-
Extremists Dominate Public Science Debates
February 17, 2011 | 28 comments
-
Environmentalists Block Scientific Progress
December 18, 2010 | 2 comments
-
Are Organic and Green Products a Scam?
December 10, 2010 | 34 comments
-
Bjorn Lomborg’s ‘Cool It’ is a Breath of Fresh Air
November 19, 2010 | 33 comments
-
Stephen Hawking Should Stick to Physics
November 6, 2010 | 87 comments
The Spectacle Blog
The USDA on Thursday decided not to restrict the planting of genetically modified alfalfa. This is a good decision backed by solid science.
In fact, all genetically modified organisms (GMO’s) are backed by solid science. Opposition to GMO’s is becoming increasingly difficult to justify. Consider the following:
GM wheat has been developed that is drought-resistant. Obviously, this will help fight back against the effects of climate change. Also, GM rice has been created which contains a precursor of vitamin A which will help provide better nutrition to those in poverty. Both crops will help feed the planet’s growing population, which is predicted to be 9 billion by 2050. GM crops that contain Bt toxin are able to kill insects; this reduces the need to use environmentally harmful pesticides.
GM mosquitoes have been designed so that their offspring die. This will help prevent the spread of diseases such as dengue fever and malaria, which kill approximately 20,000 and 1 million people each year, respectively. Additionally, GM chickens have been made which cannot spread the flu.
Opposition to GMO’s usually falls into one of three categories: (1) Biotech and “Big Agribusiness” want to make money at the expense of poor farmers; (2) GMO’s are unnatural, and hence, undesirable; and (3) GMO’s should not be made until proven safe for humans and the environment.
While #1 might be true, it is a matter of business ethics, not science. #2 is the biological equivalent of the NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) argument; it is based entirely on emotion, not facts. Besides, all agriculture is “unnatural.” The only truly “natural” way for people to eat is to be hunter-gatherers. Most people probably aren’t ready for that lifestyle change.
#3 is the only scientific argument, but it has been mostly addressed. GMO’s are already known to be completely safe for human consumption. The vast majority of corn and soybeans in the US are genetically modified. (And corn and soybeans are used in a lot of different foods found in the grocery store.) The concern for the environment is legitimate, but evidence already indicates that GM crops have few adverse effects on the environment. Of course, GM crops need to be carefully monitored for their ecological safety over the long-term, but this is not a sufficient cause to block their use right now.
glofish_010_std.jpg
In summary, GMO’s are a major advancement in agriculture and biotechnology. GM crops will help feed the globe’s increasing population and will reduce the use of pesticides and other harmful chemicals. GM organisms, such as mosquitoes, will help prevent dengue fever and malaria. The tremendous benefits outweigh the hypothetical costs.
In the spirit of trying to understand the opposition, your correspondent supposes that a pseudo-reasonable argument could be made that genetic modification should be restricted to an “as needed only” basis, thus eliminating things like the “Arctic Apple.” But, personally, apples that never brown sound great, as do GloFish.
Alex B. Berezow is the editor of RealClearScience. He holds a Ph.D. in microbiology.
View all comments (13) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Alex B. Berezow
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/01/31/opposition-to-gm-organisms-har
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.31.11 @ 6:19AM
I have no objection to the mention or practice of genetically modified food. I do have an objection to the mention of climate change when there is no evidence it's a problem or that there is anything that can be done about it.
Bob K.| 1.31.11 @ 8:12AM
If you raise a doubt about Professor Berezow's take on Climate Change and feeding the world then you raise a doubt on everything else he says, don't you?
Some scientists have all the answers even if science does not.
Ken (Old Texican)| 1.31.11 @ 9:08AM
I do hope we will keep and store adequate supplies of "unmodified" grains and seeds in case we get a dead-end (sterility) problem somewhere down the line.
Ned the Red| 1.31.11 @ 10:18AM
Let’s develop a race of GM scientists who do their research while living in confinement, requiring only the barest of necessities to live, with no human contact.
Then they would not be influenced by greed for money (grants) and their research would be scientific (pure) not political, and oh, no e-mails.
ThinkAboutIt| 1.31.11 @ 11:17AM
I can't believe what I'm reading here. The level of naivete displayed is inconsistent with what I expect to find here. I hate to burst your bubble but the growing body of scientific research demonstrates the serious health issues to everyone who eats GMO.
While the promise certainly provided a lot of potential the truth is as larger and more intense studies come out, it is no longer even a question of IF they are dangerous but how bad will it have to get before we do something to stop it.
With all the other crap going on that is a farce like global warming, eco freaks trying to stop oil production, natural gas reserves, etc. it becomes far too easy to blow off what appears to be another jab at industry for no good reason.
This is not emotional hysteria like DDT bans but proven scientific inquiry of the toughest and most rigorous standards that leave no doubt GMO is seriously flawed. We have some serious challenges facing us right now and we need all the help we can get.
And yes far too many so-called organic and green scams tend to numb our ears and eyes to the reality of dangers we assume are just more rantings of the eco freaks once again. However it is far more distressing how easily something of this nature that if investigated with the rigor it deserves would prove the fallacy of this whole article.
Ned the Red| 1.31.11 @ 11:36AM
All right, when I get time, I will go and check if a wolf is really in the sheep.
Occam's Tool| 1.31.11 @ 11:57AM
Folks, the greatest humanitarian of all time was Norman Borlaug. He was a brilliant agronomist, started the "Green Revolution." (And I'm not talking about the feebs in the Green party, I'm talking about feeding people). GM is NOTHING more than a more precise way of interbreeding plant stocks, which has been done for hundreds of years.
Ken, none of these GM stocks are going to replace the native variety unless they compete better. The point about sterility is a good one, but competition usually requires breeding viability.
Occam's Tool| 1.31.11 @ 12:02PM
I'm sorry, forgot to comlete the thought about Norman---he was in favor of GM plants, because he thought it helped with improving yield of crops. He was a Nobelist, and possibly the most deserving Peace Prize winner in history.
brad| 1.31.11 @ 4:49PM
PHD? It must have been hard to write such a concise , but poinyant article without all the documenting facts, and journal research. What about the BT runoff(AL), pesticides found in water system, or loss of natural diversity of corn(Mexico), aaaaahhhhhhhhhh! Lead scientist for Monsanto? you don't sound like an acadeem other than the climate comment.
Jeff in PA | 1.31.11 @ 6:25PM
Is it bad that when I first saw the headline to this piece, I thought the "GM Organism" was some new car that had been built to satisfy the algae lobby?
Radu| 1.31.11 @ 7:51PM
the part about how "all GMOs are backed by solid science" made me laugh
Monsanto fabricates its study results, it's all a lie, a fraud. Their study results are so fake it's ridiculous, see here:
http://www.gmfreecymru.org/doc.....oundup.htm
Another example: In 2002, Vietnam requested assistance in dealing with the tens of thousands of birth defects due to Agent Orange. In order to avoid medical compensation expenses, Monsanto continues to claim this now banned chemical is not toxic
GM agriculture is run by some really evil people, who would love nothing more than to make a fast buck, no matter who gets sick or sued over frivolous copyright infringement charges
Radu| 2.1.11 @ 8:28AM
by the way, here is an analysis of the politically-biased decision to deregulate alfalfa:
http://www.grist.org/article/2.....over-gmo-a
as you can see, it's all a gift to the industry, in order for them to help keep Obama in power, he is up for re-election you know, the decision has to do with everything BUT actual science