‘GMO-Free’ Should Be a Specialty Food Label & Premier Episode of “Talking Biotech” Features Yours Truly

Yes, I changed my mind about GMOs

It is no secret that in spring of 2013, after focusing this blog solely on bashing biotech and calling for strict labeling laws, I stopped in my tracks, pivoted, and performed a complete one-eighty.  I was one of the folks, and there are a few of us out here, who changed my mind.

Why did I change my mind?  It was simple:  the vast, and I mean vast majority of data do not support an anti-GMO position, and in fact do support quite the opposite.

As for labeling – well my opinion has evolved to the the point where it makes more sense that if you wish to avoid GMOs, then buy ‘organic’ or foods marked ‘GMO Free’.  You are within your rights to do so.  (I would also like to remind people that GMOs are not ingredients like wheat flour or corn starch.  GMOs are a technology.  But that’s another post…)

I now feel strongly that the concern some people have with GMOs is more of a ‘specialty problem’ – and should be handled as such.  Like halal or kosher food, sugar-free, low-glycemic, allergen-free cosmetics and so on.  When it is a specialized need, it is up to the consumer to seek out the type of product he or she requires, not make unreasonable demands-born-of-misinformation on the industry.

Pro-Science Position

Nowadays, I take what is commonly referred to as a ‘pro-science’ position on GMOs and frankly, everything under the sun!  Being pro-science means that one operates from the framework of evidence, not belief.  So, practically speaking this means that if I hear or read something like, say, vaccines cause autism, I carefully go about finding neutral, non-sensationalized information – articles, studies, etc. – that will provide evidence.  The truth is usually not as exciting, not as entertaining as sensationalized headlines, and most importantly, relies solely on facts that have been well-vetted via proper, repeated scientific study.

Science constantly seeks the truth, the evidence, what is happening, what happened, and so on.  Constantly.  It does this via the scientific method which, to be done correctly, requires a universally accepted proper methodology.  And science is wrong – a lot – in which case it promptly admits it’s wrong and sets about becoming right again.  And so it goes.  There is no embarrassment or backpedaling.  You go with the best evidence you have at the time.  Many applications of science require a constant weighing of benefit versus risk, whether real or perceived.  GMOs are in this category so there is no shortage of studies!  (See Genera)

This experience has so changed me that I’ve become a ‘show me the evidence’ type – no longer prone to emotional hooks like fear, heart-string tugging, sensationalism, propaganda and the like.  I can’t tell you how freeing this transformation has been!  I have let go of many long held beliefs that limited my thinking.  (I still, however, have a very difficult time walking under a ladder, but I’m working on it).

I should also add that I am hated by anti-GMO types now.  They ask me how I can sleep at night, tell me I’ve been won over by corporate henchmen, accuse me of being on Monsanto’s payroll (I wish).  But truly, none of this bothers me much.  I know I am on the side of evidence and I am not ruled by fear and hype.

I am not trying to offend anyone but I must be true to myself.  Surely being true to oneself can be universally respected?

Q & A With Dr. Folta

I’d like to present a recent interview I did with Dr. Kevin Folta, chairman of the University of Florida’s Horticultural Sciences Department.  He is launching a podcast series titled Talking Biotech and I was his first guest.  He wanted to explore the topic of how and why someone changes their mind.  (I could not imbed the podcast so please click on the link 🙂

Talking Biotech Podcast

~Julee K/Sleuth4Health

Advertisements

Maybe GMOs Could Have Saved Greg

Greg Shepherd 1955 – 2011

Another (extremely) benevolent GMO

Greg was my big brother, and he left this world four years ago.  He died from a malignant brain tumor that looked like an octopus just inside his left ear, a tumor that declared war on his body.  Specifically, his tumor was a glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) which is a very late stage, nasty glioma, also known as astrocytoma grade IV.  He died scarcely 18 months after diagnosis.  He was 56 and otherwise healthy, in the prime of his life really.  During those precious final 18 months, he endured two craniotomies, multiple radiation blasts and a round or two of chemotherapy.

Last week I watched a segment on 60 Minutes that blew me away – so much so that I felt happy, excited and sad all at the same time.  It would appear that a few people were recently completely cured of their glioblastomas.

What?

How?

Oh my, it was their own immune system, but with a lot of help from recombinant DNA technology, or transgenesis (wiki), or genetic engineering – call it what you will.  It was those little buggers called GMOs.

Is natural always a good thing?

Everyone has heard of chemotherapy and radiation as common cancer treatments.  But there is a big, bad new kid on the block: immunotherapy.    A heretofore lesser utilized branch of cancer treatment, immunotherapy is now gaining momentum, fast, and biotechnology is stepping onto the stage as a major player in the therapy.  And not only is it cutting edge transgenesis at work here, but a much maligned virus – polio – turns out to be an ideal medium for the process.

Simply put, polio attaches to cancer cells thereby making them targets of the immune system.  The virus is safe to use because, via transgenic technology, the original polio is re-engineered using the common cold virus to replace the unwanted traits of polio. This ensures that the patient receiving the treatment does not contract actual polio.

This is so cutting edge it makes my head perform pirouettes.  It sounds so simple, doesn’t it?  It is so simple it has only taken over a hundred years of research to get here.  In other words, this is no overnight sensation.  This is the result of painstaking, tireless research of generations of experts.  This is the result of endless hypotheses and stabs in the dark.

With all the public hysteria flying around the use of genetic modification in crop production – the calls for labeling, cries that the technology is ‘against God’s way’, causing the proliferation of ‘frankenfoods’, ruining the planet, causing all manner of disease, not natural, and so on, with all of that I have to ask, would anyone deny a loved one the cure for cancer because it is not natural?  My guess is certainly not.

There is nothing natural about mixing one virus with another inside a lab then infecting cancer cells with it so that the immune system is triggered and thereby does what it does best – kill the bad stuff.  That process is simply not going to happen naturally, on its own.  The bio-engineer, the scientist, the expert must intervene to initiate this miracle of man.  As nature would have it,  our immune system does not attack malignant tumors in our body.

A few years ago, I was of the belief that everything needed to be natural to be good and right and in line with the proper way of things.  A scientist had the audacity to tell me that if left unchecked, nature’s intent was to kill me, that it is science that saves me time and again.  I was so offended at the time I wanted to punch the wall, but now, I understand what was meant by that statement.

I will wind down this post by adding that there are many other immunotherapy methods and drugs out there being utilized and researched that don’t involve GMOs, and by no means is polio the only agent being looked at in those that do.

As I see it, any and all of of this is exciting!  Immunotherapy is the emerging new darling in cancer research and is ushering in a new era of treatment.  But before we all fill our champagne glasses, we need to remember to remain cautious.  A recent article in Forbes puts the breaks on the fervor over this ‘miracle’ because of course there is a downside, but even so, I have no doubt that immunotherapy is the future of cancer treatment.

Countless, precious individuals like my brother will benefit as we get past the early stages and trials and these treatments become routine.  There are even those trying to speed things up, as it were.  See Accelerate Brain Cancer Cure.

If only Greg could have waited a decade or so.  If only…

(This article has been updated since its original posting.)

~Julee K/Sleuth4Health

For further reading:  Duke Researchers Engineer Polio Virus For Cancer Treatment

Related video:  Treating Cancer With Polio Is Working

Forbes Article:  Here’s what ’60 Minutes’ didn’t tell you about the ‘miracle’ glioblastoma treatment.

Greg’s Gift (video taken by hospice workers during his last two weeks of life – inspiring)

The First World Causing Problems

Thanks to The Skeptical Beard for this great post. I share his views.

The Skeptical Beard

Have you ever thought about how lucky you are?

Site traffic tells me that most of you are from very tech-savvy nations. You probably don’t worry about catching deadly diseases or whether you’ll have a roof over your head tonight or where your next meal is coming from. We all have our struggles, but you probably tell people you can’t complain when asked how you’re doing. Some people, not you of course, are so privileged that they even pretend to have ailments like Celiac disease, or they go on starvation diets. How crazy is it that we can afford to choose to suffer?

View original post 960 more words

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!)

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.

 

 

 

Are GMOs Dangerous – Like, At All?

Here are the final two installments of the 10-part short video series put out by Greenstate TV titled “GMO Mythbusting”.   This is an excellent at-a-glance series that so aptly touches on some of the main points of the public outcry against GMOs.  The snippets are easily digestible and provide just enough information to hopefully make viewers want to know more.

