The
book Altered
Genes, Twisted Truth
by Steven M. Druker is an extremely thorough look at potential
hazards involved genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The book has
been endorsed by more than 10 PhD's, some of which are biologists.
Here is a rather terrifying passage from page 192 of the book:
Accordingly,
several experts believe that these engineered microbes posed a major
risk. Elaine Ingham, who, as an Oregon State professor, participated
in the research that discovered those lethal effects, points out that
because K. planticola are in the root system of all terrestrial
plants, it is justified to think that the commercial release of the
engineered strain would have endangered plants on a broad scale –
and, in the most extreme outcome, could have destroyed all plant life
on an entire continent, or even on the entire earth...Another
scientist who thinks that a colossal threat was created is the
renowned Canadian geneticist and ecologist David Suzuki. As he puts it, “The
genetically engineered Klebsiella could have ended all plant life on
the continent.”
For
years scientists have been creating genetically modified organisms
that have been introduced into our food supply. We are told that
such GMO food products are safe. But there are reasons for thinking
great hazards may be involved.
One
reason is that there is no way to determine that a GMO is safe merely
by testing it in the lab. This because such organisms are released
into the environment, which has far too many variables for any
scientist to keep track of. An organism that may seem safe when
tested under lab conditions may turn out to be a killer or
cancer-causer when introduced into an ecological system that has way
too many variables and unknowns to ever be properly simulated in the
lab.
A
second reason for doubting the safety of GMO's is that every
genetically modified organism or GMO is its own particular case, and
safety successes in the past never guarantee the safety of new GMO
projects. Every single new GMO is a new piece of technology that may
have risks. It's rather like this: I may mix together 40 different
combinations of chemicals, without any problem; but it is still
perfectly possible that the forty-first combination of chemicals that
I try may cause an explosion (or lethal gas) that kills me. A similar
situation holds for GMO's. Claims that a “40 year-success record
prove that GMO's are safe” are not valid, because every new type
of GMO is a new unproven piece of technology that might blow up in our
faces.
A
third reason for doubting the safety of GMO's is that we don't
understand enough about life to be very confident about the safety of
genetic engineering. Many scientists have a bad habit of exaggerating
human knowledge about biology, often advancing an unwarranted
triumphalist narrative making it sound as if they have godlike
insight into the inner workings of biology. The truth is very
different. We do not understand at all the origin of life, and do
not understand even basic issues such as morphogenesis, how a
fertilized ovum is able to progress into a newborn baby. We do not
even understand where the body plans of humans come from, as I
discuss in my post The
Gigantic Missing Link of Biological Life.
Contrary to common claims that DNA is some blueprint for the human
body, the “language” used by DNA seems to be a “bare bones”
semantically-minimal language entirely incapable of expressing
anything like a three-dimensional arrangement of parts. It's a
language suitable mainly just for creating lists of chemicals. The
Human Genome Project, which was supposed to offer great insight into
life, has revealed a baffling sea of complexity which scientists are
pondering with little insight, rather like historians who scratched
their heads about Egyptian hieroglyphics before the Rosetta Stone was
discovered.
In
Chapter 11 of his book Druker has an excellent chapter comparing the
difficulties of changing computer code you don't understand with the
difficulties of genetic engineering. Pointing out “the inescapable
risks of altering complex information systems,” Druker says quite
correctly that DNA is information of high complexity and low
comprehensibility. By messing with that code, we are rather like
newly-hired programmers who start making changes in some very old
legacy system with 5 million lines of code the programmers don't
understand, without understanding the ramifications of their changes.
A golden rule of programming is: don't screw around with legacy code
you don't understand. But genetic engineering requires that
scientists do just that. Also, DNA is not written in anything like
readable high-level programming code written in a language such as
Java. It's intelligibility level is much closer to binary code –
streams of 1's and 0's that you cannot understand by reading. Most
programmers know that trying to edit binary code is a “Russian
roulette” type of business.
Druker
argues that given such a situation, we should not even be using the term
“genetic engineering,” since engineering is what goes on when you
have a mastery of what you are building or changing. A more accurate
term, he argues, is bio-hacking.
Druker
urges a banning of all GMO's, but there's a much less drastic step we
can take: the step of labeling all foods with GMO's, so that
consumers can choose not to consume them if they are concerned about
their safety. Labeling of GMO foods is supported by 93% of all
Americans, and is required practice in many countries. With
labeling of GMO's, you can choose not to be a blindfolded lab rat in
the big gene gamble.
But
many scientists stand in opposition to GMO labeling. Why?
In many cases this is because they have a financial interest in the
spread of the genetically modified organisms. Many are employed
directly by biotechnology firms that sell GMO products. Many other
biologists take consulting money (directly or indirectly) from
biotechnology corporations. The vested interests of biologists or
biochemists may be clouded in various ways. For example, the
biologist may be paid for writing on some web site that gets half of
its money from biotechnology corporations, which gives the money to
spread the message that GMO's are safe. Or a biochemist may work for
a research unit at a university that is partially funded by
contributions or contracts from biotechnology corporations.
Given
the many ways in which biologists and biochemists have financial
interests in GMO's, we absolutely cannot trust any “expert
consensus” that GMO's are safe. We should not expect objective
opinions from people who have vested interests or financial interests
in the matters on which they are stating opinions.
The
reasoning used by opponents of GMO labeling are often ridiculous. One
common charge is that it is “anti-science” to ask for GMO
labeling. That's laughable. Genetically modified food products aren't
science – they are technological products that we have the option
to consume or not-consume. It is no more “anti-science” to avoid
consuming GMO's than it is is anti-science not to buy some particular
computer product (a type of computer is not “science” any more
than a GMO, although both make use of scientific knowledge).
It
is also ridiculous to argue that it is “anti-science” to avoid
GMO's because some small committee of the American Society for the
Advancement of Science said they are safe in 2012. An opinion
doesn't become science because some committee of scientists voices
it. Science is the total body of facts collected by scientists. That
body of facts does indeed warrant concern about the safety of GMO's.
Another
argument made is that we must support GMO's because they will help
feed starving people abroad. But such an argument does nothing to
argue against GMO labeling. A safer way of increasing food supplies
is to reduce meat consumption (the grain needed for a meat-centered
meal is typically enough to make six meals that don't use meat).
A
study published in 2012 found that a genetically modified crop and a
herbicide it was engineered to be grown with caused severe organ
damage and hormonal disruption in rats fed over a long-term period of
two years. Eventual consequences for some of the rats included
tumors. Published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, the study was
carried out by a team led by Professor Gilles-Eric Séralini. A kind
of intellectual lynch mob quickly formed, led by pro-GMO
interests, which caused the paper to be retracted on the flimsy basis
that it was inconclusive (using the same criteria we would have to
throw out a third or a quarter of all scientific papers). The
incident was a great black mark on contemporary bio-science, and
seems like a very troubling attempt at a cover-up. Various
ridiculous justifications were given, including untrue claims that
Seralini's team had used the wrong type of rat. After a long delay
another scientific journal published the study. See here for other information about the study.
Such
a study does not show that some GMO food you are eating is unsafe.
But it does show GMO advocates are not telling us the truth when they
claim there is no reason for thinking that genetically modified
organisms may be risky.
No comments:
Post a Comment