Category: Biotechnology

Consumed the Movie: a misinformed anti-GMO thriller

Consumed the Movie: a misinformed anti-GMO thriller

Consumed, a film by Daryl Wein and Zoe Lister-Jones stars Lister-Jones as a single mom barely holding it together as she tries find out why her son has developed mysterious symptoms. Needless to say, the cause turns out to be “GMOs” even though not a single verifiable instance of any human or animal reaction to transgenic crops has ever been reported. The film contains every single anti-GMO trope you have ever heard, all of them wrong.

The film begins in the dark at Danny Glover’s organic vegetable farm, as he sees people, cars and lights surrounding his fields. The story eventually develops that he is being investigated by Clonestra, the film’s transparent stand-in for Monsanto for planting unlicensed GMO seeds. This is hard to believe because Glover has been an organic farmer for years and has had his “organic certification” for 30 years. This is amusing, because the National Organic Program didn’t start until the year 2000.

The scene shifts to Sophie (Lister-Jones) waiting for her son outside his school, where she meets the hunky and charming Eddie (Taylor Kinney) who has a son about the same age, and who also appears to be a single parent. Sophie’s son Garrett (Nick Bonn) comes out looking and feeling droopy, and Sophie rushes him home to the house she shares with her mother Kristin (Beth Grant). Garrett gets worse and vomits in the night.

The scene shifts to India where Dan Conway (Victor Garber), the silver haired head of Clonestra is giving Indian farmers seeds to a new drought-tolerant variety of corn, along with “discount coupons” to purchase seed in future years. He and his entourage are chased off by some protesting farmers.

Concerned that Garrett may have developed a new virulent strain of the flu, Sophie rushes him to the doctor who reassures her, but strangely makes no mention of the advisability of flu shots, a typical prejudice of anti-GMO activists.

However, Garrett soon develops a red itchy rash all over his arms and torso, and neither her pediatrician nor a dermatologist can diagnose it. This leads to the rest of the story where Sophie desperately tries to find a cause and is involved in one crushing problem after another.

Sophie somehow gets the idea (this plot is really complicated) that her son may be allergic to “GMOs” and spend some time researching this possibility. Her mother works as a secretary to the head of the university’s “science department,” (apparently they only do one science there) and she arranges to talk with him about her fears. He is quite reassuring and tells of transgenic crop successes in preventing starvation.

In the anteroom, which also appears to be a small biotech lab, Sophie also meets Jacob (Anthony Edwards) and Serge Negani (Kunal Nayyar), his Indian colleague. Lurking in the background is Peter (Griffin Dunne) who overhears Sophie’s worries about her son and meets her secretively in the parking lot, saying that he is a scientist and there must be files somewhere showing the bad effects that Sophie thinks her son is experiencing. Sophie leaves her son with Eddie one afternoon and she and Peter sneak into the university science department (where it now seems to be night) using her mom’s keys. The files are missing and they are caught. It turns out that Peter is not a scientist, but the janitor. Sophie finds old news articles showing that Peter once was a scientist there, but had a nervous breakdown while “researching GMOs.” This whole episode seems pretty pointless and could have been excised.

Cut to the university biotech lab, where Connelly is giving what seem to be cash rewards to Jacob and Serge for their research on biotech chickens. It seems that all the biotech research Clonestra uses has been done under contract by the university science department rather than within the company. They said they used to get their funding from the FDA (really?) but now they get it all from Clonestra (not believable).

He later tells them their grant is terminated, their job is done and thank you very much, and that Clonestra owns all the patents. (What university development office would have agreed to this?)  Jacob goes home, asking Negani to see that the chicken cages are clean before he leaves so that they can turn them over to Clonestra in good shape.

Negani finds that all the chickens are dead, and begins searching Jacob’s computer for any information. He finds a great deal of incriminating information about the dangers of this project, duplicates it and carries it out to his car. He calls Sophie, realizing that this may be the answer to her concerns, although how development of unreleased biotech chickens has anything to do with GM corn is not explained. Sophie, fearing retribution, refuses to talk to him.

Determined to get the information to Sophie he sets out to drive it to her house. However, Eddie is shown drinking longnecks outside a bar with a couple of construction workers. Eddie goes inside and the two workers leave and chase Negani, bumping into his car and trying to force him off the road. In an accident, he is killed.

