Genetically Modified Organisms: Jeopardy or Jackpot?

Norman Borlaug is an amazing man,we should all aspire to be as selfless and motivated as he is. Thanks Brian another great cast.

Nicki, Calgary,Canada
August 05, 2008 1:16pm

what is often not discussed with regards to food production is the impact of mass single crop farming and marketing. There used to be hundreds of varieties of corn to choose from, now they number in the tens. This reduction will have a strong impact when a new pest/microorganism pops-up and wipes out a huge chunk of our food supply. From a marketing perspective many varieties are chosen for their color/shelf life/shipability regardless of the nutritional value and taste. The GMO/non-GMO debate should be given up. How about a debate on food quality and risk management!

ogd, Northern VA
August 05, 2008 10:08pm

The fact that humans(artificial selections) are widely responsible for the way these crops appear today, doesn't put these GMO a Jeopardy. It's definitely a jackpot

JeromeClemente, Manila, Philippines
August 05, 2008 10:22pm

Protecting copyrights on bumpter stickers and T-shirts means you have to support patents for SEEDS?!
For crying out loud, even the GNU project, which aims to abolish software patents, has a copyrighted logo.

Max, Boston, MA
August 05, 2008 10:59pm

Ditto Max. The biotech companies are not out there to feed people, they are their to make as much money as they can by monopolizing the food supply. Patenting seeds? Suing farmers because patented pollen cross-pollinated their crops? Not letting the farmers save and reuse their seed, instead requiring they buy new seed from Monsanto or whatever seed company every year? How could that be right?

I don't think you have really examined both sides of the issue--instead you focus on the media attention-grabbing tactics of GreenPeace so you can dismiss them as a bunch of idots. I'm very disappointed.

Mikel, Louisville, KY
August 06, 2008 6:51am

The opposition expressed in these comments seems to be "someone's making money off it, therefore it's bad!"

I assume the objectors do all their work without pay?

Cambias, Amherst, MA
August 06, 2008 8:29am

Yes, Cambias, that's how the objections would seem if you ignore the part about monopolizing the food supply and the whole point that supporting some types of patents doesn't imply supporting all types of patents. But if you don't object, I'd like to patent your genetic code, the air you breathe, the Pythagorean theorem, and Newton's laws of motion.

Max, Boston, MA
August 06, 2008 9:28am

I don't think their is anything wrong with making money, lots and lots of money, if it can be made ethically. I don't think there is even anything wrong with playing around with the genes of organisms. I just don't trust Monsanto and Dow and the like to either protect the consumer interest nor to adaquately address environmental concerns. Nor do I trust the FDA to do the same. We are talking about the world wide food supply--this is bigger, much bigger, than the concerns about oil. We can live without oil, but mess with the food supply and there can be dire consequences. I don't trust the biotech companies nor the US government to protect this interest.

Mikel, Louisville, KY
August 06, 2008 10:00am

Mikel and Max

You two seem to be completely ignoring a very important detail. That's it's impossible to monopolize the food market. If someone want to grow their own, non enginered crops, they're completely free to do so. Nobody can stop them or prevent them from growing their sub-optimal food.

In the mean time, the rest of us can keep working on feeding the population of the Earth.

Max:
You say
<i>I'd like to patent your genetic code, the air you breathe, the Pythagorean theorem, and Newton's laws of motion.</i>

This is of utter and complete nonsense, which only serves to show your ignorance on the subject. You cannot patent things that you didn't invent. That goes for air, Newton's laws of motion and the existing crops we have now.

Suppose I invent a crop that has a 150% yield, resists all bugs, and grows in winter. Suppose this crop is infertile, so that everyone has to buy each load of seeds from me.

Such a crop would solve all world hunger, but you would oppose it, because poor people can't afford it. Well, here's a suprise: I can't force you to buy my seeds. You can plant anything you want to.

Of course, those seeds will give you greater profit, because I'm smart enough to sell them cheap enough so that we all profit, or nobody would buy the stuff.

Sounds to me like everyone wins, but you're free to point out any flaws you imagine in my reasoning.

Alcari, the Netherlands
August 06, 2008 10:38am

There is one definite harm to poor farmers that I haven't seen described nor addressed: the problem of GMO crops cross-pollinating other plants and spreading the GMO genes. Lest you think "what's wrong with spreading those GMO benefits?", consider the problem of Roundup-ready genes, which confer resistance to glyphosate fertilizer, spreading to dandelions, thistle, or amaranth. Now you have weeds resistant to your primary pesticide. Oops.

Same problem if genes for higher yield or faster growth spread to the weeds growing in the roadside ditch just beside your field. Wind-blown pollen travels a considerable distance, and regulations in the US on crop spacing for GMO crops have been proven inadequate to keep the GMO pollen isolated. So the problem isn't that GMO does bad things in the target crop, it's that you can't limit its effects to that target crop.

GMO crop manipulation is just one more phase in the arms race between crops (aided by humans) and weeds (which have stringent selection pressure due to human activity). We've put another set of weapons on the field, so to speak, and soon both sides will have them.

Numenaster, Tualatin, OR
August 06, 2008 1:00pm

I don't oppose genetic modification of anything, if it's producing better plants than we had before and feeding the world then I'm all for it.

What I'm not so supportive of is the strongarm tactics used by Monsanto and other such corporate giants - like claiming that farmers are violating their patents because their crops were cross-pollinated by GM crops in a neighbouring field.

Scientific progress, definite good thing. Exploitation of poor farmers through a monopoly on certain new technology... not so much.

Matt`, UK
August 06, 2008 4:35pm

Be aware that in at least one of those high profile lawsuits, it turns out that the "poor victimized farmer" was actively and unambiguously stealing the seeds and charging correspondingly higher prices for it. The lawsuit was well justified. Be skeptical...

Eric Schulman, Corona, CA
August 06, 2008 4:38pm

Great article, but it omits the issue of consumer fear of GMO food due to increased risk of cancers, diseases, or other disorders which people may believe are caused by GMO.
I know some people who wont touch anything GM. They believe while altering the gene structures of organisms may produce better strains, it also changes the way that organism works which has to then change the nutritional value of that organism.
Whether this can be susbtatianted by evidence or not - we may never know. Even if we did, could we prove it was linked to GMO?
But in conclusion, with all the other pollutants and toxins in this world, i think GMO benefits far outweigh the risks. We have more to fear with other risks than we do with GMO.
Anthony Despoja.
Adelaide, Australia.

