Antivaccine versus anti-GMO: Different goals, same methods

[HuckleB]

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/antivaccine-versus-anti-gmo-different-goals-same-methods/#more-23012


"...

There’s a lot in common between anti-GMO activists and antivaccine activists. Perhaps the most prominent similarity is philosophical. Both groups fetishize the naturalistic fallacy, otherwise known as the belief that if it’s “natural” it must be good (or at least better than anything man-made or “artificial”). In the case of antivaccine activists, the immune response caused by vaccines is somehow “unnatural” and therefore harmful and evil, even though the mechanisms by which the immune system responds to vaccines are the same or similar to how it responds to “natural” antigens. That’s the whole idea, to stimulate the immune system to think that you’ve had the disease without actually giving you the disease, thus stimulating long term immunity to the actual disease! In the case of anti-GMO activists, the same idea appears to prevail, namely that, because GMOS are somehow “unnatural,” they must be harmful and evil. That’s not to say that they might not have problems and issues that need to be dealt with, but the apocalyptic language used by many of the anti-GMO activists like Mike Adams and Joe Mercola is so far over-the-top that it is very much like the language of the antivaccine movement. In fact, not surprisingly, antivaccinationists are often anti-GMO as well, and vice-versa, an example of crank magnetism in action. Indeed, Joe Mercola himself is one of the biggest backers of California Proposition 37, which would require the labeling of GMO-based food, having donated $1.1 million so far.

The particular study that has been reverberating through out the anti-GMO community over the last couple of weeks was done by a group in France led by Gilles-Eric Séralini at the University of Caen with a history of opposition to GMOs. Also, as Steve pointed out, Séralini et al did not allow reporters to seek outside comment on their paper before its publication. If there’s a red flag that a study is ideologically motivated crap and that the authors know it’s ideologically motivated crap, I can’t think of one. Even if Séralini et al didn’t know their study was weak and were somehow afraid that the nefarious Monsanto scientists would plant negative sound bites into news stories about the study, I’m sorry, but trying to control initial news reports like this is just not how scientific results should be announced, period. It’s cowardice and an unseemly attempt at spin.

...

So why should we care? As I said before, I detest ideologically-motivated pseudoscience and bad science. It’s the same reason I come down so hard on antivaccine “researchers” like Andrew Wakefield, Mark and David Geier, and various other “researchers” who pump out bad studies that support the long-discredited hypothesis that vaccines cause autism or that vaccines cause a whole host of problems. This bad science has real implications, both politically and in policy. Already, Séralini’s risibly bad study has motivated the French government to order a probe into the results of the study, which could result in the suspension of this strain of genetically modified corn. Moreover, one can’t help but wonder a little bit about the timing of the release of this study, given that Proposal 37, which would require the labeling of GMO-based food, is a big issue in California right now, and a study like this might just influence the election.

When it comes to GMO, I don’t really have a dog in the hunt, so to speak, but brain dead studies like this one certainly prod me towards the view that much of the “science” behind anti-GMO activism just doesn’t hold water, and the easy acceptance of such nonsensical results as valid by those who should know better but apparently don’t is just plain depressing. There might be valid reasons to be wary of the proliferation of GMO-based foods, such as concern over the control that large multinational corporations like Monsanto might exercise over the food supply, but the studies purporting to find horrific dangers of GMO-based food strike me as having the methodological rigor of a typical Andrew Wakefield or Mark Geier study—or an acupuncture study. Perhaps that’s why I wasn’t too surprised when one of my readers pointed out that one of the authors of the study is also a homeopath and acupuncturist; so maybe the better comparison to make to this paper would be papers by homeopaths trying to show that homeopathy works. Either way, this is bad, bad science, and it’s sad to see how many people who should know better (but apparently do not) lap it up so credulously while applying much greater skepticism to science that doesn’t damn GMOs as pure poison.

..."


The "problems" with the latest GMO rat study are so numerous it would be laughable if the propaganda pushing it as legitimate wasn't so loud. Science needs to be the way this is evaluated and discussed, not bad hyperbole "about the end of the world."

Cheers!

[hedgehog]

1. I think there are many, many problem with GMO foods -

for example, organic farmers use Bt spores sparingly when faced with an uncontrolled infestation. The reason? Even though Bt is a "natural" pesticide, it doesn't kill every insect. Overuse of Bt will result in a population of insects resistant to Bt. Planting GMO crop s that constantly produce Bt toxins will quickly render the Bt toxins useless.

I'm very suspicious that there may be a connection with the uptick in obesity and the conversion to GMO corn, wheat and soy.

However, bad science does nothing but convince people that GMO foods are harmless.

