Episode 60: “Frankenfoods”

Episode 60: “Frankenfoods”

In the second part of Life, the Universe & Everything Else‘s two-part series examining organic farming and genetically engineered foods, Mark Forkheim, Leslie Saunders, Gem Newman, and Laura Creek Newman discuss the science of genetic engineering and some of the very real problems with Monsanto.

Life, the Universe & Everything Else is a program promoting secular humanism and scientific skepticism presented by the Winnipeg Skeptics and the Humanists, Atheists & Agnostics of Manitoba.

Background Information: Genetically Modified Organism | Genetically Modified Food | Genetically Modified Food Controversies | Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser | WHO: 20 Questions on Genetically Modified Foods

Scientific Papers: Are Organic Foods Safer or Healthier Than Conventional Alternatives?: A Systematic Review | Zambia and Genetically Modified Food Aid | A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health | Impact of GM Crops on Biodiversity

News Articles: Stanford Scientists Cast Doubt on Advantages of Organic Meat and Produce | Corporate Control Main Problem with GMOs | Monsanto Wins U.S. Supreme Court Fight Over Genetically Engineered Soybeans

Health Effects of GE Food: Huffington Post: Monsanto’s GMO Corn Linked to Organ Failure | Forbes: Scientists Savage Study Purportedly Showing Health Dangers of Monsanto’s Genetically Modified Corn | New Scientist: Study Linking GM Crops and Cancer Questioned | Dot Earth: Single-Study Syndrome and the GMO Food Fight | Discovery News: GM Corn-Tumor Link Based on Poor Science | Respectful Insolence: Bad Science About GMOs: It Reminds Me of the Antivaccine Movement

Insects and Colony Collapse Disorder: Forbes: Science Collapse Disorder: The Real Story Behind Neonics and Mass Bee Deaths | Dr. Doug Yanega: Honey Bees, CCD, and the Elephant in the Room | Bug Girl: Bees, Pesticides, and CCD: What’s the Evidence? | Bug Girl: Bees and Pesticides (Again) | Genetic Literacy Project: Monsanto v. Monarch Butterflies

Other Links: Mark Lynas: Lecture to Oxford Farming Conference | Mark Lynas: Time to Call Out the Anti-GMO Conspiracy Theory | Skeptoid: Organic Food Myths | Skeptoid: Organic vs. Conventional Agriculture | Pharyngula: Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad GMO? | Neurologica: Organic Food, Pesticides, and Cancer | Kevin Folta: More Frankenfood Paradox | Michael Eisen: The Anti-GMO Campaign’s Dangerous War on Science | Growing Resistance: Canadian Farmers and the Politics of Genetically Modified Wheat, by Emily Eaton | Seeds of Death | “Monsanto Protection Act” is Bullshit | Oxfam: There is Enough Food to Feed the World | Nature: Case Studies: A Hard Look at GM Crops | GreenBiz: Organic Food is Not the Answer | NPR’s The Salt: Top Five Myths of Genetically Modified Seeds, Busted | Skepchick: Babies and Bathwater: Monsanto

Contact Us: Facebook | Twitter | Email

Listen: Direct Link | iTunes | RSS Feed


Update (3 December 2013): Séralini et al.’s controversial study claiming to demonstrate that GE corn causes cancer in rats has been retracted. We discussed a few of the (many) problems with the study on this episode, but if you need a refresher, Steven Novella has more at Neurologica.

Advertisements

Episode 59: Organic Agriculture

Episode 59: Organic Agriculture

In the first part of Life, the Universe & Everything Else‘s two-part series examining organic farming and genetically engineered foods, Mark Forkheim, Leslie Saunders, Gem Newman, and Laura Creek Newman discuss the science, politics, and ideology of organic agriculture.

Life, the Universe & Everything Else is a program promoting secular humanism and scientific skepticism presented by the Winnipeg Skeptics and the Humanists, Atheists & Agnostics of Manitoba.

