Neil deGrasse Tyson Tells GMO Critics to "Chill Out"

[mike_c]

52. so what do you call ignoring the reasoned, professional judgement of the majority...

...of the world's scientists and scientific organizations, all of whom have said that GMOs are not materially different from non-GMO foods, if not anti-science?

Let's examine your points one by one.

Science brought us dangerous pesticides that are now banned, nuclear weapons that could destroy our planet, technology that is polluting our air and water, etc. Just because something is the product of scientific exploration, does not necessarily mean it is beneficial.

Those same pesticides saved millions of lives and were banned not because they are intrinsically dangerous, but because people over used them. Most people's understanding of the decision to ban pesticides like DDT is terribly flawed, often resulting from scientific illiteracy and misinformation. Technology is a two edged sword-- we can use it responsibly or not, but are you really suggesting that science should stop advancing because people don't always use it's fruits responsibly?

26 countries (probably more since this article was written) have banned GMOs and not because they are "anti-science, anti-intellectual, and anti-progressive".

They did so against the advice of most of the world's major scientific and medical organizations. All too often, governments react to civil hysteria, not to scientific consensus. The fact that countries have banned GMOs says exactly nothing about whether those bans were justified.

The case against GMOs has strengthened steadily over the last few years. Critics say that genetic engineering disrupts the precise sequence of a food’s genetic code and disturbs the functions of neighboring genes, which can give rise to potentially toxic or allergenic molecules or even alter the nutritional value of food produced. The Bt toxin used in GMO corn, for example, was recently detected in the blood of pregnant women and their babies, with possibly harmful consequences.

Critics "say" this, but no one has ever demonstrated it. Ever. I disagree with your contention that "the case against GMOs has strengthened." Certainly the hysteria among the scientifically illiterate has increased, but no credible evidence that GMOs are harmful to consume or grow has EVER been found, as far as I know. Every attempt to do so has either failed or been shown to be too flawed to be credible, as is often the case with agenda driven science. Anti-GMO websites have proliferated to spread the anti-science hysteria, certainly. That does not mean that any case against GMOs has strengthened.

A second objection concerns genetic contamination. A GMO crop, once released in the open, reproduces via pollination and interacts genetically with natural varieties of the same crop, producing what is called genetic contamination. According to a study published in Nature, one of the world’s leading scientific journals, Bt corn has contaminated indigenous varieties of corn tested in Oaxaca, Mexico.

The term "genetic contamination" sounds pretty scary, doesn't it? Again, the scientific consensus is that this is not a real problem because natural selection will reduce the prevalence of such "contamination" if it is deleterious or it will favor it it is adaptive. Other than mostly nonexistent biological issues, the problems of "genetic contamination" are social and political, not scientific. If Monsanto sues farmers because it's patented genes show up in seed that wasn't purchased from Monsanto, that is a social problem, not in any way a biological issue with GMOs. It requires a social solution, not a scientific one. The problem is with the offending corporations and their behavior, not with GMOs.

Third, a GMO, brought into natural surroundings, may have a toxic or lethal impact on other living things. Thus, it was found that Bt corn destroyed the larvae of the monarch butterfly, raising well grounded fears that many other natural plant and animal life may be impacted in the same way.

This comment is mostly misinformation. The monarch study you mentioned has been largely debunked, but of course the anti-GMO crowd has largely ignored that since it doesn't conform to their anti-science narrative. Again, the general fears regarding unintended consequences of GMO "release" are pretty much all unfounded. The scientific consensus is that there is presently no serious problem there.

On a personal note, I'm an entomologist and ecologist by profession, so this issue is one of the most important to me professionally and personally. It is my considered professional opinion that GMOs are a tiny blip on the radar of extinction for species like monarch butterflies. The real culprits are habitat loss, human overpopulation, and incompatible land use. GMOs currently have negligible impact on non-pest species.

Fourth, the benefits of GMOs have been oversold by the companies, like Monsanto and Syngenta, that peddle them. Most genetically engineered crops are either engineered to produce their own pesticide in the form of Bacillus thurengiensis (Bt) or are designed to be resistant to herbicides, so that herbicides can be sprayed in massive quantities to kill pests without harming the crops. It has been shown, however, that insects are fast developing resistance to Bt as well as to herbicides, resulting in even more massive infestation by the new superbugs. No substantial evidence exists that GM crops yield more than conventional crops. What genetically engineered crops definitely do lead to is greater use of pesticide, which is harmful both to humans and the environment.

I agree with much of what you say in this paragraph, but like pesticide over use, the problem isn't with GMOs-- it's a problem of bad corporate citizenship and profit first thinking. Development of Bt resistance is my main objection to engineering Bt expression in a wide variety of crops, but on the other hand, I'd rather see Bt being used than malathion. But in the end, this is going to be a problem with just about any pesticide. While we might argue against using pesticides at all, that rather ignores that fully one third of modern agricultural production is lost to insect herbivory annually, and until everyone in the world has food security, we will need to try and recover some of that production in order to feed them. It's easy to criticize big ag if you have a full belly.

I'm also disappointed that companies like Monsanto and Syngenta use genetic engineering to increase reliance on their toxic herbicides, in particular. It doesn't surprise me-- that's what economic entities like corporations often do-- but again, the problem isn't genetic engineering, it's bad corporate citizenship. That's where the real problems lie and where the solutions should be implemented.