Innovation Files has moved! For ITIF's quick takes, quips, and commentary on the latest in tech policy, go to itif.org

GMO

Hey, Chipotle! Don’t Look Now, But It’s “Turtles All the Way Down!”

Chipotle precipitated a media flurry with their recent announcement that they will henceforth “cook only with non-GMO ingredients.” They go on to say “A GMO is created by inserting genes from one species (typically bacteria or a virus) into the DNA of another. This can result in a plant with characteristics that wouldn’t occur naturally, such as producing pesticides or the ability to withstand high doses of chemical herbicides.”

Chipotle is of course free to make whatever business decisions they choose. But it has been refreshing to see them taken to task by a variety of skeptical voices. But let’s consider their reasoning.

Is Chipotle’s menu now free of “GMO ingredients?” Even if we accept their indefensible definition of GMO (see below), the answer is no. Consider cheese, a significant player on the Chipotle menu. The vast majority of cheese (80-90%) produced in the US is manufactured with fermentation produced chymosin (FPC) derived from genetically engineered bacteria. The FPC remains in the finished product, invalidating even the Jesuitical distinction between “containing” and “made with.” Also consider their soft drinks. Most of them contain high fructose corn syrup derived

Read the rest

Anatomy Of A Smear Attack on GMO Supporting Scientists

This article was originally published in The Huffington Post. It is co-authored by Val Giddings and Jon Entine

Recently on the Huffington Post we came across a disturbing article – an attack by Jeffrey Smith on two respected university professors who apply a critical eye to the claims made by various advocates alleging dangers to human health linked to genetically modified organisms (GMOs.) 2015-04-01-1427906926-6335062-HuffPoheadline.png

Smith, if you are not familiar with him, heads up a one-man band rabidly anti-GMO organization known as the Institute for Responsible Technology–he and his organization are controversial to say the least, but more on that later.

The subject of the attack piece was co-written by University of Illinois emeritus professor Bruce Chassy and University of Melbourne geneticist David Tribe. It appears on the website of AcademicsReview, an independent non-profit set up by the scholars to address the maelstrom of misinformation that passes for debate on the GMO issue. In one of their most pointed and heavily circulated critiques, Chassy and Tribe examine one of Smith’s two self-published books that supposedly ‘prove’ that GMO foods are reckless and dangerous.

Chassy and Tribe’s critique titled “Yogic Flying

Read the rest

Mandatory “GMO” Labeling Proposals Are Failing Despite Unprecedented Efforts and Expenditures

Anti-GMO advocates assert that they are winning in their campaign to free the world of GMOs by pointing to the passage of labeling laws in a scant handful of states. To listen to them, it is only a matter of time before labeling is required everywhere, and from there it is a short step to the “market” demanding non-GMO food. Now that the dust has settled from all the activity of 2014, it is time to take stock and see where things stand.

Proponents did manage to get a law passed in Vermont in 2014. But if that was a “victory” it was Pyrrhic. As predicted, it was immediately challenged in court (by food companies, not, as opponents claim, by Monsanto), where it is likely doomed on multiple grounds. Earlier passage of similar bills in Connecticut and Maine require a trigger before they would come into effect, and that trigger—in essence, requiring New York to pass a mandatory labeling requirement—is unlikely to be met. Campaigns mounted in more than 30 states have been conspicuous by their (costly) failures, including expensive battles over the past decade in states like California,

Read the rest

GMOs, Neonicotinoids, and Aldo Leopold’s Land Ethic: The Fish & Wildlife Service Brings a “Whole Foods” Approach to Wildlife While Shooting Itself in Our Foot

With little fanfare, last summer the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service announced it would formally ban the use of seeds treated with neonicotinoid pesticides, (a newer, safer generation of seed treatments to protect against pests) and the use of crops improved through biotechnology throughout the fish and wildlife refuge system.

