Yay Oregon!

The meta-analysis reveals robust evidence of GM crop benefits for farmers in developed and developing countries. Such evidence may help to gradually increase public trust in this technology.

-A Meta-Analysis of the Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops/Klümper, Qaim

---

 

Recently on twitter I was made fun of, called ridiculous, a music teacher of all things,  most certainly out of her element because of my post objecting to the ‘Right to Know’ ads and their misleading fear-mongering.  Here is the tweet, minus the person’s name who was behind it.  Suffice it to say I believe this person means well, is educated and loves the environment.

Today, I’m ridiculously proud to be an Oregonian.  We were one of the few states to stay blue at both the state and national level.  (Yes, the tweeter above may be surprised to know that I am a registered democrat, passionate about the environment and women’s issues, but admittedly right-leaning when it comes to money and business.  And no, I don’t get money from Monsanto or any other similar company for my posts.)

We legalized pot and as of July 1, I can have up to eight ounces on premises.  Truth be known, eight ounces seems excessive but I still voted yes on that one and I will likely purchase some ganja when it becomes legal.

But the thing I’m happiest about is that we didn’t cave to the fear-mongers and vote yes on 92, the GMO labeling initiative.  After watching months of ads that claimed things like “these crops have been engineered for heavy pesticide use” and “would you rather eat this (yellow corn seeds in hand) or this?” (blue, engineered corn seeds in a ziploc) – I have had enough!

It’s over and rationality prevailed.

Coincidentally, the article posted below was published on November 3, just two days before the vote was fully counted and 92 went down.  I just love the irony.

More pesticides because of GMOs you say, right-to-knowers?  Farmers are slaves to Monsanto you say, Right-to-Knowers?  Think again.  Please, please read this public access, peer-reviewed mega-study in its entirety.  The authors are German, European, from a land where labeling exists, and the promise of biotechnology is held back because of irrational fears.

Just because Europe labels GMOs doesn’t make it a good idea.

For the record, I am all for labels if they educate people about the benefits and limitations of GMOs.  But the agenda behind all of the Right to Know campaigns is simply to vilify them.

Julee K/Sleuth4Health

 

---

A Meta-Analysis of the Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops

• Wilhelm Klümper,
• Matin Qaim

• Published: November 03, 2014
• DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0111629

 

Abstract

Background

Despite the rapid adoption of genetically modified (GM) crops by farmers in many countries, controversies about this technology continue. Uncertainty about GM crop impacts is one reason for widespread public suspicion.

Objective

We carry out a meta-analysis of the agronomic and economic impacts of GM crops to consolidate the evidence.

Data Sources

Original studies for inclusion were identified through keyword searches in ISI Web of Knowledge, Google Scholar, EconLit, and AgEcon Search.

Study Eligibility Criteria

Studies were included when they build on primary data from farm surveys or field trials anywhere in the world, and when they report impacts of GM soybean, maize, or cotton on crop yields, pesticide use, and/or farmer profits. In total, 147 original studies were included.

Synthesis Methods

Analysis of mean impacts and meta-regressions to examine factors that influence outcomes.

Results

On average, GM technology adoption has reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%, increased crop yields by 22%, and increased farmer profits by 68%. Yield gains and pesticide reductions are larger for insect-resistant crops than for herbicide-tolerant crops. Yield and profit gains are higher in developing countries than in developed countries.

Limitations

Several of the original studies did not report sample sizes and measures of variance.

Conclusion

The meta-analysis reveals robust evidence of GM crop benefits for farmers in developed and developing countries. Such evidence may help to gradually increase public trust in this technology.

Introduction

Despite the rapid adoption of genetically modified (GM) crops by farmers in many countries, public controversies about the risks and benefits continue [1]–[4]. Numerous independent science academies and regulatory bodies have reviewed the evidence about risks, concluding that commercialized GM crops are safe for human consumption and the environment [5]–[7]. There are also plenty of studies showing that GM crops cause benefits in terms of higher yields and cost savings in agricultural production [8]–[12], and welfare gains among adopting farm households [13]–[15]. However, some argue that the evidence about impacts is mixed and that studies showing large benefits may have problems with the data and methods used [16]–[18]. Uncertainty about GM crop impacts is one reason for the widespread public suspicion towards this technology. We have carried out a meta-analysis that may help to consolidate the evidence.