Background Information: Organic | Organic Compound | Organic Model | Organic Farming | Organic Food | Green Revolution | Groundwater | Aquifer | Topsoil | Haber-Bosch Process

Scientific Papers: Glenlea Long-Term Crop Rotation: Historical Research Results | Are Organic Foods Safer or Healthier Than Conventional Alternatives?: A Systematic Review

News Articles: Pesticides Found in Canadian Organic Produce | Battling Foreign Farm Subsidies | Canada’s Organic Food Certification ‘Little More Than an Extortion Racket’ | Less Fertile Crescent: The Waters of Babylon Are Running Dry | Land Rush Leaves Liberia’s Farmers in the Dust | Stanford Scientists Cast Doubt on Advantages of Organic Meat and Produce

Other Links: Mark Lynas: Lecture to Oxford Farming Conference | Mark Lynas: Time to Call Out the Anti-GMO Conspiracy Theory | Skeptoid: Organic Food Myths | Skeptoid: Organic vs. Conventional Agriculture | Worldwatch: Can Organic Farming Feed Us All? | Health Canada: Pesticides and Food | We Love Chemicals | 2013 World Hunger and Poverty Facts and Statistics | Neurologica: Organic Food, Pesticides, and Cancer | Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, by Jared Diamond | Growing Resistance: Canadian Farmers and the Politics of Genetically Modified Wheat, by Emily Eaton | Food, Inc.

Contact Us: Facebook | Twitter | Email

Listen: Direct Link | iTunes | RSS Feed

Mark Lynas Examines Junk GMO Anti-science

Cross-posted from Startled Disbelief.

While you wait with breath bated for this weekend’s Life, the Universe & Everything Else episode on Organic Agriculture, I’d recommend giving this article a read.

Here, Mark Lynas (who has rapidly become my favourite environmentalist) takes aim at a junk science paper out of Australia claiming that a diet consisting of only “genetically modified” grain vastly increases the risk of severe stomach inflammation in pigs. Really, it shows nothing of the kind.

15% of non-GM fed pigs had heart abnormalities, while only 6% of GM-fed pigs did so. Similarly, twice as many non-GM pigs as GM ones had liver problems. Why no headlines here? “Pigs fed non-GMO feed 100% more likely to develop heart and liver problems, study finds” – I can just see it in the Daily Mail. But of course negative results were not what Carman et al were looking for.

Table 3 actually shows that many more pigs fed non-GMO feed had stomach inflammations than those with GMO feed. So 31 non-GM pigs had “mild” inflammation, while only 23 GM pigs had it. For “moderate” inflammation, a GMO diet again seemed to be beneficial: 29 non-GM pigs had moderate inflammation of the stomach, while 18 had it. So that’s 40% vs 25%. Do Carman et al perform a test for statistical significance to see if GMO feed has a protective effect on pigs stomachs? Of course not – that’s not the result they are after. These findings are ignored.

Instead, it is the next line of data that they play up: for “severe” inflammation 9 non-GM pigs were determined to have it, while 23 GM-fed pigs had it. Shock, horror. You can immediately see how the data is all over the place from the previous results, which also rule out any causal mechanism with GMO feed – if GMO feed is causing the severe inflammation, why is the non-GMO feed causing far more mild to moderate inflammation? It’s clearly just chance, and all the pigs are not doing well and suffering stomach problems: about 60% of both sets had stomach erosion.

Previously: Mark Lynas apologises for his past anti-GE activism and calls out the conspiracy-driven thinking that plagues the environmental movement.

Episode 33: News Update

Episode 33: News Update

In this episode of Life, the Universe & Everything Else, Ashlyn Noble is joined by Brendan Curran-Johnson, Mark Forkheim, and Gem Newman to discuss local and international news of interest to skeptics, including teaching kids to program, women banned from Iranian university programs, Amish hate crimes, the Ig Nobel awards, and more!

Life, the Universe & Everything Else is a program promoting secular humanism and scientific skepticism presented by the Winnipeg Skeptics and the Humanists, Atheists & Agnostics of Manitoba.

Links: Back to School Request: Teach Kids to Code | The Mechanical Turk | Anger as Iran Bans Women from Universities | Organic Food No More Nutritious Than Conventional Food (Winnipeg Free Press, The Guardian, The Atlantic) | Amish Guilty of Hate Crimes in Ohio Beard-cuttings | Ig Nobel Awards (Improbable Research, Wikipedia)

Contact Us: Facebook | Twitter | Email

Listen: Direct Link | iTunes | RSS Feed

A Brief Summary of my Thoughts on the Subject of Organic Agriculture and Its More Conventional Alternative

Cross-posted from Startled Disbelief.

We’ve been trying to get an episode of Life, the Universe & Everything Else on the subject of Organic Agriculture together for quite a while. But, as this is a very complicated topic, and I am very busy, we haven’t recorded it yet.

