Why is D. Suzuki against GMOs?

[Elite Engineer]

I support GMO's. I believe they're safe and I have not found any groundbreaking research that states otherwise.

 

 

-I haven't read any papers or articles on specifically why David Suzuki and also Bill Nye oppose GMO's. I haven't heard them reference ant reputable journals to support their argument.

 

~ee

[Essay]

I’m not sure, but I’d expect it is the level of ecological knowledge, possessed by those specific folks you mention, that gives them a strong intuitive sense of how limited the benefits of genetically engineering “productivity” could possibly be; and especially when compared to the vast interconnected universe of unimagined and unintended and irreversible possibilities, which accompany genetically engineered “productivity” schemes. …or words to that effect.

===

 

“What if material from our food actually made its way into the innermost control centers of our cells, taking charge of fundamental gene expression?”

 

Scientific American had a feature, in 2011, about micro-RNAs, which are altered in genetically modified rice, that (at least) influence our HDL/LDL balances. Aside from the known importance of HDL/LDL levels, this could also produce effects on the immune system; but our science doesn’t yet know enough about the importance of all the immune-system proteins, which are contained within the “lipoprotein” part of our HDL/LDLs, so this complexity hasn't yet been studied.

 

There may yet still be more to learn about human nutrition and physiology, and about pathologies and diseases, especially given some of the recent revelations about the importance of the human microbiome to those dimensions; so just because they haven't yet found evidence of harm, in the places and ways that they now look, it doesn’t mean that serious changes couldn’t possibly be happening.

 

And given the complexity of the system (of which we are just beginning to learn about) that we are “privately” manipulating or engineering, then certainly the long future of possible unintended and irreversible consequences seems more foreboding, to my own broad and deep ecological sensibilities, than any notion of relatively short-term and incremental gains in productivity. Plus, other options, seemingly better, are appearing on the horizon.

 

I’d expect that those scientists you mentioned also see this same perspective, in one form or another, more or less.

 

~

 

[iNow]

Bill Nye used to hold similar concerns, then did his research into the topic and like a good scientist changed his mind.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/03/03/proof-hes-the-science-guy-bill-nye-is-changing-his-mind-about-gmos/

[CharonY]

I think in Suzuki's case activism may have overtaken the scientific part (note this is based from some articles I saw that were basically handwaving without evidence). With regard to microRNAs, that part is actually still disputed. There is some evidence that part of the finding could be based on residual contamination which is more common in next generation sequencing than initially believed. As a sidenote, of course there are many aspects we do not understand yet. But there are many other things we produce and expose ourselves to (endocrine disruptors for starters) that are potentially a much higher risk, whereas GMOs mostly consist of stuff that we ingest, anyway. But obviously this sounds much more scary.

 

Compare it with the perceived risk of cell phones, for example. There have been concerns early on that close proximity to cell phones and cell phone towers could lead to health issues. Subsequent studies (similar to GMOs) were negative (though I believe there was at least one that was inconclusive). However there was still some resistance against cellphones and wifi due to that, until it became too convenient to have one. Since then hardly anyone thinks twice of using one while pregnant or carrying it close to one's testicles. I guess if something is just convenient enough we will not ask to much of potential effects, which just shows how screwed up our ability to do proper risk assessment is.

Edited August 1, 2015 by CharonY

[overtone]

I don't know why Suzuki thinks GMOs are hazardous, but one possibility is that he isn't a damn fool. GMOs as a general category obviously and uncontroversially carry high risk.

 

 

(note this is based from some articles I saw that were basically handwaving without evidence).

Lack of evidence in a situation where much of the risk comes from lack of evidence, a void where understanding or research belongs but does not exist, is not an indication of safety. This habit of labeling ordinary reasoning in a state of ignorance as "handwaving" has got to stop.

 

75% of the US food supply had been converted to the products and effects of one genetically narrowing GM in two or three organisms (resistance to glyphosate herbicide) within ten years of its development, without a single long term general harm feeding study in a vertebrate, without the labeling that would allow epidemiological monitoring of just direct medical harm in humans, let alone ecological, economic, agronomic, or other potential areas of risk. The benefit was not yield, nutrition, or quality, but profit for agribusiness and larger farmers.