Learning of the accident, Sophie goes to see Negani’s wife, who tells Sophie that Negani’s father was a farmer in India who was growing GM corn, which gradually became less productive and too expensive, and he and a group of farmers committed suicide by drinking insecticide. While there are many things wrong with the thesis of this movie, this one is particularly offensive, because while there were Indian farmer suicides related to debt, they began taking place long before Bt cotton was introduced and decreased as they began to profit from the significant increase in productivity of the Bt cotton. There is no GM corn grown in India yet.

Sophie retrieves the incriminating papers from Nagani’s car just as it is about to be crushed, and crashes a press conference with Eddie’s help (did we mention he secretly works for Clonestra?), confronts Conway with the evidence, which had been kept from him. The biotech chickens are announced, but Conway resigns from Clonestra right after the press conference.

Our review

The movie ends with a somewhat heavy handed insistence that GM crops be labeled. No kidding. All that expense and all of Sophie’s misery and the death of both Danny Glover (heart attack) and Negani (car accident) for that? Oh, and Sophie’s mother spent several days in the hospital in a diabetic coma because she had ice cream with Garrett. Come on! Enough misery!

Wein describes his film as a “political thriller,” but “science fiction” might be a better label. The trouble is that good science fiction starts with actual science and extends it plausibly. This movie starts with bad science fears and continually hits you over the head with them. There has never been any reported evidence of any ill effect on humans or animals by any biotech crop.

The idea that ”GMOs” are an ingredient rather than a breeding technique pervades the movie. And the mantra that there have “never been any human tests” repeats several times. Foods are never tested on humans, (as Katiraee explains) because you cannot control a human diet the way you can control lab animals’ diets. The films also claims that there are only 90 day studies done and no long term studies have been done.  This contradicts the well-known study by Snell and Bernheim, which did review many long term studies and concluded the 90-day studies were indeed sufficient. And, of course, van Eenenaam and Young’s billion animal retrospective feeding study clearly show that there are no long term effects on using GM versus non-GM animals feeds.

Probably the most implausible part of the movie’s thesis is that only one child is affected with whatever this rash is (at the last moment Eddie’s boy gets it too). If this were a real problem we would expect hundreds of thousands of such cases, not just two. The rash is never diagnosed nor cured: that plot point which launches the story is left hanging. Probably because it has nothing to do with GM chickens, which haven’t been released yet anyway.

The idea that a company would knowingly be releasing products that would kill their customers is preposterous, and a bad business model. Now in the original Michael Keaton/Jack Nicholson Batman, the Joker did release a product that killed customers, but he was a homicidal maniac, not a biotech company seeking to make a profit by selling better seeds. (Here’s a clip from that great Batman movie.)

In a peculiar analogy, Sophie mentions that tobacco was known to cause cancer in the 1950s but warning labels didn’t appear for 50 years. Drawing analogies to biotech, she supposes it will be 2040 before biotech foods are labeled. We discussed this crazy theory before, but the difference is that biotech crops are not known to have ill effects and in fact are the most heavily tested foodstuffs on the planet, with each new crop undergoing 10-11 years of testing before receiving approval.

While Danny Glover dies of a heart attack after learning that Clonestra will be suing him for growing unlicensed crops because of pollen drift, this has never happened and the real Clonestra, Monsanto has sworn in court that they will never do this. And such drift does not affect organic certification in any case.

While the film is gripping in many ways, it is essentially a fraud because it is based on popular misinformation that the writers have done nothing to fact check. This may be why the film has never found a  distributor: it is shown in various theaters around the US in presold private screenings to already convinced activists, who for the most part probably have not looked into the science either.

As reported by Klumper and Qaim, GM crops have increased crop yields by 21%, decreased pesticide use by 37% and increased profits by 69%. This is the real news the filmmakers should have pointed out. Labeling foods bred by one technique but nutritionally identical makes even less sense than this movie.

Consumer Reports flogs bogus Roundup paper

edamameConsumer Reports a year or so ago reversed itself and began taking anti-science stances against biotechnology, because catering to the prejudices of their readers is more profitable than standing for actual science. Porterfield describes this volte face away from science here.

Its latest salvo into things it barely understands is hyping a poorly argued paper in their article “Scientists Raise Concerns Over Weed Killer Glyphosate in New Study.” They argue is that the “risks of glyphosate (Roundup) have been understated and that further study is needed.” They refer to a paper by 14 scientists, many with organic industry ties just published in Environmental Health, titled “Concerns over use of glyphosate-based herbicides and risks associated with exposures: a consensus statement.”