It is worth quoting at some length the announcement, which came via a memo from the Chief of the National Wildlife Refuge System:

The Leadership Team agreed that by January 2016, the System will only use an agricultural practice where it specifically contributes to wildlife objectives. This conforms to 601 FW 3, the Service’s Biological Integrity, Diversity and Environmental Health policy (BIDEH). BIDEH directs us to maintain and restore the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of refuges and is based on the underlying principle of wildlife conservation that favors management that restores or mimics natural ecosystem processes or functions to achieve refuge purpose(s).

By January 2016, we will no longer use neonicotinoid pesticides in agricultural practices used in the System. Service policy 569 FW 1 Pest Management directs that we use long-standing integrated pest management principles to guide and

Read the rest

Maize

Points to Consider: Republication of Discredited and Retracted Paper on Rats, GMOs, and Cancer

“Original” Paper: “Republished Study: Long-term Toxicity of a Roundup Herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant Genetically Modified Maize,” by Gilles-Eric Séralini, et. al., June 24, 2014, Environmental Science Europe,

This is a re-framed re-publication of a paper first made public in 2012. That article was subsequently retracted by the journal publisher, followed by an explanatory note from the editor.

Primary Claims:

This paper recycles claims made in the original paper, specifically:

  • Glyphosate (Roundup) tolerant corn (maize) causes cancerous tumors in rats that consume it.
  • Glyphosate itself causes cancerous tumors in rats that consume it.

It adds some related claims as well:

  • That the retraction of the original paper was imposed even though the publisher admitted that “the data were not incorrect, that there was no misconduct, no fraud or intentional misinterpretation in our complete raw data…Our study was however never attended to be a carcinogenicity study”
  • The retraction of the original paper was unjustified, as “Censorship of research into health risks undermines the value and the credibility of science, thus we republish our paper.”
  • They also claim that the retraction illustrates “a historic example of conflicts of interest in
Read the rest

Consumers Union Makes False Claims Against the Safety of Genetically Modified Foods Based On Ideology Not Science

The ideologically driven, anti-technology campaign to restrict access to safe, sustainable and affordable foods improved through biotechnology got a boost when Vermont Governor Pete Shumlin signed into law a new measure that mandates the labeling of foods modified through genetic engineering sold in Vermont.

This campaign in support of the law is based on financial self interest and fear, not on reasoned policy designed to inform and protect consumers. Since other states are considering similar laws based on the same faulty reasoning, a detailed consideration of the argument is timely. To test the misleading statements and mischaracterizations of the labling campaigners I present testimony below from Michael Hansen, Ph.D., Senior Scientist with the Consumers Union. This testimony was presented as part of the New York State Assembly Standing Committee on Consumer Affairs and Protection’s Public Hearing on the Use of Biotechnology in Foods and the Effects on Consumers at Lehman College, on Tuesday, July 30, 2013. I include Hansen’s statements on GMOs and provide a factual analysis with documentation correcting his false and inaccurate claims.

The italicized portions below are statements by Assembly Members or by Michael Hansen. Some of

Read the rest

consumers

Which Consumers Do Consumer Groups Represent?

Anytime the media covers an issue that might affect consumers, they ask so-called consumer groups for a quote as if these groups by definition represent consumer interests. Check that box. Case in point, a story in Saturday’s New York Times on Monsanto and Dupont Pioneer’s successful efforts to develop genetically modified soybeans that eliminate harmful trans-fats in soybean oil. The reporter argues that these new beans could help the image of the biotech industry because they are among first generation of GMOs that help consumers, rather than farmers.

What? So let me get this right. Past GMO efforts to reduce the costs of growing food (e.g. drought resistant seeds, seeds needing less pesticide application, etc.) don’t help consumers? It seems that the article is making the argument that anything that helps producers, by definition either doesn’t help consumers, or in fact harms them. In this framing, the implicit assumption is agriculture is a monopoly where all improvements in productivity are kept by the farmers, and not passed along to the consumers in the form of lower prices. Wow, did these people never study economics? Apparently not.

But this framing,
Read the rest