Anthony, Australia
August 06, 2008 11:33pm

Alcari,

You caught me, I didn't discover Newton's laws of motion, but could Newton have patented them? Einstein used to be a patent clerk. Could he patent the Theory of Relativity?

Are you aware of the controversy over patenting human genes?
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/patents.shtml

Are you aware of the debate over Software patents?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate

Are medical procedures patentable in your country?

Now, back to my original point. If you accept one type of patent or copyright, do you have to accept ALL types of patents?

Max, Boston, MA
August 07, 2008 1:43am

Awesome podcast, as ever. Thanks.

Ameel, Melbourne, Australia
August 07, 2008 5:49am

Unfortunately, this is really one of those issues that would be impossible to cover fully in a 15 minute podcast (not that I don't appreciate the effort Brian!). There are simply too many angles to it, scientific AND ethical/ideological, including the many issues brought up by Max & Mikel (as well as the relatively untouched issue of animal genetic modification). While some may argue that these issues aren't directly tied to the act of genetic modification, i.e. there is no gene in rice that when activated makes a Monsanto exec even greedier, you can't simply dismiss them if you want to have a comprehensive and honest discussion on the topic. Similarly, if we want to stick to a purely scientific examination of GMO's, it would behoove us to leave off rhetorical flourishes about "feeding the planet" and "elitists".

C. D., Rochester, NH
August 07, 2008 8:23am

Sorry to be a pain in the arse but if I could just point something out;
"consider the problem of Roundup-ready genes, which confer resistance to glyphosate fertilizer, spreading to dandelions, thistle, or amaranth. Now you have weeds resistant to your primary pesticide. Oops."
Unless you're genetically modifying a Dandelion or Amaranth crop then you they can't be cross-pollenated because they're a different species of plant. This is the same as saying that if a man has sex with a horse it will make a Centaur.

On the subject of monopolies:
Monopolies can't be created where there is free entry into markets, low exit costs, low start up costs or where there is adequate information. Food markets have all of these characteristics. If Monsanto starts charging too much then you can go grow non-Monsanto corn. Cross-pollination suits don't stand up in court in countries other than the US.

Enjoyed the podcast

Paul, Osaka
August 07, 2008 8:56am

Really great episode, Brian!

J. D.

J. D., Silver Spring, MD
August 07, 2008 9:54am

I concur with C.D. that this issue is too big to cover well enough, and picking apart a weak argument (ie Greenpeace) doesn't prove the opposite.

For example, while GMO can theoretically be used to pick any trait once the gene is identified, it tends to be used for two things primarily: yield (including disease-resistance) & shelf-life. While these are good traits, they are not the only traits, nor necessarily the most important. For instance, organic produce has been shown to have approximately 30% more nutrients than non-organic.

There's plenty more details and nuances to even that part alone, but it illustrates the point (I hope) that there is some validity to both sides of the debate.

Jared, NYC
August 07, 2008 11:05am

Max

Well, no. Newton couldn't have patented them, because he only discovered them. Similarly, modern mathematical algorithms can't be patented.

And about medical procedures, yes, they can be patented, which is a good thing. Nonoby is going to spend million of dollars developing a cure that they can't make a profit from. And nobody is off worse because of it. Just because a better, more expensive, procedure is created doesn't mean the other one suddenly disappears(as a note, everyone here has insurance, so we don't actually pay for said treatments)

As for crossbreeding with weeds:
When is the last time you saw a rice/nettle hyrbid? My guess is never, because the two are different species. They can't interbreed, just like a sheep can't interbreed with a wolf.

There are no "bits of DNA" that can randomly transfer between seperate species. That's not how genetics works.

Alcari, the Netherlands
August 07, 2008 12:46pm

Just for the information of all here who are interested, I found the FDA page with lots of documentation related to GMO topics. I've just started to look though some of it. Here is the link:
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/biotechm.html

Mikel, Louisville, KY
August 07, 2008 1:24pm

Jared, did you miss the 'organic' podcast? No good study has show that 'organic' produce is in any way at all more nutritious than food grown in a responsible manner.

Max, these companies invest billions of dollars into producing these higher yield crops, and they deserve to make it back with patents. They are creating just like a company crates a logo, or an artist a picture, so the analogy about the tee-shirts and Greenpeace logo is apt. They make money by producing a product that lets many in the people not starve to death. Seems to be a win-win. If they did something that produced a product to kill or injure any significant portion of their clients, they would lose money. They have incentive to stay safe. No, I'm not saying I trust them, but not trusting a corporation because they might have foolish people in their employ who might not realize that the best way to make money (in the long term) is to be good to people means that you can't trust any organization at all (including Greenpeace). What I am saying is that distrust of a corporation is in no way a good criticism of GMC. If you don't like the way a company does something, that doesn't make the product evil.

Anthony -As far as the cancer thing, if the product doesn't produce a cancer causing substance, it won't cause more cancer. This is tested for, and while we don't know everything that causes every disease, GM doesn't increase the risk any more than eating a different food than you normally do.

Brandon, Falconer NY
August 07, 2008 4:05pm

Alcari,

"Pure" mathematical algorithms aren't patentable, but "useful" algorithms are.
http://www.google.com/patents?q=quicksort
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22our+patented+algorithms%22
Previously, software wasn't patentable, but now it is, and many think it shouldn't be.

Genes and human stem cells are patentable.
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/patents.shtml

The same website says, "The American Medical Association has made a similar request against the patenting of medical and surgical procedures."
Should the American Medical Association's criticism of certain types of patents be dismissed just because they have a trademarked logo? Yes or no?

Max, Boston, MA
August 07, 2008 10:11pm

The presentation of the latest GE podcast followed a similar format to the nuclear power episode. It was unbalanced, and the points 'against' were all dismissed as irrational and unscientific. A number of straw men arguments were posed, and the position of Dunning came across as ideological as much as it did skeptical.

