The
Royal Society (the United Kingdom's oldest science organization) has
released a slick information guide pitching genetically modified organisms
(GMO's). It's a document giving 18 answers to 18 questions about
GMO's.
A page from the info guide
At
the beginning of the document there is some cleverly worded text
designed to make you think that the document is going to be a
balanced look at the topic of GMO's. We are told that balanced focus groups
were created:
There
were eight groups in total and 66 members of the public took
part. Participants were recruited for a range of views based on those
for and against GM or who were undecided, in order to reflect the
findings of a nationally representative survey on the subject.
But
these focus groups were just kind of a smoke screen, because we are
then told that “the following set of 18 questions was
the outcome of the responses from the focus groups,” and that the
answers to the questions were written by “a group of experts
who have endeavored to ensure the answers are factual, as much as
possible, and not associated with any value judgment.” So the focus
groups were ignored when writing the answers to the questions.
That's hardly a technique for providing a balanced examination of an
issue. The claim that the answers in the document are “not
associated with any value judgment” is misleading, because the
answers do actually make value judgments such as favorable judgments
about genetically modified crops.
The
key question addressed is question 8, which is “Is it Safe to Eat
GM Crops?” The following answer is given:
Yes.
There is no evidence that a crop is dangerous to eat just because it
is GM. There could be risks associated with the specific new gene
introduced, which is why each crop with a new characteristic
introduced by GM is subject to close scrutiny. Since the first
widespread commercialisation of GM produce 18 years ago there has
been no evidence of ill effects linked to the consumption of any
approved GM crop.
Asking
“Is it safe to eat genetically modified crops” is not asking the
right question, because “is it safe” questions are so vague and
debatable that almost any answer can be justified. Is it safe to
drink three glasses of vodka a night, or to drive at 70 miles an hour
on the highway, or to live in a beachfront house in Florida (where
hurricanes are common)? It is easy to make a case for either the
“yes” or “no” answers.
A
much better question to ask is: is there a reasonable chance that you
will be harmed if you consume genetically modified crops? The answer
to this question is: yes, there is. Such a chance is probably much
less than 50%, but it is substantial nonetheless. The roles that
genes play are often extremely complex and obscure. It is not very
unlikely that we may discover harmful effects from genetically
modified food. While each genetically modified crop may be tested
before it is released, there is still the possibility that eating
certain combinations of genetically modified crops might turn
out to be dangerous. Similarly, neither carbon nor oxygen is harmful
in itself, but a certain combination of them (carbon monoxide) can be
fatal.
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. The incident was a great black mark on
contemporary bio-science, and seems like a very troubling attempt at
a cover-up. After a long delay another scientific journal published
the study. See here for
other information about the study.
We
hear no specific mention of Seralini's research in the long Royal Society
document on GMO's. The Royal Society document inconsistently states
the following about genetically modified foods (GM):
Since
the first widespread commercialisation of GM produce 18 years ago
there has been no evidence of ill effects linked to the consumption
of any approved GM crop....There have been a few studies claiming
damage to human or animal health from specific foods that have been
developed using GM.
The
second statement contradicts the first statement, particularly since
the Royal Society document does nothing to dispute these “studies
claiming damage to human or animal health from specific foods that
have been developed using GM” other than to weakly note they have
been “challenged.”
Should
we think that genetically modified foods are very safe on the grounds
that “Since the first widespread commercialisation of GM produce
18 years ago there has been no evidence of ill effects linked to the
consumption of any approved GM crop”? Not necessarily. As they say
in the investment industry, “Past results do not guarantee future
results.” The fact that something hasn't yet produced much harm
doesn't show it won't produce harm in the future. The passengers on
the fatal flights of the Hindenberg and the Challenger probably
thought they were safe, on the grounds they were using technology
which hadn't failed in quite a long while.
Beware
of experts telling you something is safe based on a past performance
record. At about the beginning of 2008, the financial experts such as
Standard and Poor's told us that CMO tranches were a very safe
investment, based on their previous performance record. But in 2008
such investments experienced a disastrous large-scale failure, with
defaults aplenty, and investors losing billions. If something
unexpected like that happens with genetically modified foods, we
might see a large-scale loss of life.
Question
13 of the 18 questions asks this about genetically modified crops:
“GM crops have only been around for 20 years, might there
still be unexpected and untoward side effects?” The answer given by
the Royal Society document is: yes. So if there might be unexpected
and untoward side effects from eating genetically modified crops, as
the Royal Society document admits in answering Question 13, why was
the answer it gave to question 8 (“Is It Safe to Eat GM Crops?”)
a simple “Yes” answer? Given what the Royal Society has answered
for question 13, it seems that the answer to question 8 (“Is It
Safe to Eat GM Crops?”) should have not been a simple “Yes, “
but instead something like, “Probably, but there may be unexpected
and untoward side effects from eating genetically modified crops.”
See
this link for a critical analysis of the deficiencies of the Royal
Society document on GMO's, which has some notable omissions and
inconsistencies.
The
Royal Society information guide answers 18 questions about genetically modified
food, but it doesn't answer the question below, which would make a
useful addition to their guide.
Their guide left out this Question 19
Postscript: This news story claims that an emeritus professor writing pro-GMO pieces was secretly taking $57,000 from one of the leading GMO manufacturers. (Conversely, I have never received any money or benefit from any organization that is in any way related to any of my blog posts, excluding the government that benefits citizens such as me.) A recent ethically troubling news story tells us, "The blueprint for life - DNA - has been altered in human embryos for the first time in the UK." This raises the question: what will they do with the monsters that will result from trial-and-error experimentation with DNA in human embryos? Will they coldly kill off such bad results, or lock them up, as suggested in the speculative visual below?
No comments:
Post a Comment