"Look, there's no point in lying down in the path of progress."

"I've gone off the idea of progress. It's overrated."

There's some construction going on near my office.

Happy Towel Day.

Dear Royal Ontario Museum...

Dear Royal Ontario Museum:

I am now working under the provisional hypothesis that you are helmed by a group of ravening morons. I would be astonished and delighted if you were to provide evidence to the contrary.

Sincerely,
Gem Newman

Perhaps it's best that I leave the authorship of open letters to others. I recommend that anyone familiar with the antics of Deepak Chopra sign this one, from the Committee for the Advancement of Scientific Skepticism (CFI Canada). Those of you unfamiliar with the good doctor may content yourselves with my envy.

More on Genetic Engineering

My previous post garnered some feedback, which I'll reproduce here:

I used to be fully on board with the position that you've taken in this post (thanks to Bullshit!), but then I watched this video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOMqwPxUx54 and changed my mind.

Please watch it and respond with your thoughts.

Thanks for your comment, Rob. I'm glad that you're willing to change your mind—it's often a difficult thing to do, but it is sometimes necessary to preserve one's intellectual integrity. As someone who has recently started eating vegetarian (I was convinced by this episode of Reasonable Doubts), this is something that I understand. I remember one of the Novellas remarking on an old episode of The Skeptics' Guide that he tries to have no emotional attachment to his beliefs, only to the process by which he arrives at them—I certainly think that this goal is laudable.

In this particular instance, however, I must disagree with your assessment, for I have found insufficient evidence to persuade me to change my views. I don't have time to review the entire video in grisly detail (it seems to suffer in many places from what Eugenie Scott and Steven Novella have called the "Gish Gallop", and I don't have twelve hours to devote to addressing every rapidfire claim), but I will hit some highlights.

The video contains an interview with Jeffrey Smith, who is described by the Institute for Responsible Technology as a "GMO expert". He has written several books, and he apparently also writes for the Huffington Post (a notorious den of quackery which also frequently employs Deepak Chopra, another acclaimed author), and although he claims to have been quoted in Nature and New Scientist, he has not authored or participated in any peer-reviewed research on the subject. I could find no information on his educational background, even on his own site (if I simply missed it, please let me know).

So to begin with, I have no more reason to think that he knows what he's talking about than any random person I meet on the street. But let's take a look at what he has to say.

There are genes from spiders that've been inserted into goat DNA in the hopes that they could milk the goat to get spiderweb protein...

So? What's wrong with that? His premise seems to be missing an argument; but his intention to me seems clear: to scare people with the Frankensteinian exploits of genetic engineers.

They have genes from bacteria that produce its [sic] own pesticide transfered into corn and cotton so that every cell and every bite of the corn produces a toxic pesticide to kill insects.

What Smith fails to mention here is that the bacteria in question (bacillus thuringiensis) affects only insects and closely-related organisms. Bt has been found to be safe in humans.

The genetically engineered foods currently on the market only have two main traits: 80% are designed to withstand doses of herbicide (they don't die when they're sprayed with the company's proprietary herbicide) or they're engineered to produce a pesticide. 99.9% of these crops only have these two traits. But if you listen to the rhetoric by the biotech companies, they claim that the GM foods are going to feed the world's hungry, they're going to reduce pesticides, increase yields, and increase nutrition. In reality the average GM crop reduces yield and the herbicide-tolerant crops have resulted in about 250 million extra pounds of herbicide being sprayed on fields in the United States.

Some of what he says here seems to directly contradict the report from the NRC that I referenced previously. "In many cases, farmers who have adopted the use of GE crops have either lower production costs or higher yields, or sometimes both, due to more cost-effective weed and insect control and fewer losses from insect damage."

But I think that this is an important point: Doesn't it stand to reason that reducing losses due to insect predation will increase crop yields? Smith seems to disagree. The safety of chemical pesticides have been a concern for decades, and Bt is by many accounts a safe and effective alternative. The levels of pesticide deemed safe by the government are often several orders of magnitude lower than those recommended by scientists and medial professionals, just to be safe. (See podcast and references here.)