Image (CC BY-SA 3.0) by Bluemoose via Wikipedia

My friend Ali (who you may remember from the LUEE episodes Leaving Faith Behind and Justice and Hate Crimes) asked for my thoughts on the subject, specifically focusing on the question, “Is organic agriculture more environmentally friendly?” And so, here are my thoughts. I’ve tried to keep them brief. But I’m not very good at that. I also tried to stay on topic. But I’m not very good at that, either.

Is “organic” better for the environment? The answer to that seems to be: it depends. Probably, but it’s very complicated.

There have been several large studies that seem to show that the production of organic foodstuffs is no more environmentally friendly than conventional agriculture (and may in some cases be more harmful). See this recent study, for example.

These summaries of the evidence, by Brian Dunning, are pretty good in my opinion:

Organic Food Myths
Is it a revolution in health and the environment, or a counterproductive fad?

Organic vs. Conventional Agriculture
Is organic agriculture truly safer or better for the environment than modern farming?

Amy Davis Roth of Skepchick also did a pretty good job with this Q&A: Ask Surly Amy: Genetically Modified Plants.

My provisional view on the matter is that when it comes to safety or health, there doesn’t seem to be any real difference between organic and conventional agriculture. When it comes to environmental concerns, I tend to lean more toward conventional agriculture, as I am persuaded by the argument that centralized distribution is more efficient, and by the argument that while yields may not be substantially bigger with conventional crops, they tend to be hardier and require fewer “inputs” (fertilizer, etc.). My concerns come in when you have large and aggressively litigious agribusiness companies controlling large swathes of the food supply (which we now do), who have patented certain organisms and who force farmers to be completely dependent on them for seeds year-by-year. This is bad, for a plethora of reasons, most of which should be obvious.

I’ll conclude with a few stray observations about “organic” foodstuffs.

Turning to safety, there was recently a completely terrible study published claiming that GE corn resulted in cancer in rats. For a lengthy discussion (and takedown) from a skeptical oncologist, I recommend reading this. Additionally, a large meta-analysis was recently published, finding no significant nutritional benefits from organic produce.

I am annoyed by the “organic” label, because the term “organic” has a very rigorous and well-defined meaning in chemistry, but not so much when it comes to agriculture. But that’s mostly just me being a linguistic prescriptivist, and I recognise that this position is untenable. (On a side note, the French term, “biologique”, translates as “biological”, which is even worse.)

I am supportive of the “free range” movement. Unfortunately, as far as I can tell “free range” isn’t a regulated term, so there’s no guarantee that the animals involved are actually better treated.

I am concerned that use of antibiotics in livestock may be excessive, and are in some cases used to “enhance productivity” instead of to “target an identified pathogen”. The issue is complicated, however. (This whitepaper has some fairly good summaries, in terms of antibiotic use in agriculture; it does disclose that the conference that generated it was partially funded by Pfizer, etc.)

Also, I advise against using terms like “GMOs” (Genetically Modified Organisms), because every agricultural product is genetically “modified” in some way, via hybridization and/or artificial selection (either intentional or unintential). Instead, I prefer to speak about “GE” foodstuffs (Genetically Engineered).

So, in my mind, there may be good reasons to avoid the products of big agribusiness companies like Monsanto: but these criticisms tend to have more to do with big business and less to do with science.

There remains, of course, much more to be said (about the various things that “organic agriculture” can mean, for example, or the several disparate ideologies that may motivate some people to choose organic), but that incomplete (and probably flawed) analysis of this complex topic will have to stand. For now.

In Which I Feed the Trolls

About a week and a half ago, I posted a letter from Simon Singh, which urged interested parties to sign a petition for British libel reform.

A commenter by the name of “betty” had something to add:

Genetically modified food is our future. Actually, we already eat a lot of it. Is it safe?

“- Media are invited to join Monsanto and other industry stakeholders for the official Grand Opening of the new, state-of-the-art Monsanto Canada Breeding Centre, located adjacent to Monsanto’s existing Canadian Head Office at the University of Manitoba’s Smartpark.Tues, November 23, 201010:30 am to 1:00 pm (lunch provided)”
http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/Monsanto-Canada-Breeding-Centre-Grand-Opening-1354370.htm

Um… I’d skip the lunch.