Damian, Malmö, Sweden
August 08, 2008 12:50am

I was willing to give Brian the benefit of the doubt, figuring that as long as farmers and consumers had the choice not to use GM crops, they should not object to others using them. But when I listen to the entire podcast, I realize Brian doesn't like choice. You don't want your crops to be mixed with GM genes? Tough luck. You want to know what's in the food you eat? Too bad for you.

Marc Naimark, Paris
August 08, 2008 12:33pm

Hi Jared, I was hoping you could do me a favour and back up your statement on "nutrients" with definition of the term and some underlying study which proves the initial statement.

Given the vague definition of "nutrient" you could say that as my wristwatch is high in iron it is more nutritious than organic corn, which is comparatively low in iron. (Iron being necessary for red blood cells to carry oxygen, hence why vegans don't make it to the Olympics)

Paul, Osaka
August 08, 2008 8:17pm

I strongly recommend this article:
http://www.slate.com/id/2196772/
which explains how the GM seed companies are not very interested in actually increasing the food supply.

So much for feeding the hungry.

Alcari said:
"You two seem to be completely ignoring a very important detail. That's it's impossible to monopolize the food market. If someone want to grow their own, non enginered crops, they're completely free to do so. Nobody can stop them or prevent them from growing their sub-optimal food."

Actually, no. As more and more small seed companies are bought out by the multinationals, this choice disappears. And in France, for ex, it is illegal to sell seeds not present in the national registry... which is run by the multinational seed companies.

"There are no "bits of DNA" that can randomly transfer between seperate species. That's not how genetics works."
But there can be "bits of DNA" that do randomly transfer between similar species, or GM and non-GM varieties of a species (these random transfers are in addition to the mixing between whole chromosomes). So much for choice, especially when if you happen to plant any of the contaminated seeds, you'll be sued by Monsanto.

Marc Naimark, Paris
August 09, 2008 6:31am

While I don't agree with Greenpeace on this issue, I think this episode did not do the topic justice and was not up to the usual Skeptoid standards. A lot of Brian's arguments boiled down to ad hominems, reductio ad absurdum and straw man arguments.

Brian writes: "there must indeed be very good evidence that GMO crops are only safely handled by hazmat disposal teams"

Well, no. That was a publicity stunt. You don't watch a Stimorol ad and then proclaim that there must be good evidence that chewing gum allows you to freeze stuff with your breath. Greenpeace doesn't think that you need to wear these suits to handle this food; they wear them to get attention, and everyone knows it.

Brian writes: "First of all, it's hardly a "very imprecise technology"; gene manipulation requires great precision"

The fact that gene manipulation requires great precision does not mean that it is a precise technology. I'm a software engineer. Writing code requires great precision, but software in general still has a lot of bugs. The very fact that something requires great precision may make it more likely to be imprecise!

"All plant species are potentially invasive, and that's why farmers use good management techniques."

Which don't work. Foreign species are introduced into eco systems by accident often already, sometimes with disastrous results for native species. GMOs increase the probability of this occurring.

I would write more, but luckily, my character count is down to almost zero :-)

Lukas, Zürich
August 09, 2008 7:24am

I work in a genetic engineering lab, so i was interested to know what you had to hear on this one. Generally you present a valid opinion, but there's on bit you got wrong.

You quoted Greenpiece saying "Scientists add genes that confer resistance to common antibiotics." then said "What they meant to say is..."

Firstly antibiotic resistance genes wouldn't help crops resist baterial infection, they help bacteria (or other cells) resist the tioxic effects of antibiotics.

Secondly we actually do include antibiotic resistance genes in GMO's, because after we have tried to "transform" the plant tissue with the gene of interest, we need to know which bits have been transformed successfully. So we attach an antibiotic resistance gene to the gene we are trying to incorperate into the GMO then we grow the tissue on media containing this antibiotic and only the successful "transformants" will survive, and we grow adult GMO's from this surviving tissue.

This is a bit risky in that there is the REMOTE posibility that pathogenic bacteria could aquire this gene to resists medicinal antibiotics. But the chances of a pathogenic bacteria picking up a gene from a GE plant are pretty low (for various reasons). Also, because we want to use cheap antibiotics (due to how many bucket loads we use), if a pathogen develops resistance to them there will be "second line of defence" antibiotics available that will still kill it.

kirstin, Australia
August 09, 2008 7:35am

Atually Marc if I could just interject for a second on this:

"As more and more small seed companies are bought out by the multinationals.. (consumer choice disappears)"

This is not how capitalism works. Many of the small seed farmers are bought out because they're hideously inefficient and bleeding money. However this oes not change the point that it is impossible to create a monopoly in the food market for three reasons:
- Free entry into the market (anyone can start a farm growing anything they want)
- Low Entry Costs (seed isn't too expensive)
- Freedom of enterprise (I assume your don't live in a communist state)

Secondly
"But there can be "bits of DNA" that do randomly transfer between similar species"
Sorry but no there aren't. Be careful how you throw the word species around because it's a specific definition. I can't mate with a Bonobo and create the missing link because we're different species, regardless of how how close their relation is.

Paul, Osaka
August 09, 2008 6:37pm

Responding to Greenpeace already sets up a strawman, but Brian can't even knock it down without creating even more strawmen.

"Gene manipulation requires great precision."
Here, Brian expresses faith in the human ability to screw with nature, as if this never comes back to bite us. The one time he expressed skepticism about it was the Global Warming episode, where he said, "The Earth is simply way too complicated for any person to be able to claim to understand."
Brian could argue that benefits outweigh risks, but instead he simply dismisses the risks.

"Do we stop all scientific research in every field..."
Nobody objects to scientific research in the lab, but don't turn a country's population into guinea pigs.

On the issue of patents, Brian starts with a false dichotomy (You're either against all patents or for all patents), and adds an ad hominem (They sell T-shirts, so their criticism is invalid).

"Cross pollination has nothing to do with GMO."
Unless you consider it together with the patent issues and the potential toxicity and invasiveness specific to GMO.