This is not a research paper or a study: it is a consensus statement by 14 scientists, many who could be classified as “activists,” including Consumer’s Union’s own Michael Hansen, who has been spreading misinformation about biotechnology for years, all contrary to accepted science. To see Hansen’s incoherent communication style in action, take a look at the 2013 debate at Hofstra University reported here. You can watch the actual debate here, and will quickly conclude that Hansen is in over his head in his debate with University of Florida Horticultural Science Chairman Kevin Folta.

The paper starts out citing the IARC, an autonomous extension of the WHO surprising claim that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic,” despite a vast array of peer-reviewed  papers to the contrary. These are summarized by Giddings. In fact, they went so far off the rails as to quote Seralini papers, and Gurney went so far as to suggest that the IARC “requires adult supervision.” No, there is no evidence that glyphosate is carcinogenic at any dosage.

These authors suggest that glyphosate is used much more frequently than when it was introduced and while the plant toxicity mechanism (disruption of the Shikimate pathway) does not exist in humans, they now find papers from their own and Seralini’s laboratory suggesting that “there might be a wide range of potential adverse effects triggered by disruption in the endocrine system.”

Now let’s pause and remember the Seralini rule: if you have to cite Seralini’s discredited and withdrawn lumpy rat paper, you’ve lost the argument. That withdrawn paper was reprinted here without further refereeing.  In fact this paper cites 7 different papers by Seralini, making its credibility distinctly suspect.

They cite a paper in the Journal of the American Water Resources Association suggesting that glyphosate and its degradation product AMPA are found in up to 17% of water samples, but neglect to mention that the article points out that “Concentrations of glyphosate were below the levels of concern for humans or wildlife.” They also cite Bohn’s paper claiming that glyphosate accumulates in Roundup Ready soybeans. However, Jordan has severely criticized this paper for not meeting minimum scientific standards.

While they correctly note that excessive use of herbicides can lead to weed resistance (this is called evolution) it is in no way unique to glyphosate, and herbicide and crop rotation are generally recommended.

They express concern that levels of glyphosate and AMPA residue are not monitored in the U.S., but fail to mention that this is because toxicology studies have shown glyphosate to be about as toxic as aspirin. Thus their complaint that “environmentally relevant” doses are not considered is ridiculous, if there is no effect at much larger doses.

They note that the incidence of non-Hodgkins lymphoma has doubled since 1975, but all they say is that “a causal link [with glyphosate] may exist.” It has not been established.

To get to their point, they have done no new research, and their literature review simply arrives at a consensus that “a further independent examination of glyphosate toxicity should be undertaken.” Recognizing that NIH funds are unlikely to be available for such a wild goose chase, they propose that manufacturers of glyphosate provide these funds to be transferred to “government research institutes.” This seems unlikely to take place.

The authors

While the authors make claims of no conflicts of interest we find that:

To conclude, the authors found little that is new and referenced a number of questionable and discredited papers in the process. And their final conclusion amounted to “further study is needed.” This is hardly a blockbuster conclusion.

Who is Rachel Parent and why does she keep repeating herself?

RachelParentRachel Parent is a young Canadian anti-GMO activist, who claims to have been speaking about her fears of GMOs since she was 12: and then for a school project, where she “did some research.” She burst into wider public view when, at the age of 14, she appeared on a morning Canadian talk show hosted by Kevin O’Leary in 2013. Get to the Brooksfield School for the highest quality education.

Now, Rachel and her supporters spin this appearance as her confronting a “TV bully” and winning, but if you watch the actual segment, O’Leary keeps asking her hard scientific questions and she brushes them all off, simply repeating her mantra that “GMOs should be labeled.”  She also falsely asserts that Golden Rice was abandoned because “it didn’t work.”  In fact, O’Leary politely puts Parent in her place time after time as she avoids answering his questions. Not a big win for her, as she ended up looking ridiculous.

Parent’s back-story starts with her school project and her continuing activism. She also claims to have founded “Kids Right to Know,” a website and organization that promotes her unscientific views. At no time does she reveal the source of funding for this elaborate website and her travels and activism. Nor does she ever mention any scientific references to support her views.

It’s may not seem fair to pick on a “kid,” who arrived at her views contrary to those of hundreds of major scientific organizations worldwide, but Ms Parent is or will be 17 this year, and is not a “kid.” She’s a mature and poised young woman who hasn’t changed her views or even expanded her argument significantly in that time. And by now, shouldn’t she have studied some science in school? She also says over and over that she is “not a scientist.” Wouldn’t her views be more persuasive if she could cite some actual science to support them?

