A new paper (1) in the Journal of Animal Science was published recently, that analyzed the health of animals fed GMO feed since it was introduced in 1996, until 2011. The study finds that "These field data sets representing over 100 billion animals following the introduction of GE crops did not reveal unfavorable or perturbed trends in livestock health and productivity. No study has revealed any differences in the nutritional profile of animal products derived from GE-fed animals". This represents billions of meals eaten by billions of animals, of multiple species that show no detrimental health impacts.
If you read the whole paper, it moves beyond just the health impacts on animals, and calls for the international scientific and regulatory communities to find common ground on the issue of GMOs:"There is a pressing need for international harmonization of both regulatory frameworks for GE crops and governance of advanced breeding techniques to prevent widespread disruptions in international trade of livestock feedstuffs in the future".
I haven't really touched the topic of GMOs too much on this blog (though I have a draft response to "Dietitians in Integrative and Functional Medicine"'s report on reasons to avoid GMOs that I have yet to publish), as it is a topic that many have their minds set on, and one blog post likely isn't going to change an individual's ideals (actually 10+ wouldn't - see Nathaniel Johnston's series at Grist here). It also extends farther out into realms of economics and sociology that I don't care to delve into, and usually boils down to your views on regulating capitalism. But one thing that I continually find problematic in the greater scientific community, especially when it comes to the topic of GMOs, is everyone accusing each other of being 'shills', essentially mindless drones pushing the message of some industry or ideal. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, but I find the shill claim to be pretty baseless without a subsequent identification of some methodological or design flaw with the research. Shill, or claiming a conflict of interest, has come to be the accusation to employ when one doesn't have the expertise to adequately analyze or critique the data.
With this recent JAS gmo safety paper, I have yet to see a legitimate complaint about the design and methodology/statistics that have gone behind it. The task of analyzing billions of meals and health outcomes is certainly a herculean one. Despite this lack of a methodological complaint, I've seen a number of individuals on twitter and comments sections of facebook dismissing the paper because the lead author (there were only two, with only one having a PhD) "has ties to Monsanto". I decided to look into this:
The study author is Alison Louise Van Eenennaam. She is employed by the Department of Animal Science at UC Davis and has a PhD in genetics from U.C. Davis - see here. You can also find a list of youtube videos including interviews and talks with Dr Van Eenennaam here. She has answered questions on BestFoodFacts - see here. She even appeared on Dr. Oz. People's concern, besides her research clearly establishing her as someone not opposed to biotechnology, is that she worked for Monsanto. If you look at her CV, she reports working there for 4 years, from July of 1998, to June of 2002 (3). One can see that Dr Van Eenennaam has a pretty impressive record as a scientist, not only securing grants and publishing regularly, but also in her outreach work. And, for 4 years, she worked at Monsanto. Her work for Monsanto has gotten her her own SourceWatch page - see here. The FoodBabe has pointed out that UCDavis has received money from Monsanto - see here - if that is a true document, 40k isn't going to get anyone too far in biotechnology research. None of Dr Van Eenennaam's grant funding is listed as coming from Monsanto.
Those dismissing this paper on the grounds of a Conflict of Interest seem to be making the leaps that if UCDavis receives funding from Monsanto, and Van Eenennaam worked at Monsanto for 4 years, her current and former employment invalidate her as a source of information.The alternative perspective is that Dr Van Eenennaam is a respectable scientist with expertise in this area, and is more than qualified to publish on this topic.
The idea that a university scientist would risk their career (and their own health) by falsifying data that shows severe harm of a product fed to non-human animals and humans alike requires the belief in a conspiracy that runs rather deep. I have yet to see anyone refute the methods or results of this data with a legitimate claim, and I doubt that there will be one. The new norm seems to be that if you don't have the ability to critique the data, you just claim a CoI, call it day, and go about citing the poorly controlled animal data (e.g. Serralini) that fits your dogma.
UPDATE: I was wrong - there have been critiques of the research - see here. Make sure to read the comments, as Dr. Van Eenennaam has responded- see here.
If you do discredit this research or feel uncomfortable with the funding source, I highly encourage you to read the 25 years of European Union-funded data on the topic of GMOs - see here.
For those concerned who so readily accuse every scientist who publishes results you don't like of being a shill, I fully expect you to be writing to your congressman/woman consistently and urging them to immediately increase the NIH/NSF funding, while also urging them to establish independent biotechnology training centers, so that individuals who are interested in this area don't have to get experience at big biotech companies. Meanwhile, I'll be anxiously awaiting high calcium GE carrots (4).
