Non-Scientific Garbage

I liked when Mark Bittman wrote "The Minimalist" column, but I think that his change over to more political-food commentary is mostly good. Still, one thing that really gets me is bad- or no-science judgments about things...and food politics comes loaded with it.

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO's) are a real touchy subject. The whole of the objection to GMOs is emotional, anti-rational, paranoid fear-mongering, and Bittman is no exception. In this latest column on the subject he is complaining that they are not labeled so consumers do not have a choice in avoiding them. So let's look at his arguments...

His first argument is "It’s unlikely that these products’ potential benefits could possibly outweigh their potential for harm." Ok, this is a garbage argument..."unlikely"? For reals? Based on what? Your hunches? Your extraordinary knowledge of genetics? That he would write this is embarassing.

He continues, "[the U.S.D.A. doesn't] want to 'suggest or imply' that these foods are 'different'," which is a pretty sound argument for the USDA, especially when his next paragraph starts out: "They are arguably different, but more important, people are leery of them." So, they are only "arguably" different, and people are leery of them, so the USDA should reinforce that "arguable" misconception by labeling them and making people more afraid of something that the science so far (coming back to this) says they shouldn't fear even a little?

He is making the USDA's case for not labeling GMOs. This fear-mongering is what the USDA is worried about. But he does have some real arguments...

G.E. products may grow faster, require fewer pesticides, fertilizers and herbicides, and reduce stress on land, water and other resources; they may be more profitable to farmers. But many of these claims are in dispute, and advances in conventional agriculture, some as simple as drip irrigation, may achieve these same goals more simply. Certainly conventional agriculture is more affordable for poor farmers, and most of the worlds’ farmers are poor. (The surge in suicides among Indian farmers has been attributed by some, at least in part, to G.E. crops, and it’s entirely possible that what’s needed to feed the world’s hungry is not new technology but a better distribution system and a reduction of waste.)

So GMOs may reduce damage to the land and reduce our use of toxins/fertilizers. Good. Maybe not as much as some claim. Still good. Maybe other advances will get there too. Still good. Non-GMO maybe better for poor farmers (at least right now). Still good. Better distribution/waste reduction can do a lot to help with hunger. Still, GMO's don't take away anything here, the only effect throughout this paragraph is the first one, so GMO's are...good.

Note: I am not ignoring the Indian farmer suicide thing, it sounds bad until you realize that it has nothing to do with GMOs but everything to do with megacorps and pursuit of profits at the expense of poor farmers. I certainly agree that the way corporations are handling GMOs (and, really, tons of other things) is ethically dark, but that is unrelated to whether GMOs are, themselves bad. So this is a rather random, non-argument either way.

But wait, there's more:

To be fair, two of the biggest fears about G.E. crops and animals — their potential to provoke allergic reactions and the transfer to humans of antibiotic-resistant properties of G.M.O.’s — have not come to pass. (As far as I can tell, though, they remain real dangers.)

So the biggest fears bout GMOs seem to be a load of crap, but Mark doesn't like that so he will drop in completely unfounded and senseless commentary in parentheses so that people will ignore this and continue to be afraid. And this is fair how?

But there has been cross-breeding of natural crops and species with those that have been genetically engineered, and when ethanol corn cross-pollinates feed corn, the results could degrade the feed corn; when G.E. alfalfa cross-pollinates organic alfalfa, that alfalfa is no longer organic;

um...So?...*Oh noes, my alfalfa is no longer organic, the world as we know it shall end!* (Of course it still has the other "organic" benefits, if there are any.)

...if a G.E. salmon egg is fertilized by a wild salmon, or a transgenic fish escapes into the wild and breeds with a wild fish … it’s not clear what will happen.

This last scenario is impossible, say the creators of the G.E. salmon — a biotech company called AquaBounty — whose interest in approval makes their judgment all but useless. (One Fish and Wildlife Service scientist wrote in material obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, “Maybe they should watch ‘Jurassic Park.’ “)

Ok, there may be a point here. We don't know. We never really do until after we experiment. That's one of the things about science: there is always uncertainty, particularly when going forward with something new. The ignored (by Mark) counter point here is: we are depleting fish stocks, and faster. We've already done a number on Atlantic Salmon and there is a chance that GMOs could help. It doesn't mean that these getting out would be good, but again, there used to be lots of Atlantic salmon, now there are not, so if some get out, they could either help the population or further diminish it...or do nothing. In this case however, even the bad outcome would have next to zero ecological impact because this species already has been/is being decimated in the environment. Still, this could be either good or bad or neutral. Net 0, but unpredictability will cause a skew a little to the bad. Of course this is still fish specific.

The subject is unquestionably complex. Few people outside of scientists working in the field — self included — understand much of anything about gene altering. Still, an older ABC poll found that a majority of Americans believe that G.M.O.’s are unsafe, even more say they’re less likely to buy them, and a more recent CBS/NYT poll found a whopping 87 percent — you don’t see a poll number like that too often — wants them labeled.

...and then more on this strain "we have a right to know" like Europeans or some such.

Non-scientists are, by and large, really, really, really bad at understanding science. This article is proof of that. If all the uncertainty was real and meaningful and there were sound reasons to not do GMO then the appropriate response is that the USDA should not allow GMOs to be sold to us, not to label them. Lables are appropriate to let people know what is in something, but if GM corn has the same thing in it as non-GM corn, there is NO DIFFERENCE to label.

Now there may be a real fear associated with whether the USDA is a capable arbiter of GMOs, but the fact remains that they are stocked with competent scientists, who could easily leak docs to the right people about corporations buying out the execs of the USDA and making non-science based decisions. I would jump all over that evidence.

As of now, however, the only REAL evidence out there is that GMOs are not different from the food perspective and that they confer some benefits to the environment over the standard crops. Inducing panic, and stoking Mark Bittman's and others' irrational fears by labeling them, in a total absense of bad evidence is wrong. Maybe GMOs are going to market with insufficient testing, and maybe Mark Bittman and 87% of the public don't understand science and GMOs and are being irrational paranoid nuts, but this article fosters bad science understanding and Mark should apologize to the scientists and researchers who are working hard to safeguard America's and the world's food supply.

Final note: no USDA requirement doesn't mean savvy producers won't start slapping "GMO-free!" labels on their food sometime in the near future. Then there will be the necessary USDA intervention to make sure that "GMO-free!" labeled foods actually are and a whole new fight will break out...