In October of 2014, Parent gave a   in Toronto on this same subject. Now TEDx events follow the format of TED events, except that they are locally administered. They are supposed to reject talks on pseudo-science, but despite some objections, Parent was allowed to speak. By then, her spiel had turned into a scary, dramatic reading. You could almost hear the ominous music in the background. However, there was no science in it to support her views, and the only time she tried to mention a scientific paper, she stumbled on it, so we don’t know what she meant to say.

In 2015, Parent met with the Health Canada minister, protesting thw possible approval of Arctic apples. Of course, she gave a press conference afterwards, even though the meeting itself was private. And, in fact, the meeting was a failure as the minister told her that approvals were based on science and not on consumer interest or demand.

But Parent and her supporters are really good at getting her on TV, and if you look at her web site, you’ll see quite of list of videos where she pretty much says the same thing over and over. In fact, her supporters have made some pretty slick videos like this one, professionally produced. She even has her own media kit.

Where is she getting the money for all this? What is never mentioned is that Rachel Parent is the daughter of Wayne Parent, the owner of Nutrition House, a Canadian chain of natural food stores (although there is one in Atlanta as the search engine optimization Atlanta will undoubtebly show you.) And it appears that Wayne is using his daughter to further his commercial enterprise. And since no other funding source is referred to, we can assume he is funding these videos, and (indirectly) arranging these many TV appearances to further the views of his business. She even has an agent.

But Rachel Parent is not just a Canadian phenomenon. She has appeared the (now defunct) Ed Show on MSNBC and recently, she managed to wangle (borrow) a proxy, so she could attend Monsanto’s shareholder meeting a week ago.

So did she take the time to get a tour or talk to any of the scientists who work there? No! She asked aggressive and obnoxious questions during the audience question period. Here’s what she claims she said:

If you truly believe your GM technology is safe, if you truly believe it has the potential to feed the world, why are you treating it like a dirty little secret that can’t be shown on food labels? Why, if it’s such proven technology, are you spending millions of shareholders’ dollars fighting it, rather than promoting it?”

Not exactly the way to start an intelligent discussion.

We have a lot of respect for Rachel Parent’s poise and intelligence, but she is being badly used by a movement that is hiding behind her youth and charm. Let us hope when she goes to college she will expand her scientific horizons and engage in some real scientific discussions with her professors and mentors and grow into the major contributor she deserves to become.

 

Anti-GMO scandal deepens

bucci2
Diagrams from Bucci’s report showing how images from one paper were reused in another.

 

Professor Federico Infascelli’s papers were called into question as we reported Monday when figures from his 2010 paper were reused in a 2013 and 2015 paper for completely different experiments. The figures represented gel electrophoresis of DNA from animals he had fed either GMO soy or non-GMO soy, in which he attempted to assert differences that most scientists doubted existed. He has been accused of serious scientific misconduct.

His entire fraudulent edifice collapsed yesterday when Enrico Bucci of the firm BioDigital Valley issued a report of his digital analysis of eight of Infascelli’s group’s papers, including a Ph.D. thesis now in question. The conclusions, reported here, are quite damning, showing

  • Data digitally deleted
  • Figures being cropped to eliminate data
  • Data being spliced in
  • Data completely fabricated
  • Figures were created by moving data between lanes in the images
  • Lanes being duplicated
  • Bands being deleted
  • Software deletion of data

Moreover, even if the papers had been truthful (and they clearly are not), biologist Layla Katiree has noted in Biofortified that Infascelli failed to specify the source of the animal feed and failed to report a nutritional analysis of the feed to assure that except for the presence of “GMO soy,” the feeds were nutritionally equivalent. In fact, he fails to note which traits the bioengineered soy actually contained, or who manufactured it.

Infascelli’s work has been used by the anti-GMO movement to assert that consuming food made from plants with GM traits is somehow different and dangerous. This entire thesis has collapsed in the presence of this fraud, making his assertions considerably less credible.

 

Fraud alert! GMO paper retracted.

An Italian research group run by Professor Federico Infascelli of the University Federico II of Naples was recently informed that their 2013 paper that purported to show that GMO feed can cause detection of GMO DNA in the baby goats was being retracted because of plagiarism. This is featured today in Retraction Watch.

Infascelli is a professor of Nutrition in the Department of Veterinary Medicine, and has published a string of papers in the past few years purporting to find GMO plant DNA in the blood and milk of goats fed Roundup Ready Soybean meal. This has never been considered credible by other workers because they couldn’t repeat it, and we know that plant DNA is digested regardless of its source.