"Genetic engineering is unnatural"
Again, this relates to patents and potential toxicity, not just morality. But Brian even dismisses moral arguments as irrelevant. Are ethical review boards irrelevant too?

Max, Boston, MA
August 09, 2008 9:46pm

Oh, here's one I missed, but probably should mention:

"This is true of all patented products in the world. Even Greenpeace retains strict control over their legally protected properties, profiting from T-shirt and bumper sticker sales"

This is just weird. Brian, are you seriously confused about the difference between Patents and Copyright, or do you intentionally pretend that all types of intellectual property are the same?

Lukas, Zürich
August 09, 2008 11:47pm

GM technology is a unarguably a good thing to anyone with even the slightest of utilitarian leanings, or any reasonable person for that matter.
Without its applications (as mentioned by Brian in the podcast), at best, 'natural' habit would even more rapidly become more sparse, due to the greater area needed for arable cultivation to produce equivalent yields, and at worst, some form of Malthusian nightmare could be realised.
The latter may sound rather extreme, but lessons that should have been learned from places like Rwanda tell us that it is certainly not outside of the realms of possibility.

Wesley Harding, South Wales
August 10, 2008 5:29pm

At worst, GM technology will lead to "some form of Malthusian nightmare" by encouraging even more breeding in already overpopulated areas. Even if you can make enough mutant food or Soylent Green to stave off starvation, you still have to contend with disease and war, the other consequences of overpopulation.

Max, Boston, MA
August 10, 2008 9:15pm

Paul,

I'm afraid you are mistaken. An oligopoly is very possible, and basically exists now in many countries.

"- Free entry into the market (anyone can start a farm growing anything they want)"
No, not in many places. As I said before, in France, for instance, only seeds registered in the official national catalog may be sold. There are many heritage varieties of fruits, vegetables, and flowers whose seeds it is *illegal* to sell in France. And the catalog is controlled by the major seed companies...

"- Low Entry Costs (seed isn't too expensive)"
Perhaps, but seed distribution is. If a seed producer doesn't have the means to get its varieties approved, or to market them, or to find a distribution network, it cannot enter the market.

"- Freedom of enterprise (I assume your don't live in a communist state)"
Food production is, rightly, highly regulated, even in countries with freedom of enterprise. And regulation is often associated with barriers to protect the existing players and to resist the arrival of new competitors. You live in Japan: can I sell rice there as a please?

If you define "species" as the inability to reproduce outside the species, you're correct. But the edges between species are fuzzier than a rationalist like yourself would like. And within what you would define as species, there are any number of varieties of plants that make the issue of gene transfer very critical. (I was thinking about gene shuffling in my reply, but simple reproduction works too.)

Marc Naimark, Paris
August 11, 2008 2:13am

I enjoy these podcasts, they always contain several great points and come across as highly objective. This one though seems to be more of a slam against green peace and less of an examination of the science, and dare I say bio-ethics, behind GMOs. I think Max, from Boston, picked up on alot of the logical fallacies I couldn't name but could smell from a mile away. Keep em' coming Mr. Dunning, I'm not gonna let this one sour me!

Gil L., Orlando, FL USA
August 11, 2008 1:53pm

This piece reads like a marketing brochure for the large agricultural companies. And is supposed to be about GM foods or Greenpeace?

For me, the biggest reason to avoid heavily GM'd food is because there really isn't an economic incentive for these corporations to thoroughly test the organisms they create. It's much more cost effective for them to just "toss it out there" and hope that nothing happens to people.

Sure, I'm not going to start vomiting blood twenty minutes after I eat, but what type of effect will it have on me in twenty years?

These companies have the right to make whatever they want, and as long as I'm not FORCED to eat it, then we can all be friends.

Of course, that's not in their best interest, so that's why they don't want to have to label their GM goods. They say it's unfair to have to label their foods. I say it's unfair (and suspicious) to hide what I'm being fed.

Apparently, I'm even more skeptical than skeptoid.

Colby Cheese, Chicago, IL
August 12, 2008 12:08pm

Great podcast. I knew we'd have a great slection of Luddite comments on this one. What none of them seem to realize is that we don't have a problem with them objecting to genetic modification via modern methods instead of old-style cross-pollination, grafting, etc. What we object to are their efforts to prevent everyone else from enjoying the benefits of this technoloty. Argue all you want.
Stress your "moral" issues, but don't try to force your enviro-religion down my throat. Leave the scentists and their families alone. And please don't talk about "poor farmers" when you're talking about farmers in the developed world. There are no greater welfare recipeients on the planet than this group.

Simple bottom line. Show me some evidence of real-world bad effects of GMO that is unique to GMO and I'll listen. I've listened closely and no one has presented any yet.

Steve Hall, Highland, IL USA
August 12, 2008 6:41pm

I live in a country that is largely run by luddite neo-medievalists.

Most forms of GMOs are banned here. A very small number of organisms are let in for research purposes, but by and large, it is government policy to ban and exclude these organisms, and in many cases products made from these organisms.

Brenton, New Zealand
August 12, 2008 11:48pm

@Brenton

You live in a country whose main economic resource is its biological environment. It is not "Luddite" to do everything possible to protect this unique resource.

For example, until I visited New Zealand, I didn't really understand NZ opposition to anything nuclear. When I really experienced how isolated you are, what a tiny population you have, and how essential your environment is for your economy, I understood much more. You've got a quarter of the entire population of your country in one metropolitan area. What happens in case of a nuclear accident in Auckland?

Let other countries play with technology for a while before you start playing dice with the future of New Zealand!

Marc Naimark, Paris
August 13, 2008 1:21am

This podcast is spot on. We have eroding top soils, global warming (potentially) drying up current agriculture belts, and a growing world population with many areas suffering from starvation. GM foods have been around for a long time and we still haven't seen any bad effects and hundreds of millions have benefited, as the podcast relates. Yet people, for the sake of their ideology, would rather put the brakes on GMO and let millions die because there is a small chance that something MIGHT happen in the future? We've been using GMO rice since 1962 and still there is no evidence of any harm, and millions have benefited (a point that I've yet to see an anti-GMO proponent honestly address).

Set down your ideological baggage for a moment and think about what is really going on.