 

That was and is crazy. Folly on stilts. Clown ass stupid. This isn't handwaving, because there's no evidence. It isn't some kind of arcane issue. It's the kind of thing that if it blows up people looking back would be asking one question: how did that happen? How did adults with expertise and history and full knowledge come to allow that?

 

 

As a sidenote, of course there are many aspects we do not understand yet. But there are many other things we produce and expose ourselves to (endocrine disruptors for starters) that are potentially a much higher risk,

Since GMOs are so varied, so completely different from each other, and since not even the couple that have been studied over time have been studied well, comparing risks is empty. Literally meaningless. There is no information in those words.

 

 

 

whereas GMOs mostly consist of stuff that we ingest, anyway.

Uh, no, the modifications in context are usually complexes that no population of human beings has ingested in this way ever on this planet. And that just gets us to the medical risk from ingestion by humans - a very narrow category within the multifarious hazards of this or that GM.

 

 

 

But obviously this sounds much more scary.

The scariest thing about GMOs is the blithe confidence with which the people in a position to enforce some kind of prudence and sound policy, the people we all depend on to know better, declare them all to be safe. In advance.

 

 

Compare it with the perceived risk of cell phones, for example.

Again: deceptive, in the extreme. GMO risks are orders of magnitude more complex than cell phone radiation effects. There is also the matter of control over exposure, epidemiological monitoring (GMOs are not even labeled when they are in packaged food), time span of experience (each GM of some kinds, not an imitation of breeding, means starting over with the experience, even different GMOs with the same GM in them are different - cell phone radiation is by contrast one thing, that we have been dealing with since WWII in millions of exposure lifetimes.)

Edited August 1, 2015 by overtone

[iNow]

Potential risks are important to consider, and fortunately we have and do consistently continue to consider them. Life exists along a spectrum of risk and nothing is risk free, but thus far all evidence (you know, for those who prefer to rely on evidence and fact instead of fear mongering and hand wavy nonsense reminiscent of anti-vaxxer arguments) indicates that the benefits of GMOs at present far outweigh the potential (and yet to be supported with evidence of actual occurrence) risks that overtone and others like him seem to find so salient and compelling.

 

Nobody is saying GMOs are risk free, but so far those who feel the risk of their use is too high have failed to substantiate their position with empiricism. In fact, you'll find that nearly all empirical data shows them to be safe overall.

 

We can separately discuss having corporations so deeply involved in our food supply or disallowing farmers from planting their own seeds or the risks associated with planting only a small handful of crops etc., but those are entirely different and peripheral discussion topics.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

overtone,

This isn't an official warning, but I do feel I should remind you of your history with this issue. If you want to continue posting on this topic, fine, but I would like to stress to you that you are already on your last chance and if this goes the same way as the others, you will not be coming back.

[overtone]

This isn't an official warning, but I do feel I should remind you of your history with this issue.

 

 

Only a matter of time, yep. I know. Threats are always appreciated.

 

Your history with this issue was summarized - by you - as follows: "The scientific consensus is that GMOs are safe".

 

Just ponder that for a moment. I did not make that up. It's a quote, and the poster is not only a moderator here but a fair representative of the forum scientific community: the sense of it was repeated by several actual scientists and people of legitimate expertise here.

 

My mockery of that was and likely will be the basis for suspending my participation here. No apology, no embarrassed restoration of my status upon second thought - I'll get kicked off this forum before GMO proponents will acknowledge the reality of this situation.

 

btw - just to send it a bit higher up the pole - It was backed by a link to an actual published scientific consensus, in which a lot of scientists of varying familiarity with the field did in fact conclude the following:

 

None of the research done so far, into the two GMs and half dozen associated GMOs currently being marketed to Europe, had produced any evidence of any direct medical risks to humans from eating them.

 

That was what was claimed to be, right here, by a moderator who threatened me if I attempted to argue against it, a scientific consensus that GMOs were safe - all of them, as a category of organism, demonstrated safe.

