Hold the Revolution?
Earlier this year, Slate ran a biotechnology-related story with this catchy headline and subhead:
The Green Monster: Could Frankenfoods be good for the Environment?
The once fractious public debate over GMOs (genetically modified organisms) appears to have exhausted itself (no one bothered to comment on the Slate story). Some think the debate is over, you know, kind of like climate change. (Hold the pitchforks, I’m just having some ironic fun.)
Personally, I think the issue is much more complex than either the pro or con side let on. So what to make of this recent study in Science discussed by ecologist Garry Peterson over at Resilience Science? I don’t know, but if I could just find a way to link it to hocky sticks or Anthony Watts, I bet I could get some people to think about it and maybe even write a sneering comment.
UPDATE: This recent piece in Yale Environment 360 is worth reading for additional context. And it’s got shades of that other let-the-data-be-free controversy that is much more well known.
And, of course, as many predicted, the heavy use of round-up on round-up ready crops has led to the emergence of round-up resistant weeds.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/business/energy-environment/04weed.html
Thanks for pointing out that NYT story, which is indeed a cautionary tale. However, the operative words in your comment are “heavy use,” which is something the recent NAS study discussed. From the NY Times coverage in April:
The report found that the crops allowed farmers to either reduce chemical spraying or to use less harmful chemicals. The crops also had lower production costs, higher output or extra convenience, benefits that generally outweighed the higher costs of the engineered seeds.
“That’s a long and impressive list of benefits these crops can provide, and have provided to adopting farmers,” David E. Ervin, the chairman of the committee that wrote the report, said on Tuesday during a webcast news conference from Washington.
But Dr. Ervin, a professor of environmental management and economics at Portland State University in Oregon, warned that farmers were jeopardizing the benefits by planting too many so-called Roundup Ready crops.
All that said, I’m not suggesting that Monsanto is saintly or that GMO’s are not without their drawbacks. It’s just that the genie is out of the bottle. So maybe there should be more attention paid to making GMO’s less ecologically harmful, as opposed to trying to get the genie back in the bottle, which is not likely to happen.
Yes. Most issues are more complex than the committed advocates on either side make out.
However, in cases like this we should also be aware of Mander’s Law. Greenie curmudgeon Jerry Mander points out that (with rare exceptions) the first people aware of ANY technology are its developers, who are necessarily advocates. This puts resistance to any new technology on the defensive from the beginning. Often new technologies are introduced before society can consider the implications.
Which is how genies get let out of bottles. For myself, I think the “precautionary principle” as usually stated is too broad of a brush, but caution is called for. Somehow the burden of proof needs to shift to the advocates of new large scale technologies and away from their opposition.
Excellent point, Michael, especially this: Often new technologies are introduced before society can consider the implications.
That is quite true.
Not sure about the sneeering, but I will do my best. The original abstract seems to read more clearly than the mashup/discussion that is linked to; I’m not entirely sure as to Peterson’s point.
Bt isn’t toxic to all insects — who knew? — but it shouldn’t really be a surprise that when you stop using insecticides you get more insects. The thing with Round-up Ready is that you continue to spray Round-up on your Round-up Ready crop, which will kill everything else until it eventually leads to Round-up Ready weeds, as was stated. I haven’t read the orig article, but the impression is that the use of Bt cotton coincides with the discontinuation of insecticide use. The presence of the Bt cotton is just going to help attract Bt resistant insects, which will have less competition, and which aren’t picky and will eat all the delicious stuff, too. But hey, we stopped using insecticide, and isn’t that the goal? My guess is you would see this kind of thing with basic organic gardening as well, except that it isn’t practiced at anything like the same scale.
Interesting (#5) and too bad that Science article is behind a pay wall. Kinda leaves you at the mercy of the poster for an interpretation, though as you indicate, Peter’s is more a mashup of various other commentary.
Speaking of the Resilience gang, they mostly just link to journal papers or popular articles that have a “resilience” theme. I find that helpful but also frustrating. I wish some of them would consider writing substantive posts every so often, if only to provide better context to the paradigm they advocate.
I was just doing some additional reading and came across this recent article by Bruce Stutz in Yale 360. Bruce, BTW, is a first-rate env and science journalist. He is a former editor-in-chief of Natural History magazine.
Check out the comments to that 360 article too.
‘Thanks for pointing out that NYT story, which is indeed a cautionary tale. However, the operative words in your comment are “heavy use,”’
You are right, I should’ve said “levels of use recommended by Monsanto”.
“The report found that the crops allowed farmers to either reduce chemical spraying or to use less harmful chemicals. The crops also had lower production costs, higher output or extra convenience, benefits that generally outweighed the higher costs of the engineered seeds.”
Both of these points are true. The use of round-up ready corn (maize) has allowed farmers to use round-up rather than atrazine, and that’s a benefit.
“All that said, I’m not suggesting that Monsanto is saintly”
Care to guess what Monsanto said about concerns that greatly increased use of round-up would lead to the emergence of round-up resistant weeds?
That’s been my concern about GMOs. The “frankenfood” arguments are nonsense, but the industry has tended to treat informed concerns as being equally unfounded.
(#8): The “frankenfood” arguments are nonsense, but the industry has tended to treat informed concerns as being equally unfounded.
I totally agree.
Not in Europe
Yes, good point, Eli. I was thinking specifically of the situation here, and of the past political fight over who controls field-testing of GMOs, how much is needed, oversight and regulation, etc. Monsanto and others won that battle here in the US in a blow-out.
(#11) The battle was won in the late 1980s early 1990s. The landmark FDA decision that gave Monsanto et al carte blanche was creating the principle of Substantial Equivalence. GMOs were assumed to be the substantially the same as any other other crop/food product therefore no testing req’d. The EPA took bit of different tack and does ask for some testing.
Years ago I interviewed some involved in the intense behind the scenes battle on some of this. The gung ho-new-profitable industry-for-America molecular biologists won.
Thanks for the details, Stephen.
Now, I want the reader to ask himself: why AEI enthusiasts prefer to take issue with climate science than the issue discussed here?
Must be the satellites.