Scott, Seoul Korea
August 13, 2008 9:11am

@Scott
The reason you haven't seen any evidence is because the mechanism to collect evidence hasn't been required. That doesn't mean that GM foods pose a harm. But can you prove to me that the obesity "epidemic" that started in the early 60's isn't in part caused by GM foods that our bodies haven't evolved to digest properly?

The question is meant to provoke thought. I am not a GM opponent.

All I ask is that use is labeled such that further datamining can be performed for long term studies.

Thanks
Ken

Ken Thorpe, Murphy TX
August 13, 2008 1:00pm

@ Marc...

I appreciate what you are saying, but a couple of points.

Firstly, I wasn't talking about nuclear power or weapons. The nuclear ban you mention extends to visiting warships.

Ironically enough, the French government blew up a Greenpeace ship in Auckland harbour, killing a photographer. While French ships are welcome here, US and other nations who "refuse to confirm or deny" the presence of nuclear weapons on board are not.

I would have thought a demonstrated threat, with an actual body count, was more important than a boogey man maybe threat.

This ban also extends to having a reactor capable of creating medical isotopes, by the way. We send cancer patients to Australia for treatment...

But I digress. I was talking about GMOs.

There is no evidence that these things are dangerous, however - we have to import GM vaccines (we get meningitis vaccine from Norway, for example), we can only do limited research here, and while a large chunk of NZs economy is based on agriculture, this is (in global terms) pretty low value stuff.

We *could* be a world leader in GM science and technology, if the neo-medievalists would let us. Our isolation and relatively well educated population make NZ a good place to try out new technologies.

NZers could earn a *lot* more for their exports than they do today - IF we were allowed to do the basic science.

A lot of NZ researchers go straight overseas when qualified, for good reason.

Brenton, New Zealand
August 13, 2008 2:06pm

Brian,

I think that you have confused two separate issues regarding the Greenpeace statement:

"Antibiotic resistance. Scientists add genes that confer resistance to common antibiotics."

Instead of the disease and pest resistance issue that you responded to, I believe that they are referring to the fact that antibiotic resistance genes are attached to the genes being inserted into the crop plants. This is done as a way to select the correct gene and make sure that it is in the right place etc.

There has been concern that these resistance genes could jump to bacteria and become a health problem. But modern genetic engineering techniques have mostly eliminated this risk.

None of this changes the risk assessment very much but I thought that you would like to know.

craig phelps, new brunswick, nj
August 13, 2008 7:14pm

Now that I have carefully read all of the earlier replies, I see that kristin from Australia has already addressed the antibiotic resistance issue better than I.

craig phelps, new brunswick, nj
August 14, 2008 2:09pm

It's apparent to me in our society that our belief that anything that is even the slightest bit morally or spiritually objectionable (real or imagined) must be attacked. If GMO can safely feed the starving, then we should allow it, but such objections only hold back a good thing. If we never did anything because it was risky, or morally and/or spiritually objectionable, we would never do anything period. As a result of this attitude, we are far far less advanced in all areas of science than we would be otherwise.

John G., Minnesota
August 28, 2008 3:27pm

I disagreed with how this podcast was done, but I must admit it really did stir up the conversation. I've enjoyed reading though all the comments.

Mikel, Louisville, KY
September 03, 2008 10:46am

Something I had hoped would be addressed but wasn't was the issue of Roundup Ready crops and the fact that they can actually INcrease the usage of pesticide, as the resistant crop encourages the spraying to eliminate weeds. Dumping tons of glyphosate onto fields is hardly good for the environment.

Also, genes can and do transfer to weeds, and glyphosate resistance has been shown in the weed mustard, which shares close relation to canola and kohl crops. Volunteer plants are also a problem in crop rotations, where the pesticide resistant plants grow again in the following season when you don't want them to, and are effectively a weed that is now difficult to be rid of.

Nevertheless, I support gene technology and think it is necessary in order to move forward in developing better crops. Having worked in a conventional plant breeding operation funded by the government and have seen just how inefficient, time-consuming, and expensive the process is to introduce a single disease resistance into plants. GM technology accelerates this process immensely and for fractions of the cost can rapidly generate the same results. If we could loosen the choke-hold the environmentalists have on government investment into GMOs, perhaps we could avoid this Monsanto thing altogether and make half the debates here obsolete.

Shane, Guelph, ON, Canada
September 18, 2008 2:00am

I just realized why this podcast is called "skeptoid". It's because Brian isn't really a skeptic. A skeptic would be skeptical of both sides and not just attack one extremist group on one side, condemning everyone else by association.

Paul, Walnut Creek, CA
October 05, 2008 2:17pm

Are you saying there are two sides to science? I don't follow.

Eric Schulman, Corona, CA
October 05, 2008 2:21pm

No, he is a skeptic Paul. There are only two sides in a skeptical debate: The truth and the misguided lie. If the evidence points to one thing being true and the other side being misguided, then the skepti has to follow the evidence. There is no presenting two side in this debate because both sides are not equally valid.

For example, I have no reason to think that Australia exists. As far as I know, in the place where Australia is there exists a hole in the ocean and all the people that claim to live there do not really. Did you ever wonder why so many Australians win Academy Awards? It is because the Secret Masters wants us to think that Australia is real and they use the media to keep the lie going.

I do not think that because there is so much evidence for the existence of Australia that to say other wise is just retarded. There are books that speak of it, a 400 year old history with the western world. Hell we had an olympics there. All this evidence points to the fact that if I get into a plane going in a southwesterly direction, Australia will be there wating for me. The evidence is too good for me to think otherwise.

In the case of Greenpeace, the organization conducts terror acts and are allowed to get away with it. They should be held accountable in much the same manner that we hold Islamic Fundamentalists accountable for their actions. The non terror Greenpeacers should do something about the terror makers.

Joseph Furguson, Brawley, ca
October 22, 2008 7:53pm

The UN just released a report on organic farming (non-GMO, I assume) which folks here might want to read. The New Republic has a synopsis: http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/environmentandenergy/archive/2008/11/06/can-organic-farming-feed-africa.aspx

John Karabaic, Cincinnati, OH
November 06, 2008 5:23pm

Anyone saying that closely related species can't breed (although it usually produces sterile offspring), I would point you towards the mule.