 

And that, I claim, is the scariest aspect of GM technology: The people in a position to enforce prudence and forestall big trouble are startlingly oblivious - to history, to ecology, to economics, to biological complexity human and otherwise, to the nature of genetic engineering, to the vastness of the arenas of ignorance in which genetic manipulation has potential consequences.

 

It's a new field. At this stage in nuclear fission research, a much, much simpler arena of knowledge, the experts at Los Alamos were using ingots of plutonium as doorstops, inviting visitors to hold them in their bare hands and feel the warmth. They learned. A bit late, for some of them.

 

Whatever we learn about some of these GMOs, the only thing that will keep us from learning something about the GMOs we have converted our entire food supply into that is equivalent to what we just learned about trans fats or artificial sweeteners - thirty years too late - is luck. The research has not been done and is not being done, the prudent restrictions and safety reserves not established, the oversight by people capable of recognizing various aspects of the risk does not exist (people capable, say, of discriminating between the much different and differentially hazardous techniques in use, capable of flagging the very risky and letting through the relatively safe).

 

And so GMOs are hazardous, risky. Evidence of harm has nothing to do with it - we have evidence of risk, lots and lots of it: all you need is reasoning.

Edited August 1, 2015 by overtone

[MigL]

While GMOs MAY pose some risk, they also have the potential to feed the world's 7+ billion people, a fair fraction of which are starving.

 

"If you can't see that the right to life for over a billion starving people, trumps your right to avoid a little risk, I pity you."

 

*Modified quote from another member; I liked it so much, I'm going to use it for every argument.

[overtone]

While GMOs MAY pose some risk

No, this is a misconception of the concept of "risk". GMOs certainly pose numerous and varied risks, some of them significant to the point of being alarming.

 

 

 

they also have the potential to feed the world's 7+ billion people, a fair fraction of which are starving.

That is potential, same as the risk. Not all GMOs have it, or any of the other wonderful potentials GM technology so attractively creates. Not all GMOs carry the same risks either.

 

 

None of the GMOs successfully marketed so far have any potential to "feed the world". So far, the GMOs marketed have fulfilled their design potential, which was increasing the profit margins for agribusiness concerns. They have also delivered on a couple of their known risks, which were denied by their promulgators (created resistance to a couple of the most valuable and benign herbicides and pesticides, spread their genetic modifications beyond the promised boundaries, created some economic and political problems).Whether they have delivered on the unknown or unstudied risks is unknown and unstudied.

 

If political and economic problems seem trivial to you, consider that they are the main reasons for the current starvations - the tragedies you hope to end via GMOs. So some attention to the political and economic aspects of wholesale modifications of the food supplies of entire populations, by huge capitalistic corporations based on distant continents and motivated by profit, might be in order - no? If feeding the world and ending starvation is actually on the agenda, anyway.

Edited August 3, 2015 by overtone

[CharonY]

While GMOs MAY pose some risk, they also have the potential to feed the world's 7+ billion people, a fair fraction of which are starving.

 

"If you can't see that the right to life for over a billion starving people, trumps your right to avoid a little risk, I pity you."

 

*Modified quote from another member; I liked it so much, I'm going to use it for every argument.

 

I am not so sure about the overall benefits, especially if they are not freely available. That being said there is a distinct disconnect between our knowledge of how harmful certain food is and how we react to them.

Probably the biggest killer that we routinely ingest is sugar. It is directly responsible for a vast chunk of health care spending and leads to deadly diseases. At the same time it is very addictive and as such is found almost everywhere to sell products. While there is rising awareness of it, it seems to me that there is much more incentive to speculate of potential risks of adding additional protein(s) into crops than what we are doing to ourselves on a routine basis.It is good and well to be on the outlook of risks, but ignoring well recognized and existing ones in favor of potential ones for which we have found not evidence yet. And heck, I know a bunch of people who would be delighted to find adverse health effects, as these findings could make an academic career.

 

Ecological risks are probably the likeliest source. But seriously, modern (and even ancient) agriculture has already changed the shape of food variety and often mutated without actually knowing how DNA was changed. And we are complacent about it, because it makes food cheaper for us. In many ways, GMOs are just distraction so that we do not have to think about the food issues we already have.