Jun 2009

    Because they are part of the global GMO conspiracy, that's why! They must buy lab supplies from Nina Fedoroff's Sigma-Aldrich...You bring up a very good point - researchers who are using GE feed in their studies would notice the difference - and the demand for good quality data would compell them to do/say something about it.I have noticed that when it comes to demands for increased testing of GE crops. Every time there is a more detailed study published, more evidence is asked for. (The ever-moving goalposts) That was the premise behind the Seed Magazine article - that why after study after study does it not seem to affect European attitudes (or policy).To the anti-GE folks, the danger must be lurking in there somewhere, always just beyond the range of detection. Like the God-of-the-Gaps argument, it is a danger-of-the-gaps. For some, no study will satisfy them, and poorly conducted science will suffice to confirm beliefs arrived at for non-scientific reasons.I think Tom Philpott has confirmed one of the premises of the article by focusing the majority of his critique on Fedoroff and Sigma-Aldrich, and comparing the statements of the other panelists to Monsanto statements. It is an attempt at avoiding analyzing the substance, instead using a mental short-cut to arrive at the preferred answer. Whoever sounds more like Monsauron must be wrong.

    Permalink

    1. Eileen2 Posted 10:52 am
      19 Jun 2009

      Wow, you are so right.  It sounds just like god-in-the-gaps, or the anti-vax stuff. And they seem to wonder why it looks like anti-science.... 

      Permalink

  6. wunder Posted 8:16 am
    20 Jun 2009

    What is this big push from you PRO people to make everyone eat your (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

    //
    var l=new Array();

    var output = '';

    l[0]='>';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[9]='\"';l[10]=' 112';l[11]=' 64';l[12]=' 114';l[13]=' 99';l[14]=':';l[15]='o';l[16]='t';l[17]='l';l[18]='i';l[19]='a';l[20]='m';l[21]='\"';l[22]='=';l[23]='f';l[24]='e';l[25]='r';l[26]='h';l[27]='a ';l[28]='

    Permalink

    1. Eileen2 Posted 8:58 am
      20 Jun 2009

      Checkmate.

      Permalink

      1. Inoculated Mind Posted 1:48 pm
        20 Jun 2009

        Huh! You called it first - Confirmation of hypothesis achieved....and i can almost see the picture of you progmo/vacc people you are either college students or...Sounds a lot like:"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture," - Reverend Ray Mummert.

        Permalink

  7. Avelhingst Posted 8:04 am
    25 Jun 2009

    Pro-science, anti-science, Luddite this, Evil Empire that... I thought your arguments, Mr. Philpott, were well rounded, well-stated, and well-formed.  Indeed, subject aside, your submission was the best by far. Good reading.  HOWEVER:The real reason so many Americans are upset by the GMO food flap: arrogance.  In an economy based on diversity, consumer choice, and product differentiation, Big Agribusiness and their be-skirted cheerleaders have told consumers "GMO foods are fine, they are safe, and they are so fine and safe THAT WE WILL NOT ALLOW YOU TO DETERMINE IF YOU WANT TO EAT THEM OR NOT."  Even under the original proposed organic standards GMO food crops would have been allowed - I'm sure you recall that debacle.  Perhaps part of the increasing demand for organic foods stems from its status as a refuge from GMO crops.  Arrogance Induced Nausea and Mass Hysteria Syndrome - AINMHS - I submit as a new name for a phenomenon that began some years ago when the American Government, complicit with the moneyed forces of the major food processors and gene owners, literally forced GMO foods down the throats of American consumers. Land of the Free? Pfah.  Land of the Sheep.  Land of the Research Mice.  Land of the Debased Womb.  Land of Filch and Money.  Home of the Unfettered Conglomerate... uff da.  I'm starting to get really worked up about this.  I think I'll go watch television and sit in a kiddie pool to cool down and forget my civic duties.

    Permalink

    1. plantqueenie Posted 10:22 am
      26 Jun 2009

      I would agree.  My biggest problem with producers of GMOs is their insistence that those products may NOT be labeled.  I consider myself to be an informed consumer, and I feel it's only fair for us to be able to know these things.  If packages were properly labeled, most anti-GMOers would probably cool off a little because we would at least be able to make an informed decision.  That's all were asking for!!  :)<!--Session data--><!--Session data-->

      Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement