I
have problems with corporate capitalism. I see the practices that corporations
engage in as being, more often than not, exploitative of workers, duping and
deceitful to consumers, duplicitous and evasive to regulators, and corrupting
to politicians. It’s the nature of the game, and it sucks. We should throw
spanners into the works when we can. This is why it’s hard to read some of the
stuff that gets published on a subject such as GMOs, where rational thought and
science are left in the dust of fear-mongering and paranoid fantasies. I find
myself in such opposition to this stuff that I end up nearly coming down on the
side of one of those corporate beasts. This was especially true of the article
by Chris Parker in the 8/1/13 issue of SN&R (first published in 7/25/13
issue of The Village Voice).
Mr. Parker doesn’t wait a minute to
start with the appeal to fear, and the fallacy of misleading vividness when he
cites Monsanto’s ‘random killing’, ‘take control of the world’s food supply’,
‘Franken-crops’. Such wording elicits shock even though they have little
relationship to reality. The article is filled with ostentatious waving of oversized
red flags around in this manner, with little corroboration or backing offered
for some rather outlandish statements.
For example, Parker has ‘agents’ of
Monsanto lurking in the bushes and the coffee shops, secretly videotaping,
infiltrating, intelligence gathering, pretending to be surveyors, bullying
farmers…this poor guy has been watching too many movies. When statements like
these are made a journalist really needs to inform his readers of where the
information has originated, and it better be from multiple reliable sources.
Parker does no such thing; it’s all pulled out of his hat! I have dealings with
farmers and grower organizations in my work – none of them have mentioned
anything like this. None of them are ‘terrified’. Later Parker attributes the question
‘Trust Us. Why Would We Lie?’ to Monsanto. In fact, he is asking the very same
question to his readers about himself. He gives us little reason to trust him.
A few studies are cited in the
time-honored tradition of cherry-picking – a disconcertingly common form of
argument among anti-GMO folks. What one typically does is not just cite the
reference that supports your a priori belief, but also cite others that
produce different results…like what happens in the real world of science, and
good journalism; but not in this fictional one. Of course, one would have to
actually read those other works, and think about them, and weigh the
evidence…not the strong suit of someone like Mr. Parker. The weight of evidence
is important in science. A 2009 study by Gurian-Sherman that failed to support
the claim that GM crops produce higher yields is discussed, but no inkling is
given that studies have been mixed on this issue. Besides the fact that GM
crops currently in commercial use are not generally engineered for greater
yield directly, many studies have found that they do have greater yield than
conventional crops (A 2-part review in Annual Review of Plant Biology (2008 &
2009) by Peggy Lemaux, of UC, Berkeley, provides an excellent review and entry
into the scientific literature in general.).
Another argument put forth by Parker
(and others) is that the FDA ‘approves GM crops by doing no testing of its own;
it simply takes Monsanto's word for their safety.’ It is not the purview of the
FDA to approve GM crops. They approve foods. As such, they are downstream in
the regulatory process from Monsanto and its immediate products. It is the EPA
and USDA that approve GM crops (or the transgenes and their products in the
case of the EPA); all 3 agencies play a role however. While they do no testing of
an applicant’s products on their own they do not ‘take Monsanto’s word for it’.
They require specific studies with the cost of the research to be borne by the
applicant (not the taxpayers), and they subject the data, results, and
interpretations of the applicant to scrutiny by expert scientists. If the methods
or data are found wanting, more data is required. (This all comes at a cost of
from $6-15 million (Nature Biotechnology 25:509–11), a major reason why public institutions
don’t play a greater role.) Some of this ends up in the peer-reviewed
literature and so goes through another layer of scrutiny. Not ideal, but a far
cry from ‘taking their word for it.’ One can make a reasonable case for the
insufficiency of testing of GM crops, and foods derived from them, but what we
have here is something else. Lying is not the best tactic for a ‘journalist’.
Parker states ‘Monsanto understood
early on that the best way to stave off bad publicity was to limit research.’ A
simple search on Genamics (correct spelling) Journal Seek (http://journalseek.net/) found 227 journals
publishing on genetic engineering. How has research been ‘staved off’? Citing a
filmmaker as source, Parker claims that ‘95 percent of genetic-engineering
research is paid for and controlled by corporations like Monsanto.’ You mean
all those people who I’ve heard speak at conferences, whose papers I’ve read, who
worked in universities, and who were funded by the NIH and the NSF and the USDA
were only the 5%? I really want a better source of data than a filmmaker here
(who has been doing some cherry picking of his own). I don’t have much time but
I looked in the acknowledgements in the first 10 papers from 2013 I found that involved
genetic engineering and only 1 group received funding from Monsanto. That’s 10%
(of a very small sample, true). And no, the scientists are not all keeping it a
big secret. Certainly Monsanto (and Syngenta et al.) does extensive in-house
research that is not shared, and more of the pie should go to public
institutions, but 95% is a stretch. In fact, while 80% of the commercialization
of GM crops has come from corporations, a substantial amount of the research
innovation comes from public institutions (Lemaux, 2009, cited above).
Finally, on GM crops and resistance
to pesticides and pesticide use: weeds and insects become resistant to any
strategy to kill them. Always have, always will. Resistance to Bt crops has
actually been much longer in coming (few examples after 15 years) than to
conventional insecticides (usually after about 1-3 years). Parker cites pesticide
use data from a 2012 paper by Charles Benbrook (though he doesn’t say so, perhaps fearful that readers would see how few sources he uses). He
doesn’t mention another 2012 paper by Brookes and Barfoot that contradicts
Benbrook’s results. I found Benbrook’s analysis fairly persuasive but Parker doesn’t
tell the whole story. Insecticide use in Bt crops has decreased by 123 million pounds over the same period, indicating an
ecological benefit of these crops. The overall increase is from herbicide use
(not surprising when you have crops specifically engineered to tolerate them to
allow easier spraying–a misguided innovation, its true). Note as well, that while
many weeds have evolved resistance to Round-Up in the presence of Round-Up
Ready crops; just as many have in conventional crops. Round-Up gets used too
much! Period! (Actually the active ingredient, glyphosate, which is now used in dozens and dozens of products not owned by Monsanto.) The nub is that if they dropped using Round-Up farmers would move
to other, more toxic herbicides.
I wish I could go on. This article
was riddled with fallacious argument, distorted information, and withheld
information. It deserves a more thorough critique. Time and space prevent me.
There are real concerns and risks
in genetic engineering. There are also benefits. Rational and honest discussion
is needed.
To end, I am no friend of
Monsanto. In fact, I think that corporate capitalism in the broader sense is
the real problem; and Monsanto has lots of company in that department.
Links to the articles by Peggy Lemaux are given in a previous post from 1/3/2013, 'GMOs'.