While earlier reviews of GM crop impacts exist [19]–[22], our approach adds to the knowledge in two important ways. First, we include more recent studies into the meta-analysis. In the emerging literature on GM crop impacts, new studies are published continuously, broadening the geographical area covered, the methods used, and the type of outcome variables considered. For instance, in addition to other impacts we analyze effects of GM crop adoption on pesticide quantity, which previous meta-analyses could not because of the limited number of observations for this particular outcome variable. Second, we go beyond average impacts and use meta-regressions to explain impact heterogeneity and test for possible biases.

Our meta-analysis concentrates on the most important GM crops, including herbicide-tolerant (HT) soybean, maize, and cotton, as well as insect-resistant (IR) maize and cotton. For these crops, a sufficiently large number of original impact studies have been published to estimate meaningful average effect sizes. We estimate mean impacts of GM crop adoption on crop yield, pesticide quantity, pesticide cost, total production cost, and farmer profit. Furthermore, we analyze several factors that may influence outcomes, such as geographic location, modified crop trait, and type of data and methods used in the original studies.

Read full study.  (PLEASE OH PLEASE!)

Advertisements

Oregon Right to Know: I Don’t Want The Right to Know BS

Ray Seidler, retired EPA scientist, the newest pro-labeling darling appearing in Oregon ballot measure 92 ads.  I really don’t understand this guy.  PhD in microbiology?  Maybe apply what you learned a little?  Maybe lose the emotion-laden activist rhetoric and talk about real science?  Maybe ask commercial farmers how they really feel about Monsanto and other biotech company seeds?

Seidler appears in a fear-monger pro-labeling commercial (below) holding a ziploc bag of blue GMO corn seeds, then holds pretty non-GMO yellow corn seeds in the palm of his hand.  He says he has concerns about GMO safety and asks if you’d like to know which kind of seeds you’re eating.  Then he says the companies that produce these blue seeds also once put out agent orange and said it was safe (this agent orange deal is a whole other topic that is vastly misunderstood and used to ignite fear and distrust).  So, we should have labeling.  But he’s really saying let’s stamp out GMOs for good.  It’s soooo obvious.

Let me be clear:  I wouldn’t mind a labeling initiative if it just meant that people simply want to know more about the food they are eating.  I believe in labels that educate people.  Read this post.  We could start with the fact that GMOs aren’t ingredients.  Sugar, fat, sodium, xantham gum = ingredients.  GMOs = breeding process.  But the Right to Know is not that, and it is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.  Seidler’s ad should convince anyone of that.  The campaign wants to rid our planet of GMOs.  Seidler and Hansen (see below) – the activists behind the ads – have made that abundantly clear in many of their other media appearances.

It is widely repeated on this blog that I am not a scientist.  But watching Seidler’s commercial and another Seidler video below I am APPALLED at how this so-called scientist represents transgenic technology.  He uses fear, emotion, scary sounding words and histrionics to get his anti-GMO points across.  Ever watch a run-of-the-mill scientist talk about GMOs?  They don’t use emotion because they don’t have to.  Facts, supported by data, can stand up on their own.  I’ve gotten to where I have zero tolerance for emotion in a scientific presentation.  It doesn’t belong there.  If a speaker starts getting preachy about any sort of facts, I will immediately dismiss the facts as suspect.  There is simply no place for dogmatic persuasion in science.  Just the data please.

Here is another video featuring Seidler.  It’s called The Truth About GMOs.  Chuckle chuckle.  Notice how he uses emotion to make his points.

He does a good job of explaining that GMOs, recombinant, transgenic technology – are all the same.  But he fails to mention that the technology is one breeding technique among many breeding techniques,

Read this post to learn exactly how the Bt mechanism works in crops.  The reality is far from how Seidler presents it in his video, with his emphasis on the words toxic and toxins.  Why doesn’t he also say that organic farmers use Bt toxin topically as well?

Read this post about how a cotton farmer feels about Bt cotton and purchasing Monsanto seeds.  Read about the huge decrease in insecticides realized because of these seeds.  Read this series about how a cross section of farmers feel about GMOs.

