Every couple of months, or less, a true believer in genetically modified crops posts on my fb feed a meme which asserts (paraphrasing) that anyone who objects to GMOs is an anti-science luddite who would rather see the world starve than embrace a wonderful new technology.
I’ve always been wary of GMOs and my opposition was solidified in 1999 when a study done at Cornell U. was published which showed GM corn pollen to be toxic to monarch butterflies. In that study they dusted GM corn pollen on milkweed leaves – the only plant that monarchs feed on – and in a short time half the insects were dead and the rest had digestive systems that were seriously damaged. The insects fed the milkweed dusted with natural corn pollen suffered no fatalities.
What they were fed was Bt corn, Bt standing for Bacillus thurengiensis, a bacteria which is a natural pesticide. In fact, it’s used by organic farmers to control pests and has been since the 1930s, though the current widespread use of Bt GM crops is lessening its value for organic growing. When Bt is sprayed on a crop, it gets washed off and diluted and has no negative effect on the environment, when it’s part of the plant, the entire plant is toxic to most bugs.
Shortly after the study broke, articles appeared in the NY Times and other mainstream media ‘debunking’ the study. The debunking was based on the fact that there wasn’t that much milkweed growing near GM corn, so it wasn’t an existential threat to the butterflies. Possibly true enough, Bt corn isn’t necessarily a threat to the monarchs, but that’s irrelevant to me. The study merely showed Bt corn pollen to be toxic to the insects.
If you search for ‘GMO butterfly study’ you get an entry for the original Cornell study, back up research from U of Iowa confirming the results, five sites claiming that all types of GMOs really are a threat to the butterflies – counts are down 90% compared to the past – and two which refute that claim saying, as in the original ‘debunking’, there isn’t that much milkweed growing near the crops. What is never debunked is the toxicity to monarchs, that’s not in dispute.
To me that would have been a very loud wake up call to the need for long term studies on mammals. So far there have been no such studies. It’s entirely possible for a natural substance to be benign to one species while toxic to another, but so far we don’t know what effect, if any, that food has on humans. One possible reason no long term studies have been done is that Monsanto, responsible for the majority of GM seeds, takes a dim view of serious studies. Since their seeds are patented, you can’t really do research without their permission. When research is done through other sources and it turns up negative, the company is aggressive in harassing and slandering the researchers. Their profits are at stake and they will do whatever they can get away with to protect that wealth.
The other type of GM crops in widespread use are modified for tolerance to glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide. The original idea, I believe, was that less herbicide would be needed, but it’s turned out exactly opposite. Targeted weeds are gaining immunity requiring the application of increasing amounts of herbicides and with that the appearance of superweeds resistant to any amount of glyphosate.
To begin with I find it hard to imagine why anyone would think it’s a good idea to apply massive doses of poison on food crops and agricultural land. Equally pernicious, is the idea of patenting life and giving control of seeds to corporations. In the past farmers would customarily save a portion of a crop to plant next season, makes perfect sense. But GM seeds must be purchased each year and contracts signed agreeing not to save seeds for later planting. This has led to quite a few farmers being sued by Monsanto.
The experience of Percy Scmieser, corn farmer in Saskatchewan, is a case in point of the evils of this system. He never purchased Monsanto seeds or wanted them; always saved his own, still he was sued by Monsanto for using their patented corn. You see, his field was contaminated with GM pollen blown in from neighboring fields. They got him because even after he knew of that contamination he went ahead and planted those seeds anyway. So now it’ll be virtually impossible for any farmer who’s fields aren’t completely isolated form others to grow non GM seeds for more than one season. He initially lost, appealed and the case went on for many years. Last I heard he’d been exonerated. I mean, what’s to stop Monsanto from purposely, secretly contaminating the farms of non-GM buyers? I sure wouldn’t put it past them.
Another fascinating and frightening aspect of GM crops is that when you grow them and natural crops together almost all of the pollinating is done by the GMOs. Ninety percent of Percy’s crop was GM. I’ve read before about the uncanny fertility of GM pollen. If GMOs do turn out to be a problem, there’ll be no natural seeds left in America or any country where GM crops are grown.
GM crops will feed the world, we’re told, but everything I’ve read from skeptics and Wikipedia says GM seeds do not increase yields. The only case mentioned in Wiki, in their very long entry, was Bt cotton in India, but then they said the extra cost of the seeds cancelled out the increased yield.
I’ve spent a lot of time in Wikipedia’s section on this subject. There are a lot of studies saying GMOs are not a problem and of course their use is backed up by the US Food and Drug Administration, so they must be okay, right? Obama’s recent pick to head that agency is a former Monsanto exec… in a long line of industry flacks holding positions of authority in the agency, so I trust them as much as a message from Mars.
Many reports say they are substantially the same, which seems to leave some leeway for nasty things to intrude. Substantially but not totally? But how can they be the same when one kills butterflies and the other doesn’t?
Recently an announcement was made that 100 living Nobel laureates came out in favor of modified plants. It was a big deal. The news was everywhere. What wasn’t mentioned is that there are 300 laureates, so 2/3rds declined to sign. Also, very few of them got their prize in a field related to biology. But it’s a good establishment ploy nonetheless: they’re so eager for the public to embrace GM foods, they’ll go to great lengths, like a recent article, reprinted in the Cambodia Daily, which stated that organic food is more dangerous than GMOs. The number one proof of that statement was that a batch of Cliff organic energy bars was found to be contaminated.
So I sarcastically commented in a friend’s pro frankenfood post how great it was to ingest large amounts of agrichemicals. He came back with Stick to the subject, this is about GMOs. Even after multiple pro GMO posts, he along with another pro-frankenfood friend, didn’t seem to realize that a large proportion of GM seeds sold today were modified with a tolerance for Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide. Sure, a batch of Cliff bars is contaminated and that outweighs millions of kilos of poisons applied to the land.
Since Vermont’s mandatory GM labeling law, America’s first, is about to take effect, the US congress is rushing through a labeling law to supersede it. It was designed by the industry: instead of merely printing on the label what it is, which would be so simple, the consumer will be provided with the options of a computer code or free 800 number so they can check with each purchase. Monsanto and its ilk own the government so that even though vast majorities of Americans want to know what’s in their food, industry and their flacks try to obstruct that goal.
As far as I can tell, GM crops add absolutely nothing to agriculture but come at a high price in terms of potential damage to the land, to us human guinea pigs, and the loss of control over the seed stock to a private corporation that has no other allegiance but to profit and no compunction whatever in using any and every means at its disposal to protect those profits.
Cambostan 