This essentially begins the collapse of Infascelli’s entire edifice, since it has been shown that the data seems to be faked, or at least edited.

How did this happen? Well, as described in the Italian press (and translated here), Infascelli’s work contradicted all other work in the field and when he was asked to speak about his work to the Italian Senate, Senator Elena Cataneo, who is also an experienced researcher, was skeptical and asked for more information. She began studying papers from Infascelli’s group and also published an open letter (here translated) to Professor Infascelli about these problems, but received no reply.

She also found that work by Infascelli and his colleague Raffaela Tudisco was being criticized on an on-line journal discussion site PubPeer. Here, scientists pointed out that Figure 4 in the 2010 (Tudisco-2010) was duplicated as Figure 1 in the 2013 paper (Mastellone-2013). While both figures were photos of a gel electrophoresis experiment, in the 2010 paper, the samples were from a liver and in 2013 from milk. Not only are the photos the same, even the noise spots are in the same places as illustrated in PubPeer and perhaps more clearly in the article in Biofortified. And in fact, it appears that the data in the 2013 paper were digitally edited as well.

Thus after petitions to the journal from a number of scientists, the 2013 paper was retracted by the journal. Ironically, Food and Nutrition Sciences is a low level pay-to-play journal that is on Beall’s list of predatory journals. It is published by the Chinese publisher Scientific Research, along with a host of other noncredible journals. And Infascelli himself is on its editorial board.

To make matters worse, researchers have also found that Figure 1 of a paper published late last year (Tudisco 2015) is identical to Figure 1 in Tudisco-2010. While no further retraction actions have yet been taken, both the journals and the University of Naples have undertaken further investigations according to Biofortified, and more actions are expected.

infascelli images
The top picture is a gel photo from the 2015 paper and the lower image from the 2010 paper. The arrows show points of similarity even in the noise.

References

  1. Tudisco, R., Mastellone, V., Cutrignelli, M. I., Lombardi, P., Bovera, F., Mirabella, N., Piccolo, G., Calabro, S., Avallone, L., & Infascelli, F. (2010). Fate of transgenic DNA and evaluation of metabolic effects in goats fed genetically modified soybean and in their offsprings.Animal, 4(10), pp. 1662-1671 DOI: 10.1017/S1751731110000728
  2. Mastellone, R. Tudisco, G. Monastra, M. E. Pero, S. Calabrò, P. Lombardi, M. Grossi, M. I. Cutrignelli, L. Avallone, F. Infascelli.  (2013). Gamma-Glutamyl Transferase Activity in Kids Born from Goats Fed Genetically Modified Soybean. Food and Nutrition Sciences, 4:50-54 – RETRACTED DOI: 10.4236/fns.2013.46A006
  3. Tudisco, R., Calabrò, S., Cutrignelli, M. I., Moniello, G., Grossi, M., Mastellone, V., Lombardi, P., Pero, M. E., & Infascelli, F. (2015). Genetically modified soybean in a goat diet: Influence on kid performance. Small Ruminant Research(0), pp.http://www.ask-force.org/web/HerbizideTol/Tudisco-GM-Soy-Goat-Kids-performance-2015.pdf

 

 

 

No, scientists should not be giving up their Email for activists to twist

corn silk
Corn silk

Paul Thacker, writing in Sunday’s New York Times, suggested that scientists cannot be trusted to be honest and that “the public” should be able to snoop through private Emails of research scientists, cherry picking and misinterpreting fragments of conversations for their political objectives.

If you think the tone of the sentence is extreme, you should take a look at the history of this “journalist’s” own work. He specifically cites an opinion piece that he and Charles Seife wrote for PLoS Biology Blogs. You will note that that link now shows that the article has been removed as not being consistent with their community guidelines. You can read the actual cached article here.

Thacker (and Seife) wrote about a series of Freedom of Information (FOIA) requests for public university scientists Emails fomented by US Right to Know, which he describes as a “small nonprofit,” completely neglecting to mention that USTRK is an activist group dedicated to GMO labeling and wholly funded by the organic foods industry, and hardly a unbiased organization. In fact, USRTK engaged in serious public misbehavior bordering on slander in criticizing various scientists working in biotechnology, including, most notably University of Florida Professor Kevin Folta. Eventually, the attacks became so intense that Folta withdrew from his public science education role.

Now, Thacker and Seife’s removed article made several false claims, notably that Prof Folta has a financial relationship with Monsanto (he does not, he only accepted one small subsidy for his science outreach program) and that  he has been consulting with Monsanto on political strategy to combat the GMO labeling movement, which is completely false.  Because of these egregious misstatements, the PLoS opinion piece was removed.