Patrick, Orlando
December 05, 2008 5:30pm

What is Green Peace's alternative to GM crops? Keep in mind that we're talking about keeping people from starving to death here. What is the science that suggests that organic non GM agriculture is going to meet the food needs of lesser developed nations? This isn't growing food for an upscale grocery store chain, these are staple crops to feed poor people.

I submit that the anti GM movement needs to do some science here and come up with a viable alternative or get ready to have blood on their hands up to their elbows. Conspiracy theorists and pseudoscientists need to relegate their hobby to topics that don't involve the lives of real people.

Craig, Washington DC
December 07, 2008 3:17am

Patrick - you are quite right. And some quite distantly related species can interbreed, too - especially plants.

It is one of the reasons there are about 15 different definitions (in biology) for the word "species".

Brenton, New Zealand
December 07, 2008 1:15pm

Whenever the subject of GMO crops comes up and people mention "risk" and "harm" I'm always curious what those specific risks or harm might be. People act as if they're going to get cancer from eating GMO corn. By what means would that happen? Is there a carcinogen gene that simply hasn't activated in the centuries we've been eating corn and feeding it to livestock? I guess I've never been clear how doing in a lab what we've generally been doing with plant grafts and cross-pollination is inherently risky. I understand the arguments about patents up to a point, but the literal biological danger of eating GMO food seems to remain vague. As someone has already pointed out, people have been consuming GMO rice for decades. I've seen no evidence of any unusual cancer clusters, reactions to poisons/toxins, or other signs that that particular GMO food has done anything other than keep people from starving.

Lewayne, Near Des Moines
December 18, 2008 8:38am

Lewayne, here's how they make pest-resistant crops.

"More than 100 different variations of Bt toxin have been identified in diverse strains of Bacillus thuringiensis. The different variations have different target insect specificity...
Researchers have used genetic engineering to take the bacterial genes needed to produce Bt toxins and introduce them into plants. If plants produce Bt toxin on their own, they can defend themselves against specific types of insects. This means farmers no longer have to use chemical insecticides to control certain insect problems."

So either way, they're introducing toxins into the food, but perhaps the insecticides are easier to wash or peel off before eating.

But the biggest problem is the one you don't see coming.

Max, Boston, MA
January 03, 2009 12:40pm

If I recall correctly, Bt only activates in an alkaline environment such as found in an insect's stomach. In an acid environment like our own stomachs, it's inert.

James Watson's 2004 book "DNA" explains how this one inclusion has saved farmers from having to use tens of thousands of tons of far more dangerous pesticide since it's introduction. That's tens of thousands of tons of poison saved from going into ground water or lingering in the environment, thanks to GMO.

Jeramie, Denton, TX
January 11, 2009 8:35am

What if you're taking acid suppressors? The small intestine is alkaline because of pancreatic juice.

Pick your poison, as it were.

Max, Boston, MA
January 29, 2009 4:09pm

From Wikipedia: "The toxicity of each Bt type is limited to one or two insect orders, and is nontoxic to vertebrates and many beneficial arthropods. The reason is that Bt works by binding to the appropriate receptor on the surface of midgut epithelial cells. Any organism that lacks the appropriate receptors in its gut cannot be affected by Bt.[11][12]"

# ^ Gill SS, Cowles EA, Pietrantonio PV (1992). "The mode of action of Bacillus thuringiensis endotoxins". Annu. Rev. Entomol. 37: 615–36. doi:10.1146/annurev.en.37.010192.003151. PMID 1311541. http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.en.37.010192.003151?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%3dncbi.nlm.nih.gov.
# ^ Knowles BH (1994). "Mechanism of action of Bacillus thuringiensis insecticidal delta-endotoxins". Advances in Insect Physiology 24: 275–308.

Stefan Thomas, Switzerland
January 29, 2009 7:20pm

compared to the principle of Genetically Modified Organisms ( e.g. Crops ),spraying synthetic chemicals is very visible to kill human beings. The only danger of GMO is when scientists use toxic genes to food crops as a means to erase the earth's population. whether we eat or not GMO, because of lifestyles, life span is shorten...

Ma. Emelita Miguel, Philippines
February 09, 2009 2:36am

open your eyes and please watch:

"the world according to Monsanto"

Pindar, Holland
February 09, 2009 4:04am

"If plants produce Bt toxin on their own, they can defend themselves against specific types of insects. This means farmers no longer have to use chemical insecticides to control certain insect problems."
Max, Boston

Which suggests that they were using the chemical prior to appearance of plants that secrete their own. So, whether it's sprayed on the plant, or produced by the plant, it's still present, and consumed by humans.
And I think later posters mention that Bt is harmless to humans. So, again, by what mechanism is GM going to "harm" consumers?

Lewayne, Near Des Moines
February 19, 2009 10:14pm

You are a completely gullible, superstitious cultist of free-market fundamentalism. Your bullshit is right up there with the Randites like Penn and Teller.

If you had the balls to really tackle the GMO issue you'd have to admit that the multinational corporations pushing GMOs have radically reversed genetic diversity - REAL scientists, not superstitious corporate whores like you frown on that. You'd have to admit that GMOs have polluted crops all over the world, and that the fascist corporations who polluted them have added insult to injury by confiscating crops. That GMOs have bypassed previous standards for wholesomeness and put the burden on the would-be regulators to prove they're toxic. Etc.

You are not a skeptic. You are a bullshit capitalist mouthpiece pretending you understand science. It's people like you that are, literally, destroying the Earth with you cargo cult worship of corporations, intellectual property, and corporation sponsored pseudo-research.

It's very galling a ridiculous fraud like you gets his corporate-funded soapbox to trash environmentalists - most of whom actually know actual science.

Marion Delgado, Eugene OR
April 16, 2009 5:58pm

I honestly don't think I could cram more anger, ignorance, and ad hominem attacks into a single post if I tried. Well done Marion. Instead of addressing even single topic adequately, you peppered several broad statements with insults and pseudo-intellectual terms hoping that everyone would be impressed. That tactic is so often overlooked in rational debate, I applaud you.