 

GMO Research and the Non-Scientist

I speak often about non-scientists trying to comprehend science.  I know I have repeated myself over and over but it’s so crucial to decide how one will interpret science in this day and age.  As science and industry advance at what seems an ever increasing pace, we all have to decide how we are going to grapple with new technologies.  When it comes to personal devices like tablets and phones, we can’t seem to get enough and we don’t care about the science, but crop biotechnology – a technology that has an impressive list of ways it has already helped and will help our global food production?  Not so much.

Many non-scientists like myself are unable or more likely, unwilling to spend the time it would take to decipher and really understand complicated research so we have to put our trust in what others say about it.  Every time we hear a news story, read an article or blog post about the newest threat, the latest “study” –  it is incumbent on us as intelligent citizens to consider, at least, the following:

-Is the interpretation of the research correct in this post, article or story?

– Has the research or study met all criteria of the standard scientific method?

– Is the data being presented in its entirety or has it been cherry-picked to serve an agenda?

– Does any real data even exists at all? (this may seem obvious but some so-called studies make outlandish claims with no data whatsoever to support them)

– Correlation does not equal causation (perhaps THE most important point of all)

Believing the Experts

After once believing activists to the point of not questioning their often radical claims, I have since opted to trust public, independent scientists, institutions and agencies and to distrust activists.  This is not because I believe activists are purposely lying.  I am quite certain they unequivocally believe that GMOs will damage us and that mother earth’s natural biological processes are being harmed and will eventually be doomed.

Far worse than what they think is that they are sadly misinformed and unnecessarily frightened.

At some point I had to ask myself who the real experts are.  There was only one answer.  Surely those who have devoted their academic careers to this topic, who have presented and defended dissertations in a single area of expertise, who speak and breathe the vernacular of biology and genetics on a daily basis, who spend their Saturday evenings in a lab, surely they are the ones to believe!

And specifically, I’m not referring to scientists who work for companies but the ones who work independently and in universities, as their work is often, if not always a matter of public record.  That is not to say that there is anything whatsoever wrong with scientists who work for companies.  Everyone has to make a living and I feel for PhDs who work for Monsanto and the like.  It must be disheartening to have your life’s work be so needlessly vilified.

As for public scientists? They hang their hats on their reputations. Dr. Folta, the molecular biologist featured in all ten videos is such a public, independent scientist.  He also happens to be the academic who first alerted me to the error of my ways and once I looked deeper, there was no going back.  I, Julee K, once an anti-GMO activist, had to admit that I had been completely and utterly wrong.

To summarize:  I now find the science to be infinitely more believable when it comes from folks who do this work every day of their professional lives.  When you’ve got good facts there is no need for propaganda, sensationalism,  doomsday predictions or corporate bashing.

It’s just plain data.

Evidence.

And it doesn’t lie.

~Julee K/Sleuth4Health

 

 Video # 9:  Are GMOs bad for the environment?

 

 Video # 10:  Are GMOs Dangerous?

We’re Not All Lefty Kooks Out Here In Oregon!

I just happened upon this youtube video this morning.  It was one of those all too rare serendipitous moments that, when they happen, assure me all is right with the world.  I knew immediately I had to post it and give this guy some props.

We have in this piece Mr. Jeff Holiday, the quintessential dread locked Eugene resident, the stereotype personified of the 60s Oregon flower child that persists today.  If you aren’t familiar with what I’m talking about, Eugene is the home of  the University of Oregon, land of the Ducks, and it has always had a certain reputation.  I attended this university, lived in Eugene for over two years and can attest to the pervasive western hippie vibe – the crystals, the hemp, the waft of patchouli, the New Age spiritualism, the Birkenstocks.  I lived it.  It was that way before I ever got there in the early 80s and it remains that way today.

So anyway, here is this guy who upon first sight evokes the uber-liberal-bleeding-heart-occupy-Eugene-Monsatan-corporations-are-evil activist.  Right?

WRONG!

Holiday exposes the anti-GMO propaganda machine in a way I’ve not seen before.  Among other unique points of view, he brilliantly points out how this activist movement is doing the very thing it accuses Big Food and Ag of doing – seeking to deny choice.

Please enjoy this breath of utterly fresh air.  Watch it all.  You’ll appreciate how he ends it.

And if you get a chance, see it on youtube and leave a comment for Jeff.

Julee K/Sleuth4Health

email:  sleuth4health@gmail.com