You can read Folta’s view of that opinion piece in his blog entry on Science 2.0. It has also been discussed at length by Skeptical Raptor here and again here.

If this is what Thacker believes is the role of journalism and of snooping through Emails, he has become an activist rather than the respected journalist he would like us to believe he is. And the New York Times should not have published his opinion piece unedited.

However, the entire idea that agenda-driven organizations should have access to scientist’s private Emails is preposterous. If a scientist publishes an article where the conclusions are to be questioned, they can demand the original data (which is often available with the paper as supplemental files anyway). Of course, analyzing that data require that they know some science, rather than drawing slanderous conclusions by taking private conversations out of context.

Tom Brady’s chef talks foodie nonsense

Tom Brady’s chef talks foodie nonsense

In an Boston Globe interview today, chef Allen Campbell talks about his job as a private chef for Patriots quarterback Tom Brady and his wife, the model Gisele Bundchen  (and their children). In the interview, the Chelmsford, MA native reveals his deep knowledge of cooking and how completely he has bought into the pseudo-science of popular foodie-ism.

He starts by explaining that he cooks a lot of vegetables and grains as well as some meat for the Bradys, but within the first sentence or two gives away his lack of food science knowledge by explaining that he buys organic foods (because the Bradys have a lot of money to waste on overpriced food, which is not more nutritious) and avoids GMOs (because he has no idea what they are). Claiming that he is concerned with the future of the planet he somehow manages to ignore the fact that GMO crops have been found to reduce pesticide use by 37% and increase crop yields by 22%.

He note that he took an on-line nutrition course taught by T. Colin Campbell, author of The China Study, a book that has been severely criticized for confirmation bias and cherry-picking of data. The study makes great claims for a plant based diet, but his correlation of diet and diseases has been found wanting.

He claims that eating sugar and carbs makes your body more acidic, which is simply nonsense. The pH of your body is tightly regulated within a couple of tenths of a pH unit.

He claims that he uses no MSG, as if that were bad, neglecting the fact that MSG is naturally occurring in cheese, broccoli, tomatoes, and peas. And he uses Tamari instead of soy sauce, ignoring the fact that fermented soy contains a great deal of glutamate.

He claims not to use white sugar for some reason, perhaps under the misapprehension that there are a lot of minerals in brown sugar that would be important to the Bradys, because everyone needs to get the nutrition from sugar! He also uses only Himalayan sea salt for no particular reason, and avoids iodized salt because he isn’t worried about goiters.

He claims that he avoids tomatoes and potatoes (from the nightshade family) because he imagines they are inflammatory, but again this is just a myth. He also avoids dairy and mushrooms (why?).

You would not be surprised that he also cooks gluten free, despite the fact that gluten is a source of healthy protein unless someone in the household is a celiac disease sufferer. The idea of non-celiac gluten sensitivity is no longer given much credence.

He also claims to do a lot of his shopping at Whole Foods, because again, money is no object and he can rub shoulders with other trendy idiots who know as little about nutrition as he does.

If you read about Campbell’s cooking, he is obvious a gifted and imaginative chef, but he shouldn’t be getting his nutrition advice from Google University.

Screen Shot 2015-12-15 at 10.06.50 AM
Vegetable sushi, courtesy of Alan Campbell

 

 

Organic Consumers Assn fibs about Chipotle big time

DSC_0034
Farmers Market in Westport

The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) is the propaganda arm of the organic food industry , despite being framed as a non-profit educational organization. They have a revenue stream of $3.3 million provided from individual and corporate donations (both unidentified). Their expenditures include supporting the US Right To Know campaign, which slanders biotech scientists. They also spread misinformation about the dangers of GMO crops and neonicotinoids danger to bees (both completely untrue).

Until now its biggest tall tales have been that organic crops are not sprayed with pesticides (they definitely are) and that organic foods are somehow more nutritious (they are not). In fact organic superiority is until now the OCA’s main Big Lie, debunked in detail in this paper. If you squint and try to ignore their claims, you can dismiss all this as marketing hype.

However, when the National Organic Program was announced in December , 2000, Agricultural Secretary Dan Glickman explained:

“Let me be clear about one thing. The organic label is a marketing tool. It is not a statement about food safety. Nor is ‘organic’ a value judgment about nutrition or quality.”