Steve Loeffelholz, LeClaire, IA
April 16, 2009 8:08pm

Steve,

You should give him an organic seedless grape as a reward.

Michael, Worcester
April 16, 2009 8:24pm

The coveted Monavie award for buying into poor arguments goes to: Delgado!

Skepticism is the neutral position, Delgado. The skeptic goes wherever the evidence takes them. If there was any weight behind your claims, then there would be evidence for it.

So far the only people that has evidence for their side is the people that play with the frankenfoods.

When you get evidence that it is dangerous, please write back.

Joseph Furguson, Brawley Ca
April 16, 2009 9:52pm

Skepticism is the neutral position, Delgado. The skeptic goes wherever the evidence takes them

This is absolutely not so!
They are only good at defendung and giving the illusion they are going where the evidence takes them

O man o man when are the skeptics going to be honest?

Pindar, Holland
April 19, 2009 7:36am

Pindar, it absolutely is so. Every time I see something new and interesting, if it goes outside of my current knowledge, I step back and assume the null hypothesis: "That cannot be so; there is no phenomenon to investigate until I have a clear, concise, observable claim to research." This is actually what I've said talking to my mathematician friends. "An infinite series cannot have a finite sum, it continues increasing although you try to measure it; please provide me a formula, and if you may spare it, I would like to see how you would derive this formula from summation notation." And guess what? They provided clear, concise, observable evidence that there is something really cool going on. Your other point, that we 'are only good at defendung and giving the illusion they are going where the evidence takes them' is also quite awful. I've read your other posts, and you seem to prefer dancing circles around the issue rather than saying, for instance, 'here is a picture of a Reptoid, seen clearly outdoors walking around the White House, and here is a paper written by a photography expert on why this cannot be edited.' I look forward to your answers and/or rebuttals.

Joseph, Norman
April 19, 2009 12:57pm

Pindar, it absolutely is so

yes I know you people TALK like that
but just look on this side and THINK!

Saying you do is not the same as doing it!

Most skeptics are too closed minded to do!

Pindar, Holland
April 20, 2009 3:56am

Look on which side and think? Pindar, all your side ever does is publish books on nonsense, dance around the issues, and toss mysterious red fish (I think they could be herring) at 'non-believers'.

And, of course, I do as I say. The instant you provide clear, concise proof that reptoids and such exist, I will believe you. I promise. An image, recording, or video that has not been edited or acted out is the proof I want. I hope you have no problem with this, but seeing your other comments, you will. This is how the skeptical mind functions: evidence. You have provided a grand total of: none.

And for closed-mindedness, see the skeptoid episode over it. It isn't like the other ones you've listened to, it's just definitions. You may like it.

Joseph, Norman
May 09, 2009 10:38am

And, of course, I do as I say. The instant you provide clear, concise proof that reptoids and such exist, I will believe you.

Believe me You won't, your just fooling yourself now, read this:

It's an odd quirk of human nature that true perception of a witnessed event is frequently distorted by the percipient so that it is in compliance with the belief structure of the observer. Patagonian natives, for instance, were unable to see Charles Darwin's vessel, even though it was anchored quite near them. This aberrant occurrence was due to the natives' belief that a ship of such large dimensions could never be constructed by humankind. Therefore, it never existed in their conception of reality.

see ya!

Pindar, Greenland
May 09, 2009 11:51am

And by that logic, humans in the government do not exist because Pindar does not believe any such thing could occur.

You're just dancing around the issue, and still <em>not providing evidence!</em>

Joseph, Norman
May 10, 2009 4:56pm

Pure genius what a skeptic.

John, Green, New York
June 12, 2009 6:50am

Loss of Farmers Rights.

you're comparing t-shirts with a source of food?

that's just retarded..

you have no understanding of what's happening...

most of these increased yield claims are just pure marketing BS, some plants yield more than others and some plants are more resistant, there are plenty of hybridized plants that will grow in harsh conditions...

mots, usa
August 13, 2009 1:55am

"For instance, organic produce has been shown to have approximately 30% more nutrients than non-organic."
Jared, NYC

By what means was that determined, and what "nutrients" in particular are you talking about?
The difference between "organic" and "non-organic" aside from being sort of meaningless marketing buzzwords is... Well, not a lot, except the organic tends to be more expensive. "Organic" food isn't given magic properties by being less efficiently grown. The difference between "organic" and GMO crops are... Well, the GMO crops are more likely more efficiently grown, and more resistant to bugs and disease, which means a higher yield, and theoretically, lower prices.

Lewayne, Near Des Moines
October 03, 2009 6:55am

According to Dr. Dean Edell, organic produce is not significantly better than nutritionally than non-organic produce. Dr. has spent decades poring over studies for his radio show. His parents were the first or one of the first to sell vitamins. He knows what he is talking about. He was once a sort of "bean sprouts" hippie, so it isn't like he didn't immerse himself in the lifestyle.

Dr. Edell does point out that of course it is a good thing that organic produce doesn't have pesticides and other bad additives. The point is that organic produce doesn't have higher nutritional value.

Aloysius, Santa Cruz, CA
October 03, 2009 11:03am

I agrees with what Norman Borlaug says... those protester who have never experienced farming have no right protesting. I came from a family with great farming history, my grandparent and my parent grew mainly rubber trees and palm trees, with some veges on the side. GMO is the best thing that happened to us.

We sees yields grow more than 5 fold by switching to GMO. The trees are more resistance to diseases. Imagine having to clear off entire farm because of diseases, then you'll know the pain of the losses and the need to start all over again.

I agree that there are some concerns with GMO (eg. peanut genes spliced into some veges/fruits is a concern for people with peanut allergies), but those are minor compared to world hunger. How many people are killed due to peanut allergies vs world hunger?