GMO crops are the main contributing factor in Colony Collapse Disorder which is decimating bee populations worldwide. We’re in for a future of eating gruel if we don’t do something fast. The mainstream media, big business and governments must stop whitewashing GMO science. http://www.energygrid.com/ecology/2010/03po-colonycollapse.html

Somebody from the media needs to crash this party and ask the tough questions!

Need motivation? Check these out:

American Academy of Environmental Medicine calls for immediate moratorium: http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopost.html

The World According to Monsanto: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8hFuuDAZjk

David vs. Monsanto: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E42ndfjnP1g&feature=fvst

The Future of Food: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9Y_QH_c70s

Food, Inc.: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eKYyD14d_0&feature=fvw

Vanishing of the Bees: http://www.vanishingbees.com/

RoundUp causes cancer: http://www.organicconsumers.org/Monsanto/glyphocancer.cfm

Join the protest outside the event.

Please tell a friend.

This comment was flagged for moderation, and I duly marked it as spam because it didn’t actually address anything in the post to which it was appended. Either WordPress made an error or one of my fellow Winnipeg Skeptics bloggers disagreed, approving it for publication. Although the comment wouldn’t pass muster on my blog (it is in violation of several sections of the comment policy), far be it from me to start a fight over something so trivial.

So if you were hoping for a post on the subject of the Winnipeg Skeptics’ recent trip to Winnipeg’s Creation Museum, then I’m afraid I’ll have to disappoint you. You have “betty” to blame for derailing me, because I’m going to briefly address a few of the points that she makes in her comment.

Genetically modified food is our future. Actually, we already eat a lot of it. Is it safe?

It certainly seems to be. Are you asserting that it is not? Oh, goody!

“- Media are invited to join Monsanto and other industry stakeholders for the official Grand Opening of the new, state-of-the-art Monsanto Canada Breeding Centre, located adjacent to Monsanto’s existing Canadian Head Office at the University of Manitoba’s Smartpark.Tues, November 23, 201010:30 am to 1:00 pm (lunch provided)”
http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/Monsanto-Canada-Breeding-Centre-Grand-Opening-1354370.htm

Um… I’d skip the lunch.

That is, of course, your prerogative. I work just across the street: if I had a media pass, I’d stop by for a bite.

To be clear, I’m no huge fan of Monsanto. Based on some of the actions that they’ve taken in the past, I’m of the very tentative view that they’re a bunch of bastards. But that is irrelevant to the question of whether or not genetically engineered foodstuffs are safe.

GMO crops are the main contributing factor in Colony Collapse Disorder which is decimating bee populations worldwide. We’re in for a future of eating gruel if we don’t do something fast. The mainstream media, big business and governments must stop whitewashing GMO science. http://www.energygrid.com/ecology/2010/03po-colonycollapse.html

FAIL.

This was at one time thought to be a potential cause of Colony Collapse Disorder, however no credible research has demonstrated such a link.

From The Status of Pollinators in North America, pages 80–81, published by The National Academies Press:

For honey bees, the concerns involved the potential lethality of insecticidal transgenic proteins, the sublethal effects of these proteins on insect behavior, physiology, and reproduction and the economic effects of transgenic pollen as a contaminant of honey. Malone and Pham-Delègue (2001) reviewed the small literature on this topic and concluded that, in some cases, there are negative but sublethal effects attributable to consumption of transgenic pollens. These effects varied with the identity of the transgene and the amount of its expression but in no case have any effects of transgenic crops on honey bee populations been documented. [Emphasis added.]

Honey bees are not a target species for Bt toxin, however it is not implausible that they may be affected in some way. The alternative to Bt strains would be to revert to using traditional pesticides in larger doses, which could pose similar problems—especially if those pesticides were organic, in which case they could pose additional risks.

Professor Galen Dively, Pest Management Specialist in the Department of Entomology at the University of Maryland summarised the current state of the research very well:

First, the endotoxins currently expressed in Bt corn (Cry 1 types against caterpillars; Cry 3 types against beetles) are not active against hymenopteran insects such as the honey bee, nor do the CCD symptoms resemble those expected in Bt intoxicated organisms. Yes, the increase in bee loss has somewhat paralleled the increase in Bt crops in the U.S., but severe bee losses have occurred in Europe and in areas of Canada where Bt crops were not grown.