**Further thoughts: remember that farmers need healthy animals to ensure their livelihood and make money - there is financial incentive for assuring the safety of GMOs. For those who think that this is all about big corporations and money, it still is. Using a technology that doesn't improve yields or reduce spraying, and hurts your animals also hurts your bottom line. Not to mention, introducing a product into the market that you're not confident is safe could have massive repercussions for anyone selling it. There is financial incentive in ensuring that GMOs are safe, but only if you choose to look at it that way.
1.http://www.journalofanimalscience.org/content/92/10/4255.full.pdf+html
2.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691511006399
3. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/VeterinaryMedicineAdvisoryCommittee/UCM225072.pdf
4. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18202180
If you read the whole paper, it moves beyond just the health impacts on animals, and calls for the international scientific and regulatory communities to find common ground on the issue of GMOs:"There is a pressing need for international harmonization of both regulatory frameworks for GE crops and governance of advanced breeding techniques to prevent widespread disruptions in international trade of livestock feedstuffs in the future".
I haven't really touched the topic of GMOs too much on this blog (though I have a draft response to "Dietitians in Integrative and Functional Medicine"'s report on reasons to avoid GMOs that I have yet to publish), as it is a topic that many have their minds set on, and one blog post likely isn't going to change an individual's ideals (actually 10+ wouldn't - see Nathaniel Johnston's series at Grist here). It also extends farther out into realms of economics and sociology that I don't care to delve into, and usually boils down to your views on regulating capitalism. But one thing that I continually find problematic in the greater scientific community, especially when it comes to the topic of GMOs, is everyone accusing each other of being 'shills', essentially mindless drones pushing the message of some industry or ideal. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, but I find the shill claim to be pretty baseless without a subsequent identification of some methodological or design flaw with the research. Shill, or claiming a conflict of interest, has come to be the accusation to employ when one doesn't have the expertise to adequately analyze or critique the data.
With this recent JAS gmo safety paper, I have yet to see a legitimate complaint about the design and methodology/statistics that have gone behind it. The task of analyzing billions of meals and health outcomes is certainly a herculean one. Despite this lack of a methodological complaint, I've seen a number of individuals on twitter and comments sections of facebook dismissing the paper because the lead author (there were only two, with only one having a PhD) "has ties to Monsanto". I decided to look into this:
 |
| bestfoodfacts.org via google images |
Those dismissing this paper on the grounds of a Conflict of Interest seem to be making the leaps that if UCDavis receives funding from Monsanto, and Van Eenennaam worked at Monsanto for 4 years, her current and former employment invalidate her as a source of information.The alternative perspective is that Dr Van Eenennaam is a respectable scientist with expertise in this area, and is more than qualified to publish on this topic.
The idea that a university scientist would risk their career (and their own health) by falsifying data that shows severe harm of a product fed to non-human animals and humans alike requires the belief in a conspiracy that runs rather deep. I have yet to see anyone refute the methods or results of this data with a legitimate claim, and I doubt that there will be one. The new norm seems to be that if you don't have the ability to critique the data, you just claim a CoI, call it day, and go about citing the poorly controlled animal data (e.g. Serralini) that fits your dogma.
UPDATE: I was wrong - there have been critiques of the research - see here. Make sure to read the comments, as Dr. Van Eenennaam has responded- see here.
If you do discredit this research or feel uncomfortable with the funding source, I highly encourage you to read the 25 years of European Union-funded data on the topic of GMOs - see here.
For those concerned who so readily accuse every scientist who publishes results you don't like of being a shill, I fully expect you to be writing to your congressman/woman consistently and urging them to immediately increase the NIH/NSF funding, while also urging them to establish independent biotechnology training centers, so that individuals who are interested in this area don't have to get experience at big biotech companies. Meanwhile, I'll be anxiously awaiting high calcium GE carrots (4).
**Further thoughts: remember that farmers need healthy animals to ensure their livelihood and make money - there is financial incentive for assuring the safety of GMOs. For those who think that this is all about big corporations and money, it still is. Using a technology that doesn't improve yields or reduce spraying, and hurts your animals also hurts your bottom line. Not to mention, introducing a product into the market that you're not confident is safe could have massive repercussions for anyone selling it. There is financial incentive in ensuring that GMOs are safe, but only if you choose to look at it that way.