Oregonians are getting their ballots in the mail.  Voting is going to happen in the coming weeks.  Because Oregon is such a hotbed for woo I fear this measure will pass and then the worms from the can will begin crawling around.  I mean, Oregon already owns the dubious distinction of having the highest percentage of un-vaccinated school-age kids.

I’m going to make a very bold statement that will offend a lot of my left-leaning brethren but here goes:  Liberals entrenched in anti-vax and anti-GMO woo are reaching peak stupid right about now and have no right to criticize conservatives who doubt the reality of climate change.  You’re all equally wrong!

I will add that Michael Hansen, the consumer union guy in the ad below, who claims to be unbiased is a full-on anti-GMO activist just as Seidler is.

I am voting no on measure 92.

 

 

 

Let The Costly Irrationality Begin

Things are heating up in my home state of Oregon.  This is the first of likely several more posts I will make regarding the upcoming election.  I am specifically referring to ballot measure 92 which will appear on the November ballot, the campaign to label GM foods – only in Oregon, a state with a population of just under 4 million, within a country of 322 million. And it’s not going to make food costs go up?

The ads are starting to air and I suspect, will be convincing to folks on both sides of the issue.  I don’t know how it will play out but I am already nauseous over the likely unprecedented amount of money that will be spent on this contentious measure, based on a similar recent battle in our neighbor state, Washington, which burned up north of 30 million on ads.  What 30 million could do for, say, schools!

It’s no secret how I feel about GMOs.  A quick perusal of my blog makes it clear.  GMOs have their rightful place in the agricultural toolbox, in the pharmaceutical toolbox and in other industry toolboxes.  Transgenics are one of many advancements in biotechnology.  It’s just terribly unfortunate that this particular technology is vilified far, far beyond reason.   Otherwise intelligent people are getting caught up in fear-based hyperbole, suiting up in their soldier gear and wielding guns that shoot bullets of poorly researched factoids.  And it’s working.

It all sounds so pat and it explains absolutely everything, doesn’t it?  So convenient.

GMOs are the perfect scapegoat to explain away modern disease, especially disease that is, allegedly, on the rise – autism, obesity, gluten insensitivity (from GM wheat that in truth is not GM because there is no GM wheat on the market), allergies, liver and immunity dysfunction, cancer, etc.  The list is long.

Here is a quote from the Organic Consumers Association, a radical anti-GMO activist group to which I once contributed cash.  I am ashamed of that now because these people are fear-mongers and I fell for it.  They write:

Did you know… genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are not safe. They have been linked to thousands of toxic and allergenic reactions, thousands of sick, sterile, and dead livestock, and damage to virtually every organ and system studied in lab animals.

This is just the beginning of the hysteria.  Let me quell the above statement – lest it scare someone – with two articles that reference the same study proving convincingly that GMO food is SAFE for livestock.  [1] Please check the following two links out.

The Debate About GMO Safety Is Over, Thanks To A New Trillion-Meal Study/Forbes

100 Billion Animals Over 15 Years/Illumination

 

My views are rooted in a personal journey that started in the position of anti-GMO activism but ended in what is widely referred to as the ‘pro-science’ camp.  Notice I don’t say pro-GMO.  Scholarly science (as opposed to psuedo-science) overwhelmingly supports the use of GMOs in situations when and where it is warranted.

Overwhelmingly.

Along my journey I looked under a few rocks and discovered just that.  It was inconvenient for me to learn this.  I wanted to be a flag-waver, to help change the world, to stand for something.  The bastards were poisoning us and damn-it, I was going to do my part.

That GMOs are really pretty cool wasn’t at all apparent on my first ten clicks to websites run by the likes of Jeffrey Smith, the Health Ranger or GM Watch, not apparent when I watched the charismatic Vendana Shiva speak at organic farmer conventions.  I had to dare myself to communicate with people who saw things another way, to listen to what they had to say, to correspond with scientists, to look at science reports, articles and blogs and to allow myself to learn what the technology really is, what it does and very importantly, what is doesn’t do.  And by no means does anyone – not scientist, farmer nor Monsanto executive – see it as some kind of magic panacea.  It is a tool, albeit a very advanced one.