[HuckleB]

2. It's not that simple.

This piece, and this researcher, explains these "problems" quite well.


http://scienceblogs.com/tomorrowstable/2012/09/24/rachel-carsons-dream-of-a-science-based-agriculture-may-come-as-a-surprise-to-those-who-believe-that-sustainability-and-technology-are-incompatible/

[hedgehog]

3. From the article you linked to:

"For example, there is ample evidence that insects can develop resistance to BT, if it is used as the sole method of pest control. Effective methods for slowing the spread of insect resistance include crop rotation, intercropping and planting refuges of non-BT cotton and non-crop species"

The use of Round-up ready crops means that farmers are using Round-up. What happens when weeds become resistant to Round-up? What happens to an ecosystem that is dealing with the run-off from Round-up treated fields? I've read articles based on good science that would indicate that in the long run, methods that rely on building good soil out-produce methods that depend on technology. for example- fields that were planted using GMO crops using conventional methods lose soil each year. Fields planted using sustainable methods gain soil. Over a ten year time span, both fields will have approximately the same yield. however, the fields planted using sustainable methods will produce crops even during years when drought conditions occur. Studying GMO crops in isolation misses the larger picture.

http://www.ag.iastate.edu/farms/02reports/ne/OrganicConvSystems.pdf

http://phys.org/news/2012-04-debate-conventional-agriculture-combining-approaches.html

http://grist.org/organic-food/crop-yields-are-only-part-of-the-organic-vs-conventional-farming-debate/

http://www.agroecology.org/Case%20Studies/strawberries.html

[HuckleB]

7. I'm not going to play games.

It's not worth the time of day. The researcher notes that everything must be balanced. Jumping to the usual "Round Up Ready" routine is not a balanced discussion. It is doing exactly what was pointed out in the OP.

Good day.

[Tumbulu]

5. Yes there are and since there have been no public studies

of the safety of the products of this technology we are left in the dark.

Criticisms of this one test are ridiculous. Where are the toxicity studies performed by the companies putting these seeds out? If they have the gaul to criticise the methods, then let's see their own internal tests.

They made the outrageous claim that they are the same and do not require any safety peer reviewed safety testing.

If we can get Prop 37 passed in CA, it will make a huge difference. Labeling is the least we can do, they should have never been allowed out in the environment without being thoroughly tested.

[HuckleB]

17. Bzzt. Wrong.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120124140103.htm

http://science.slashdot.org/story/11/12/23/1440223/new-study-confirms-safety-of-gm-crops

http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf

Now, I could go on and on, but there is no point. You have a belief. It is not a rational belief. You will not let go of it, no matter what. We both know this.

Good day.

[graham4anything]

4. Wakefield was a fraud, a quack and vaccines save billions of lives

and idiots who for no reason but a bad conspiracy don't get their kids the vaccines, are directly responsible for those that die from diseases thought eradicated.

as for the other, what does one have to do with the other? apples and oranges, and I take no opinion on the other as it is irrelevant to those derelect in their duties for mankind by allowing eradicated diseases to come back

[HuckleB]

9. The same anti-science routines are being used by the majority of the "GMO is evil" crowd.

That was explained in this piece, and has been explained in other pieces, as well.

For example, there is this well-linked piece: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/09/are_gmo_foods_safe_opponents_are_skewing_the_science_to_scare_people_.html

[Tumbulu]

6. This is a ridiculous argument

It was the job of the GMO people to prove that their products were safe.

They have never done this and then to attack studies that attempt to do what they should have done 25 years ago as "flawed" is purely harassment.

Let us see all the peer reviewed studies showing that the promiscuous promotors are not infecting soil microorganisms with unwanted genes. Let's see all the peer reviewed studies showing that the promotors are not infecting the microorganisms in the digestive/intestinal tracts of mammals. Let's see the peer reviewed long term safety studies on eating these foods and eating foods with the higher residues of round up that they allow farmer's to use.

No, the industry will just attack anyone who asks for testing as anti-science and any scientist with any question becomes labeled an activist. And only scientists in the gmo cheerleading squad get to be called scientists. That is how it works and has worked for 25 years now in this country.

Luckily Europe and Japan were not bullied into this outrageous truly anti scientific approach.

[HuckleB]

8. Ah, yes, you want a negative proven before anything can be done.

Thanks you for offering up the usual non-science response. Oh, and are you saying Europe does not use GMO products? Really?

Good day.

[Tumbulu]

10. It is never a good day when scientists shirk professional duty

to claim something entirely new is safe WITHOUT testing it first.

Science requires testing. Period. If one wants to make statements based on belief, then one needs to stay in the realm of religious studies.

There is a place for religion, but it should not be the basis of food safety policy (imo).

[HuckleB]

11. You keep making claims, but you don't support them with science.

It's odd.

[Tumbulu]

12. No, I keep waiting to see

all the peer reviewed studies proving these products are safe and that they are not introducing foreign genes into non targeted microorganisms.

Scientists run tests and studies and publish them.

[HuckleB]

13. No, you keep making claims without support.

Why pretend otherwise?

It's odd.

[HuckleB]

14. PS:

http://www.science20.com/science_20/gmos_are_pesticide_sponge_and_other_weird_tales_gilleseric_seralini-94307

[Tumbulu]

15. Is this silly blog link a joke?

You know I remain waiting for all the peer reviewed studies answering the questions posed. Entertaining as a blog may be, I am really only interested in actual studies. From actual scientists.

[HuckleB]

16. You're not waiting for anything.

You're choosing to ignore the reality.

Here's some more for you to ignore:

Joe Schwarcz: Debate over genetically modified food lacks reasoned arguments

Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/Schwarcz+Debate+over+genetically+modified+food+lacks+reasoned+arguments/7309263/story.html#ixzz28G9SaREC