1.http://www.journalofanimalscience.org/content/92/10/4255.full.pdf+html
2.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691511006399
3. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/VeterinaryMedicineAdvisoryCommittee/UCM225072.pdf
4. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18202180
Thanks for this post, based about your personal opinion do you think we (i'm talking about mankind) need GMOs (focusing only on crops) ? Talking more deeply, is there the chance to see a trend similar to antibiotic story ?
ReplyDeleteWe "create" a crop A resistant to parasite "a"; then parasite "a" evolve into parasite "b" and we need to create another crop B to save the day, but then appears parasite c and so forth.
This risk is real, or just in my mind ?
The question of whether we need GMOs is highly subjective. From your questions, it sounds like you're only thinking of GMOs in terms of pesticide resistance traits. I think a plant that can produce its own pesticide (e.g. Bt toxin) or is resistance to an herbicide (e.g. RoundUp Ready) are really great technologies that have been employed rather poorly. As part of an integrated pest management system (one that employs multiple lines of defense - see http://www.oecd.org/agriculture/crp/42582878.pdf), they can be a great tool - just simply using herbicides is going to ultimately lead to resistance, this would've happened whether we had GMOs or not. There's a good read on it from Purdue here: https://www.extension.purdue.edu/extmedia/gwc/gwc-1.pdf
DeleteI think its an important distinction to discuss types of GMOs. Many who are universally opposed to GMOs tend to only focus on herbicide resistant strains. Things like arctic apples, which utilize RNA interference to prevent browning, are a whole different class of GMOs. Making broad statements about whether or not we need GMOs really depends on how we genetically modify things, the system they are introduced in, and your measure of 'need'. Arctic apples could be really beneficial to consumers and prevent food waste. Drought resistant crops could be really beneficial to society. Vitamin A enhanced rice could serve as a storable form of beta-carotene for societies in areas that have a difficult time growing adequate sources of vitamin A. Tomatoes that can stand the cold could have wide economic benefits. Yeast genetically modified to produce omega 3 fatty acids could serve as an important source of sustainable omega 3 rich foods for farmed salmon. GE'ing the citrus crop to protest against citrus greening could have important economic and nutritional implications. The possibilities are endless. However, I think treating any one GMO like its a savior or is the only tool is inherently problematic - it's a tool in the tool, and a very powerful one that I don't think we should throw away, or over rely on. I firmly believe that as part of an integrative agricultural system, GMOs have their place, and that doesn't inherently mean we have to discourage traditional breeding or give up on other methods. So many false dichotomies are created in the discussion about GMO's.
Thanks a lot for your answer, i think i will take your blog in account when i'm going to review the GMO's subject by myself.
ReplyDeleteNo problem Merio. There are many more knowledgeable than I on this topic:
Deletehttp://kfolta.blogspot.com/
http://genera.biofortified.org/
http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/
http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/
I would highly recommend checking them out; many questions and topics surrounding GMOs have already been answered by them. http://gmoanswers.com/ also has many questions answered by independent experts.
Thanks, more sources i have, more accurate i will be on the topic.
DeleteGE changes some of the proteins in the GMO. Proteins are broken down into AA's by peptidase enzymes during digestion. Therefore, GE cannot have an adverse effect on our health.
DeleteIf intact peptide chains are entering someone's blood, through excessively-loose "tight junctions" (e.g. Glidorphin-7 & BCM-7), their health will probably be impaired by auto-immune conditions anyway.
Proteins also trigger allergic reactions and can be profoundly toxic. The idea that protein degradation assures their safety is simplistic thinking at best abd approaching GMO safety testing by saying- it is just protein, it is just DNA, it is just RNA, is little beyond faith based guesswork. Botulinum toxin is just a protein, after all- but very few would argue it is safe to eat.
DeleteWell here goes my perspective. That is coming from one that is sufficiently scientifically ignorant on this subject to offer an intelligent argument based on specifics. With that being said, can science, at this time be limited in it's ability to claim that ALL GMO's are safe? Could our current scientific abilities be undermined by future findings or methods that render what we currently believe dangerous?
ReplyDeleteI would also add that $ & profits are always key when questioning science when these profits are enormous. Don't want to sound like a "conspiracy nut" but don't want to rely on Corporations for my & mine's well being either.