The accounts of these experiences are all here on the blog.  The truth is we and countless livestock have been eating genetically engineered crops since the 90s and there has not been one, not one health issue proven to be a result of eating them.  Any studies or parts of studies that purport to show harm have been shown by scholars to be problematic in one or sometimes several ways.  The information used against the technology is often cherry picked, taken out of context, not supported with actual data, blown out of proportion, or flat out made up.

Of course those against GMOs cry foul, that the whistle blowing do-gooders are being silenced, that the revolving door of corruption has taken over every regulatory agency in the world and they are not to be trusted, that everyone who speaks in favor of GMOs is paid by Monsanto…

This really sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.  I actually googled “conspiracy theory” and found a long, sometimes comical list of them.  Here are some of the more well-known of the bunch.

Popular Conspiracy Theories (source Rational Wiki)

• Mercury in vaccines is causing autism.
• Global warming is a hoax.
• The US is hiding alien wreckage at area 51.
• Chemtrails!
• 911 was staged by the US government
• Liberals have taken over the media and schools and brainwashed everyone to believe in socialism and evolution
• Monsanto Company is secretly maneuvering to control the world’s food supply using GMOs (genetically modified organisms)
• Elvis is not dead!

 Right to know? Do you really want to?

We have a right to know what’s in our food.  On the surface, it seems reasonable.  But GMOs are not an ingredient like sugar or flour or what-have-you.  GMOs are not a macro or micro nutrient like protein, carbohydrates, calcium or Vitamin C.  GMOs are the result of transgenic technology, a precise way to breed crops, a process.  There are many ways to breed crops and many of them might raise an eyebrow or two.  Ever heard of mutagenesis?  Should we then list all breeding techniques on every package of food?  Is that where this is going?  If we didn’t mess with what ‘God’ created, what was natural – we would starve to death.

The public disdain for this has spun far out of control and unfairly placed scientists in the role of villains or worse, stooges for the industry with financial ties to Monsanto, the company that shoulders the brunt of public hatred for GMOs, even though they aren’t the only company that produces them.

The irrationality around this topic isn’t good for our country, for our global food supply, or for Oregon.  Oregon has plenty of other problems.

I am a passionate environmentalist.  Let me count the ways.  Climate change is a true threat that should scare people.  I hate plastic bags and one-time use plastic in general.  I want to punch people who get a new damn plastic or paper bag every time they walk in a store.  I get very short with cashiers who want to put my pack of Wrigleys in a freakin’ bag.  Before they can shove it in there I scream – no bag! I get very upset when I see litter and cigarette butts floating into storm drains, or worse, on the hallowed ground of a national park or on an otherwise pristine beach.  In my opinion, these are far more important issues.  GMOs don’t scare me in the least.  I eat them every day.

If this thing passes here, I fully expect hysteria and food prices to go up, maybe a lot, and that will really suck.

 

Note:  I know I will get flack for writing this.  People already hate me because I speak in favor of GMOs.  They think Monsanto pays me.  They think I just don’t understand.  They try to point me in the direction of poorly conducted science experiments and activist websites.  They attack my character, tell me I’m angry, insult my intelligence.  I’ve heard it all.  Come at me with the best you’ve got.

Evidence trumps belief.

Julee K/Sleuth4health

 

~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~

Below are several links to posts I have made that outline how and why I changed my mind about GMOs.

• Science is laughing at us
• My conversations with a scientist, part one
• In their own words:  Farmers weigh in on GMOs, part one (first of five parts)
• How to temper an anti-GMO blogger/my story
• Opposition to Golden Rice described as ‘moral abyss’
• Is GM food safe?  Experts around the globe answer

http://kfolta.blogspot.com/2014/10/100-billion-animals-over-15-years.html

There are many more.  Please have a look see.

[1] I already know that there are those who will discredit both authors of these posts, Jon Entine and Kevin Folta, because they have haters out there throwing the tiresome Monsanto shill accusation at them, even though in Folta’s case specifically, all monies paid to him or his lab are a matter of PUBLIC  RECORD.  But the science presented speaks for itself.  They are merely passing it along.  There is a temptation to believe every nasty activist rant against these two but the accusations are without merit.