It's also lost money for farmers in whole sectors, and this has caused the United States government to spend an extra three to five billion dollars per year subsidising the prices of these crops that no one wants overseas and that a greater number of people in the United States are rejecting.

In this instance, I'd question the causal link that he proposes between GE foods and $3–$5 billion in government subsidies. I'm not claiming that GE foods are not a contributing factor, but I'm not aware of any evidence that they are. Farming is a tough business.

I do believe him when he says that "a greater number of people in the United States are rejecting" GE foods (although "Greater than what?" is a question that might be appropriate, here). However this argument from popularity is logically fallacious, and I'm convinced that the fear-mongering of Smith and others like him takes the lion's share of the blame for the "Frankenfoods" scare.

Scientists give the false notion that genetic engineering is just an extension of natural breeding.

Actually, I believe they tend to label it an extension of artificial selection, but that's minutia.

The process of genetic engineering causes massive collateral damage in the DNA of the natural plant. The GM DNA can be two to four percent different, mostly through mutations: unpredicted, unexpected mutations up and down the DNA, different from its natural parent.

I would like evidence that these mutations occur at the rate specified and that they are harmful. Citation needed.

This is a theme that seems to run through the entire interview. Although the rhetoric is obviously persuasive, one of this particular disadvantages of this video (and many others) is the apparent unwillingness of the producers to cite any sources (as contrasted to the show notes of podcasts such as The Reality Check, Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, and others, or the on-screen and off-screen citations and resources provided by other YouTubers such as Thunderf00t). This makes it incredibily difficult and time-consuming to fact-check. To quote the emminent Samuel Clemmens, "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."

It turns out ... that the quality and quantity of safety studies is [sic] insufficient to protect the public. ... The overwhelming consensus among the FDA's own scientists were that GM foods were inherently unsafe.

Again, citation needed.

Look: I'm not going to be convinced by a video—unless it is an eminently cited video produced by several people who can demonstrate that they are well-educated in the appropriate fields, and who I can be reasonably sure have no vested interest in either side of the argument. Hey, I know that's a tall order. I'm not going to watch every video that is sent to me (especially if they're more than a few minutes long)—there's a lot of garbage out there, and my time is precious to me. That's why I'd prefer a scientific paper over a video, any day. And it's a hell of a lot easier to quote!

I want to be clear (something that apparently I'm not very good at): I am not saying that all GE foods are safe. I am not saying that organic foods are bad for you. I am not saying that testing new products is unnecessary. And I am not simply siding with biotechnological companies.

What I am saying is that the label "organic" is not scientifically meaningful: it's marketing, like putting vitamins in your shampoo. What I am saying is that GE crops have been shown to provide specific benefits over traditional crops.

I don't think that organic is the solution. I think that cautious progress, full of scientific testing and all of that good stuff, is. I think Ben Goldacre gets it right:

I’m cautious about GM, and each crop needs to be assessed on a case by case basis, but they seem safe overall. If there’s something new and frightening, then I want to see it published, in full, so we can all sit down and get frightened by it together, on the basis of well conducted research that we can see and read. Before that, I’m not sure anyone’s very well served by scare headlines.

And who wouldn't want a goat that you could milk for spider-silk? :)

Science!

There are a few words that make me tense as soon as I hear them. When these words are uttered, the hair on the back of my neck stirs, my nostrils flare, and that vein on my right temple starts to pulse in rhythm with my irritation. These words can spark that dangerous gleam in my eye that causes my wife to grab my arm and try to drag me away from the conversation.

One of those words? Organic.

The conversation will often go something like this:

Other: Would you like some chips?
Me: No thanks.
Other: Come on, you should try them.
Me: Why?
Other: They're organic.
Me: Organic?
Other: Yeah!
Me: You mean, like paraffin wax?
Other: What?
Me: Paraffin wax. You know, good ol' C₂₅H₅₂. You make candles out of it.
Other: Uh...
Me: Or soda bottles. They're mostly made out of polyethylene terephthalate. That's organic!
Other: I don't think so...
Me: Sure! Didn't you pay attention in high school chemistry?
Other: No, I mean like vegetables and stuff.
Me: Oh! You mean organic in the scientifically meaningless, "chemical free", "all natural", "genetically unmodified" way.
Other: Er, yes.
Me: Sigh.