It seems very likely that this is a case of correlation (and weak correlation, at that) rather than causation. Wikipedia has a fairly excellent and well-referenced entry on Colony Collapse Disorder, including suggested causes.

But back to “betty”:

Somebody from the media needs to crash this party and ask the tough questions!

Sure. By all means. The press release indicates that several key spokespeople will be available to take questions from the media. That’s why they have these events.

Now that you have the science, let’s take at look at the link that “betty” provided. And I quote:

Forword [sic] by Dan Winter from FractalField

We know that fractality is medically defined as the quality in your heart (HRV) which statistically predicts how long you will survive.

We now know this principle of measuring HARMONIC INCLUSIVENESS — is the way fractality can be measured in EVERY LIVING THING — TO PREDICT ITS SURVIVAL:

  • applies to forests ( Bioacoustic Habitat Theory)
  • voice analysis (Signature Sound Works, Biosonica, Biowaves.com etc)
  • AND BY EXTENSION — it follows that harmonic inclusiveness — measuring FRACTALITY — can be used accurately, scientifically — to predict the viability / survival of EVERY LIVING THING ( atoms, babies, galaxies, .. the Dodeca — Universe etc etc..)

SO — now lets apply that to DNA.

Do you know what would be the DEATHLY OPPOSITE of harmonic inclusiveness or FRACTALITY in DNA?

THAT… would be… MONOCULTURE — A PHILOSOPHY OF DEATH FOR SELF-ORGANIZATION in all of DNA.

Winter then goes on to prove that Monsanto is evil by searching Google for “monsanto+evil” and reporting the hit count. He uses the same technique to prove that aspartame is poison (I think that there should be a Godwin-style internet law about this one). I appreciate that among the four or five items that fit into the category of “EVERY LIVING THING”, only one is actually alive. Also, what the hell is a dodeca-universe? A universe with twelve sides? The crazy is strong with this one.

To be fair, that’s just the foreword. The actual article is written by someone who could actually rub two words together to make a fire. (What? What does that even mean?)

Unfortunately, the actual arguments that he uses to state his case are tenuous hypotheticals (which are, in my opinion, adequately addressed by the papers that I quoted above), bolstered by claims that some scientists have incorrectly characterised the uses or efficacy of genetically engineered foods (which is not relevant).

Need motivation? Check these out:

American Academy of Environmental Medicine calls for immediate moratorium: http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopost.html

The World According to Monsanto: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8hFuuDAZjk

David vs. Monsanto: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E42ndfjnP1g&feature=fvst

The Future of Food: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9Y_QH_c70s

Food, Inc.: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eKYyD14d_0&feature=fvw

No.

I have a long-standing policy of not wasting my time on YouTube videos: although the rhetoric can be persuasive, video presentations are notorious for not citing their sources, making them incredibily difficult and time-consuming to fact-check. They’re also a lot harder to quote! I’ll take a scientific paper over a video any day.

RoundUp causes cancer: http://www.organicconsumers.org/Monsanto/glyphocancer.cfm

The article in question quotes a 1999 study which purportedly “revealed clear links” between glyphosate exposure and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. I managed to track down what appears to be that very study on PubMed. Although I have access only to the abstract, the conclusion stresses that among herbicides MCPA was most strongly associated with non-Hodgkin lymphoma—RoundUp (glyphosate), a completely different chemical compound, was not listed at all.

However, when pooled with a second Swedish study, exposure to glyphosate was associated with a significant increase in risk of NHL.

The picture is muddied further by a more recent and significantly larger study:

Although there has been little consistent evidence of genotoxicity or carcinogenicity from in vitro and animal studies, a few epidemiologic reports have indicated potential health effects of glyphosate.

Glyphosate exposure was not associated with cancer incidence overall or with most of the cancer subtypes we studied. There was a suggested association with multiple myeloma incidence that should be followed up as more cases occur in the AHS.

This prospective cohort study had 57,311 participants (roughly 30 times as many as the Swedish studies). So it looks like there may be an effect here. Then again, there may not. But it’s important to remember that the (potential) increase in cancer risk is only seen in people who handle the raw herbicides directly, and not in consumers of the foodstuffs.

Also, this is a gigantic tangent with little to do with genetically engineered agricultural products. Sigh.

Join the protest outside the event.

Please tell a friend.

No.

Go away now.

For more “organic” skepticism, see the posts at Startled Disbelief on organic versus genetically engineered foodstuffs.