Lim, Malaysia
October 12, 2009 1:03am

Loss of Farmers Rights.

you're comparing t-shirts with a source of food?

that's just retarded..

you have no understanding of what's happening...

most of these increased yield claims are just pure marketing BS, some plants yield more than others and some plants are more resistant, there are plenty of hybridized plants that will grow in harsh conditions...

mots, usa
August 13, 2009 1:55am

The above is a 'retarded comment'.
Lets really compare apples with apples. Trial results by farmers, industry, independent organisations, chemical companies, etc.. do show that GM crops in the Australian environment far outyeild and outperform their conventional cousins in some circumstances. Yes not all new lines are superior and they obviously are not commercialised further. But the yield and associated efficiencies and environmental benefits are a no brainer for continued progress with this great Science in a measured and monitored fashion.

Roy.

Roy, Australia
November 11, 2009 8:37pm

""you're comparing t-shirts with a source of food?

that's just retarded..""

In what way? You have to say WHY something is retarded before you can expect people to listen to you. I found it a bit of a reaching comparison myself, but "retarded"? If one person can make money on selling shirts, why can't another make money on selling seeds that save lives?

Safe-Keeper, Bergen, Norway
December 21, 2009 11:26am

Those gene giants really aren't doing the world a favor. You don't need gm crops to feed the world. There are far better ways to do it. We don't need to damage our enviroment any further.

lyn, la
January 20, 2010 3:57pm

"You don't need gm crops to feed the world."

Two words for you...
Green revolution.
(See above)

"We don't need to damage our enviroment any further."

More efficiently grown, better producing crops are more harmful than less efficiently grown crops?

"...the best way to reduce deforestation is to reduce demand for new farmland by using our best existing farmland to its maximum potential."

(Borlaug's Hypothesis)

I submit that hungry people aren't going to give a $#!% if their rice carries a GM label or not. They're going to fill their bellies and thank the person who kept their children from dying.

If science ever decided to start their own list of science saints, Norman Borlaug would be at the top of the list.

Lewayne, Near Des Moines
January 28, 2010 7:41pm

Interesting comments. I saw a car today covered with anti-GMO bumper stickers, so I suppose there are more anti-GMO people out in the world than showed up in the comments section here.

I'm not a farmer or a scientist, neither liberal nor conservative, so I just look at the evidence as presented. And I have some questions.

1) How often/likely are GMO crops planted alongside non-GMO crops of the same plant (rice, for instance)? Does this happen often, or is it a very unlikely scenario?

2) If the above scenario can happen, and the non-GMO rice gains GMO traits, would the non-GMO farmer be forced to pay an activation fee in order to continue growing his/her own rice?

It looks like a potentially complicated legal issue.

Abby, Austin, TX
February 20, 2010 2:24am

Hi Brian,

Thanks for a wonderful show. I have listened to ~100 shows and enjoy them.

Minor point as a medical biophysicist: do not confuse criticism of GMO for health reasons and reasons which are tied to use of the patent system to monopolise seed supplies.

Dr. Roy Schestowitz, Manchester UK
April 06, 2010 9:15am

Dr. Borlaugs comments are, as far as I am concerned, unassailable. Hes lived it, hes been out there using his PhD to get his hands dirty (literally) and save lives. Hes watched famines, and people die in the 3rd world.

His comments are devastatingly apt and based on very hard won experience. I tend to pay attention to someone whos been there and done it more then those who have not.

Cam, Thunder Bay
April 29, 2010 3:31pm

Why doesn't anybody talk about what has happened to the lab rats. Apparently every test I've heard about didn't turn out well for the rats and it appears that anybody that does the testing loses everything.

Ben, Lincoln City, OR
May 24, 2010 7:59pm

"Why doesn't anybody talk about what has happened to the lab rats."

What happened to the lab rats?

"Apparently every test I've heard about didn't turn out well for the rats..."

What does this mean? They exploded? They grew to fifty feet tall? They grew extra limbs? Do you actually have anything specific you're referring to? Given that they're lab rats, it's quite possible that they all ended up dissected in order to check for any negative side-effects that couldn't just be picked out via blood test. In that case, EVERY test would turn out badly for them, regardless of what was being tested.

"...it appears that anybody that does the testing loses everything."

Again, what the hell does "...lose everything..." mean?

Their paperwork? Funding? Official lab Rubik's cube? What?

If you're going to try and point out the "dangers" of something, you'd be more convincing with specific arguments supported by evidence.

C. MacLeod, Lots of different places
May 25, 2010 7:10am

When talking about GMO's, have people considered there are millions of diabetics using insulin that for about 20 years has been produced by genetic modification of bacteria? I don't remember any news accounts about diabetics suddenly developing weird medical conditions or having deformed offspring. It seems probable that most people don't know that is where insulin now comes from--recombinant DNA. Maybe if they knew this, the "scary" GMO might not seem so scary.

Sheri Kimbrough, Wyoming
May 25, 2010 12:29pm

Julia Whitty, in her article entitle "Population: The Last Taboo", rencently published in Mother Jones, wrote:

The miracle of the Green Revolution, which fed billions and provided the world a sense of limitless hope, also disguised four ominous truths about Earth's limits. First, the revolution's most effective agents, chemical fertilizers of nitrogen and phosphorus, are destined to run out, along with the natural resources used to produce them. Second, the fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides that grew the food that enabled our enormous population growth in the 20th century bore expensive downstream costs in the form of polluted land, water, and air that now threaten life. Third, crop yields today are holding stubbornly stable and even beginning to fall in some places, despite increasing fertilizer use, in soils oversaturated with nitrogen.

The Green Revolution's duplicitous harvest—giving life with one hand, robbing life-support with the other—also masked a fourth ominous truth. We're running out of topsoil, tossing it to the wind via mechanized agriculture and losing it to runoff and erosion. Geomorphologist David Montgomery, author of Dirt: The Erosion of Civilizations and 2008 recipient of a MacArthur "genius" fellowship, calculates that human activities are eroding topsoil 10 times faster than it can be replenished.

To read the full article, see:

http://motherjones.com/environment/2010/05/population-growth-india-vatican

n.phamdinh, Ottawa, Canada
June 16, 2010 7:55pm

This is by far on of my favorite episodes. It made me love GMOs even more than I already did (I knew about their applications in agriculture, but not about how they've been used in medicine - very interesting), and made me like Greenpeace even less. Keep up the good work.

Dan, Bristow, VA
August 10, 2010 11:29pm