Maine emerging with big GMO labeling momentum

During the November election, prop 37 in California got a LOT of attention.  Prop 37 would have required GMO labeling had it passed.  It was believed that if GMO labeling laws could pass in California, the whole country would benefit because California is such a huge chunk of the population.  It was narrowly defeated but the reality is that awareness of the issue exploded during the election so really, pro GMO labeling folks came out winners.

Several states have GMO labeling legislation in the works – Vermont and Washington to name a few, and now, apparently, Maine, as I’ve just learned.  There are also reports of a labeling law at the national level in the works.  This Maine story got the attention of Sleuth4Health because of the low-key but well supported and bi-partisan way they are going about the business of legislating labeling laws.

Source Article: Maine Quietly Mounting Massive Support for Historic GMO Labeling Bill

 

That’s a LOT of herbicide

Your powerful pocketbook

This post comes from  The Organic Consumers Association.  There are companies, usually subsidiaries of much larger companies, that claim to be organic but when push came to shove, they gave money to defeat the GMO labeling proposition in California. 

They stomped on our right to know. Now it’s time to get even.

Prop 37, the California Right to Know GMO labeling initiative, was narrowly defeated last week thanks to a relentless, deceitful $46-million advertising blitz. Among the largest bankrollers of the NO on 37 campaign were huge multinational food and beverage companies whose subsidiaries make billions selling some of your favorite organic and “natural” brands.

Brands like Kashi. Honest Tea. Naked Juice. Muir Glen, Horizon, Silk, and Morningstar Farms.

It’s time to boycott the companies and brands whose dirty money confused and scared millions of California voters into voting No on Prop 37. It’s time to plaster their facebook pages with this message: We won’t support you until you support us. It’s time to call their consumer hotlines, complain to the store managers where you buy your organic and natural products. It’s time to tarnish their holy organic and natural images, to expose their hypocrisy and greed.

It’s time to raise a little hell. If we raise enough hell, maybe their parent companies will come to their senses and stop carrying the water for Monsanto and the biotech industry. Maybe they’ll stay neutral in the upcoming labeling battles in Washington state and Vermont.

The OCA is calling on consumers to boycott these organic and “natural” traitor brands:

• PepsiCo (Donated $2.5M): Naked Juice, Tostito’s Organic, Tropicana Organic
• Kraft (Donated $2M): Boca Burgers and Back to Nature
• Safeway (Member of Grocery Manufacturers Association, which donated $2M):“O” Organics
• Coca-Cola (Donated $1.7M): Honest Tea, Odwalla
• General Mills (Donated $1.2M):  Muir Glen, Cascadian Farm, Larabar
• Con-Agra (Donated $1.2M): Orville Redenbacher’s Organic, Hunt’s Organic, Lightlife, Alexia
• Kellogg’s (Donated $791k): Kashi, Bear Naked, Morningstar Farms, Gardenburger
• Smucker’s (Donated $555k ): R.W. Knudsen, Santa Cruz Organic
• Unilever (Donated $467k): Ben & Jerry’s
• Dean Foods (Donated $254k): Horizon, Silk, White Wave

Tell these companies that if they want your loyalty – and your grocery dollars – they must do two things:

1. Speak out publicly in favor of the pending GMO Labeling Ballot Initiative (I-522) in Washington State in 2013, as well as the pending GMO labeling bills coming up in Vermont and other states.

2. Contribute as much or more money to the Yes on I-522 Campaign in Washington than their parent corporations spent to defeat Prop 37 in California.

Prop 37 was narrowly defeated, by dirty money and dirty tricks. But it spawned a huge, national consumer movement that is fired up and more determined than ever to fight this battle until we win the right to know if our food has been genetically modified. We’re already collecting signatures in Washington State, talking to legislators in Vermont and Connecticut. A 30-state coalition is formulating a plan to collaborate on GMO-labeling laws and initiatives.

You are a part of this movement, and today we’re calling on you, on the millions of consumers who were outraged by the NO on 37’s dirty campaign, to send a clear message to the traitor brands who helped kill Prop 37, in the only language they understand: lost profits and lower sales.

Join the boycott

The World According to Monsanto, part 7