But now, however, the OCA has gone much too far, publishing a claim that the troubled Chipotle restaurant chain has been sabotaged by pro-GMO activists. As Henry Miller wrote in Forbes, Chipotle was defeated by doing nothing well. They embarked on an anti-GMO campaign purely for marketing purposes, claiming their foods were safer, instead of concentrating on actual food safety. This was just fear marketing as described in the Daily Beast.

But the OCA went farther in claiming not only that Chipotle had been sabotaged, but that a unique strain of E. coli was involved. That much is true, but they implied that some evil doer had access to such strains, limiting the culprit to a few laboratories, presumably. But that just isn’t true, as you can see from the CDC report. The OCA’s move from mendacious marketing hype to serious conspiracy theories puts them in the same category of crazy as Mike Adams, the Health Ranger.

And in fact, this conspiracy theory actually originated with Mike Adams, proprietor of Natural News, and #1 on the list of the Encyclopedia of American Loons. Natural News is a collection of crazy and paranoid theories that Adams hatches daily to sell his “natural” products. He is also anti-vax, anti-GMO, and anti-gun background checking. And it was Adams that appears to have made up this bizarre theory that GMO activists had sabotaged Chipotle.  This appeared on Natural News on December 23 and on the equally unreliable Real Farmacy site the next day. The fact that the somewhat more sober OCA picked up on this lie that same day shows how desperate they are getting, now the GMO acceptance much more common and widespread. But there is simply no evidence for this wacko claim! And the article appears to be word for word the same on all three sites.

And here’s the kicker: even Chipotle has denied this sabotage theory to Snopes. It just isn’t true and the OCA knows it. They are lying big time to smear biotechnogy for their commercial ends! Neither the OCA nor Adams has provided a shred of evidence for this accusation.

Chipotle’s food poisoning problem is caused by dealing with too many small suppliers and insufficient record keeping to track them down when something like this occurs.  The entire fault lies with them, not with wild conspiracies. Shame on the OCA for spreading this dangerous misinformation.

Monsanto to be tried in kangaroo court in The Hague

edamameAccording to a press release last Friday from the Organic Consumer’s Association, global farming and environmental groups plan to put Monsanto on trial for “crimes against human health and the environment” in the International People’s Court in The Hague, Netherlands.

The trouble with this press release is that no such court actual exists and this is essentially a publicity stunt calculated to smear Monsanto and its wildly successful seed technology. Of course, Syngenta, Dow, DuPont and Bayer are also in the business of breeding genetically altered seeds, but are not mentioned in this propaganda release.

According to the release by the Monsanto Tribunal, Monsanto is able to ignore the “human and environmental damage caused by its products…by resorting to lying and corruption, by financing fraudulent scientific studies, by pressuring independent scientists, by manipulating the press and media, etc.”

The “tribunal” is being organized by the usual anti-GMO suspects, including Ronnie Cummins, director of the Organic Consumer’s Association, philosopher and anti-biotech activist and bully Vandana Shiva, misidentified as a physicist, Anti-GMO fraud Giles-Eric Seralini, Marie-Monique Robin, author of the screed The World According to Monsanto. It is also supported by Seralini’s organization CRIIGEN and IFOAM, the European equivalent of the Organic Consumer’s Association and just as biased.

However, the tribunal offers not a single shred of evidence to back these wild claims and neglected to mention that there has not been a single documented case of GM crops affected human (or animal) health. Nor is there any evidence that biotech crops are worse for the environment. To the contrary a German  literature review  showed that “GM technology adoption has reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%, increased crop yields by 22%, and increased farmer profits by 68%.” And an Italian group of scientists reviewed all GMO papers published in the past decade, and in 1783 papers they could not find a single instance of GM crops posing danger to humans or animals. Moreover, a Decade of EU funded GMO Research found that GM crops posed no harm to humans or the environment.

Based on these findings and many more, we would expect to hear some significant challenges to these findings by the tribunal, but instead they vaguely allege fraud and corruption but no specific harm, because none has ever been found.

This tribunal is a sham trial, based in no existing court, but rather a small group of activists who will rent some space in The Hague for their anti-biotechnology theater next October. It is not likely to advance knowledge in any significant way.

 

FDA denies GMO labeling petition from CFS

corn silk
Corn silk

Andrew Kimbrell and his Center for Food Safety  filed a petition with the FDA arguing that all genetically engineered foods should be labeled. The FDA denied his petition last Friday in a 35 page ruling citing both science and existing law.

