cross-posted at annoyedomnivore.wordpress.com
With the advent of another attempt to pass a GMO labeling law in Oregon, it’s evermore frustrating to hear and read all the misinformation and outright lies touted by the industry in order to protect their bottom line. But it’s what is emerging now in otherwise respected print publications and pronouncements from admired individuals that prompts me to once again discuss the clear and present dangers of GMO crops. These particular publications and people, in scholarly fashion, are committing the sin of omission.
Michael Specter, a staff writer for the New Yorker, recently wrote two articles for the magazine, “The Problem with G.M.O. Labels” and “Seeds of Doubt.” Another article, written by David H. Freedman, “The Truth About Genetically Modified Food,” appeared in Scientific American last year. And perhaps most famously, America’s new darling astrophysicist, Neil deGrasse Tyson, debunks concerns about GMOs, the result, he claims, of an overall “fear factor” of any new technology. All of these propositions tend to dismiss concerns about GMOs on the basis of what Marion Nestle, author of “Safe Food: The Politics of Food Safety,” calls “The science-based position: [that] if GMOs are safe (which they demonstrably are), there can be no rational reason to oppose them.”
In “The Problem with G.M.O. Labels,” Specter claims that “the world needs crops that demand less from the environment and provide more nutrition, using less water, on the same amount of land.” He also puts forth the same argument used by deGrasse Tyson, which is that it’s foolish to be afraid of genetically modified food, as “all the food we eat has been modified in some way – either by nature or by humans.” Freedman, in his article, promotes the same notion about the safety of GMOs by quoting David Zilberman, a U.C. Berkeley agricultural and environmental economist (who is considered to be credible by agricultural chemical companies). Zilberman insists that the use of GM crops “has increased farmer safety by allowing them to use less pesticide.” The opposing argument about GMOs, according to Nestle, is “the societal value-based position: [that] even if GMOs are safe (and this is debatable), there are still plenty of other reasons to oppose them.” I think the two positions can merge: that if GMOs are safe there are still plenty of reasons to oppose them.
As was recently pointed out by David Bronner for EcoWatch, in his article “GMO Crops Accelerate Herbicide and Insecticide Use While Mainstream Media Gets it Wrong,” “rather than reduce pesticide inputs, GMOs are causing them to skyrocket in amount and toxicity.” Bronner cites a paper by Ramon J. Seidler, Ph.D., “Pesticide Use on Genetically Engineered Crops,” written in September 2014. Seidler specifically counters the prevailing belief that GMOs “require significantly less pesticides to control weed and insect pests.” He cites “Seeds of Doubt,” among other articles, and presents evidence that “these accounts are inaccurate and rely on annual pesticide application rates and volumes reported prior to 2010, when widespread resistance began to emerge in ‘superweeds’ and ‘superinsects’.” He points out that “many of us are unaware that in addition to the ever-increasing spraying of glyphosate and the presence of genetically engineered insecticidal Bt toxin in every cell of every GE crop plant, massive amounts of other pesticides (herbicides, insecticides, fungicides) are applied to genetically engineered food crops. The continuing massive overuse of pesticides…[has] resulted in the selection of pesticide-resistant weeds and insects, leading to ever more pesticide applications.” Seidler goes on to say that “the USDA has shown that since 1996, glyphosate use has increased some 12-fold during the GE crop era, with overall herbicide usage increasing by more than 500 million pounds.”
This overuse of chemicals on GMO crops is being compared to the overuse of antibiotics in factory farms. Dr. Seidler states that “pesticide overuse in agriculture is analogous to the overuse of antibiotics in intensive commercial livestock production systems, which has given rise to new germs that can withstand multiple antibiotics, requiring even more antibiotics at higher concentrations. These ‘supergerms’ are like the ‘superweeds’ and now ‘superinsects’ that resist standard treatment options. Scientists warn that without non-chemical management procedures, weed and insect resistances will grow and require still higher concentrations of more toxic chemicals in our food production system.” Indeed, the EPA is on the cusp of approving Dow Chemical’s new “Enlist Duo” herbicide, a mixture of glyphosate and 2,4-D. 2,4-D has been linked to, among other health problems, cancer, Parkinson’s, endocrine disruption, and reproductive problems. Approval would allow as much as 176 million more pounds (as calculated by the USDA) to be used on our lands.
Why such information is omitted in discussions of GMO crops in mainstream media is pertinent. David Williams, a cellular biologist at U.C. Los Angeles, says that only a very small minority of biologists are raising questions about the safety of GM crops. He says “this is only because the field of plant molecular biology is protecting its interests. Funding, much of it from the companies that sell GM seeds, heavily favors researchers who are exploring ways to further the use of genetic modification in agriculture.” He reminds us of the fact that “biologists who point out health or other concerns associated with GMO crops – who merely report or defend experimental findings that imply there may be risks – find themselves the focus of vicious attacks on their credibility, which leads scientists who see problems with GM foods to keep quiet.”
Every time I or someone else writes about the dangers of GMOs, people always counter with the statement that there’s no proof that GMOs cause harm. As the industry keeps tight control over what information is shared with scientists, and threatens anyone who dares suggest possible dangers, it’s quite obvious why such evidence is lacking. The evidence pertaining to the dangers of the overuse of toxins, however, is clear and mounting. There are still plenty of reasons to oppose GMOs, especially the degradation of farm land and health risks associated with pesticides.
Recipe of the Week
As I have been unable to find good quality, organic flour tortillas, I decided to make my own. They were surprisingly easy, excellent in quality and taste, and it took me under an hour, from start to finish, to make 16 tortillas. And they freeze well.
Homemade Organic Flour Tortillas
3 cups organic white flour
1 tsp sea salt
1 tsp baking powder
1/3rd cup sunflower oil
1 cup warm water
Mix the dry ingredients well. You can use a food processor, which I did, with the soft blade, or a mixer or by hand. Add the liquids to the flour mixture and process for about a minute in the mixer or processor. By hand, just knead until a soft dough forms. Once you have a ball of dough, cut it into sixteen pieces, roll them in your hands and flatten just a little. Put on a lightly floured surface and let rest for 15 minutes. Heat a large cast iron pan on medium high heat. Roll out one tortilla on a floured surface until it’s about 6 or 7 inches around. Place the tortilla in the heated pan. Almost immediately, you’ll see bubbles forming. When this happens, flip the tortilla and heat a little more on the other side. You should see some minor brown spots. As soon as you put the one tortilla in the pan, roll out another and proceed until all are done. They can be stacked and served immediately or at room temperature.