Whenever I hear the words "all natural", I cringe. It reminds me of the time that I entered one of those all natural beauty product stores to buy some interesting soaps for a family member a few years back. I made the mistake of asking about one of the products, to which the clerk replied, "Oh, all of our products are all natural. We don't use any chemicals at all!" "Really?" I responded, feigning astonishment, "No chemicals at all? That's amazing! I would have thought you'd at least need to put in some water!"

And for the last time*, everything (or near enough) is genetically modified! That's what agriculture is all about! It's why a chihuahua looks different from a wolf. It's where we got canola, for crying out loud! It's called artificial selection, folks. We've just recently stumbled upon an alternate (and, in many ways, more efficient) way to do it.

But let's get back on track.

The term "organic" as it's used in agriculture annoys me for several reasons. It's scientifically meaningless, it's steeped from stem to stern in the naturalistic fallacy [edit: appeal to nature], and it reeks of ingratitude for everything that genetic modification, direct and indirect, has done for us so far. I agree with Penn and Teller when they label Norman Borlaug the greatest human being who ever lived. And so I was so pleased when this news item was brought to my attention.

According to a recent report from the National Research Council in the United States:

Many U.S. farmers who grow genetically engineered (GE) crops are realizing substantial economic and environmental benefits—such as lower production costs, fewer pest problems, reduced use of pesticides, and better yields... [Emphasis mine.]

Surprised? You shouldn't be. That's what they're supposed to do.

Improvements in water quality could prove to be the largest single benefit of GE crops, the report says. Insecticide use has declined since GE crops were introduced, and farmers who grow GE crops use fewer insecticides and herbicides that linger in soil and waterways. In addition, farmers who grow herbicide-resistant crops till less often to control weeds and are more likely to practice conservation tillage, which improves soil quality and water filtration and reduces erosion.

Wait a second... Farmers who grow GE crops use fewer insecticides and herbicides...? Doesn't that imply that farmers who grow organic crops are using such harmful chemicals? Why, yes, it does! It's a common myth that organic food is healthier not only because it's "natural" (whatever that means) but also because it's free of harmful chemical pesticides. As Brian Dunning explains, this isn't true:

Some supporters of organic growing claim that the danger of non-organic food lies in the residues of chemical pesticides. This claim is even more ridiculous: Since the organic pesticides and fungicides are less efficient than their modern synthetic counterparts, up to seven times as much of it must be used. Organic pesticides include rotenone, which has been shown to cause the symptoms of Parkinson's Disease and is a natural poison used in hunting by some native tribes; pyrethrum, which is carcinogenic; sabadilla, which is highly toxic to honeybees; and fermented urine, which I don't want on my food whether it causes any diseases or not.

The NRC article does go on to caution farmers that if they rely too heavily on glysophate for weed control (as this is an herbicide to which many GE crops are resistant) this could lead to selective pressure that may result in weeds that are also resistant to glysophate. But this problem is hardly constrained to GE crops: it is, in fact, the heart of that never-ending arms race that we call evolution. In fairness, however, the problem could be exacerbated by an over-reliance by farmers on an herbicide to which the GE crops are unusually resilient. Vigilance is in order.

It also bears reminding the interested parties that the reason crops are designed to be resilient to glysophate is because it "has fewer adverse environmental effects compared with most other herbicides used to control weeds", thus making it a safer and more environmentally friendly solution. These aren't "frankenfoods", these are hard-won advantages that give us the edge over starvation and help to prevent environmental degradation from modern farming efforts—and although it's lovely and romantic to think of how nice it would be if all of our food came from an organic family farm, I'm reasonably convinced that this is not only economically infeasible for the farmers, it's impossible from a landmass point of view.

And so: "Farmers need to adopt better management practices to ensure that beneficial environmental effects of GE crops continue." I highly recommend reading the full article (it's relatively short and very readable), or even purchasing a copy of the study itself.

Science isn't the enemy.

Tip of the straw hat to The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe.

*Should not be construed as any sort of guarantee.

Best. Game. EVER.

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/534416

That is all.