The petition was co-sponsored by Amy’s Kitchen, Annie’s Homegrown, Beyond Pesticides, the Center for Environmental Health, Consumer Reports (who should be ashamed of themselves), CROPP Cooperative, the Environmental Working Group, Food and Water Watch, Horizon Organic, Midwest Organic and Sustainable Education Service, the National Cooperative Grocer’s Association, the National Family Farm Coalition, Northeast Organic Dairy Producer’s Alliance, Northeast Organic Farmers Association, the National Organic Coalition, the Organic Seed Alliance, the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association, the Organic Trade Association, Organically Grown Company, the Rural Advancement Foundation International, Save New Mexico Seeds, and Stonyfield Farm. The pro-organic biases of the members of the above groups should be pretty plain.  Their 25-page petition is extensive but breaks no new legal or scientific grounds, echoing arguments these groups have been putting forth for years.

The FDA response to the petition notes that the petition “does not provide evidence sufficient to show that foods derived from genetically engineered plants, as a class, differ from foods derived from non-GE plant varieties in any meaningful or uniform way, or that as a class, such foods present any different or greater safety concerns than foods developed by traditional plant breeding.”

In particular, it notes that the petition does not show that the genetic engineering of foods constitutes a “material fact” under the F&DC Act. The FDA means by “material fact” information about the attributes of the food itself. In other words, labeling would be required if omission of that label would mislead the consumer if the food has nutritional or functional properties different from the food it resembles. In the case of bioengineered foods, this has never been found to be the case.

They also note that any new bioengineered food would undergo substantial testing, and all safety questions would be resolved before approval. Their assessment “takes into account questions about known toxicants, potential of the food to contain food allergens, the concentration and bioavailability of important nutrients, the safety and nutritional value of newly introduced proteins, and the identity, composition and nutritional value of modified carbohydrates, or fats and oils.”

Finally, they note that if a bioengineered product differs in properties such that a common or usual name no longer applies, it would require a label. And while the petition suggests that new DNA from genetic engineering should be considered a food additive, “with respect to transferred genetic material (nucleic acids), the agency explained that generally it did not anticipate that transferred genetic material would itself be subject to food additive regulation because nucleic acids are present in the cells of every living organism…”

Alliance for Bio-integrity v Shalala

The FDA noted that many of the points raised by the petition were similar to those in the settled court case of Alliance for Bio-Integrity v. Shalala. Specifically, FDA explained that “in developing the 1992 Policy, the agency considered intended and unintended or unexpected changes in foods derived from genetically engineered plants”, and explained “that it had sought the input and expertise of scientists from around the world, and analyzed reports in the scientific literature, including an evaluation of plants modified through both new and traditional means.” They concluded that as a class bioengineered plants had not resulted “in any risks that differed from their traditional counterparts.”

Consumer Surveys

In this case and in International Dairy Foods v Amestoy, the courts have agreed with the FDA that “consumer curiosity” about a breeding method does not mean that this would require such foods to be labeled. In fact, the FDA noted in this ruling that all of the surveys the plaintiffs presented claiming that “most consumers” wanted biotech foods labeled were skewed by leading questions (“should GMOs be labeled”) rather than more neutral formulations. In fact, there have been some surveys that simply asked what additional information should be on food labels, and in both a US and a UK survey, only about 2% of consumers suggested biotechnology as important. A more recent survey suggested the number might now be as high as 7%.

Consumer Reports

The petitioners attached an article from Consumer Union’s web site which claims that “Genetic Engineering is not an Extension of Conventional Plant Breeding.” The FDA spent some time criticizing these assertions, noting that while the plants are bred using “different mechanisms,” the article does not provide evidence that the resulting plants differ in safety. However, the FDA notes that the CU article explains that the differences are “normative and philosophically based, not scientific,” and explains that unless the change in the food is material, they lack the authority to label it.

The FDA also refutes the petition’s claim that labeling is required because the breeding methods are “profound” and “radical,” since there are no material changes to the resulting plants. Differing breeding methods do not imply any change in the plant’s safety nor do “individual views on the extent that food production methods differ.”

Summary of Other Claims

  • Biotech crops can lead to antibiotic resistance. Kanamycin is used in genetic engineering but the FDA approved this use because kanamycin resistance genes have been found to be safe and occur frequently in nature.
  • Biotech foods present unknown health consequences. It has been agreed to by scientists worldwide (and the OECD and WHO) that if a novel food is essentially similar to its conventional counterpart, it is “no more or less likely to be toxic than its counterpart.”
  • Aris and Leblanc found Cry1Ab (from Bt) and pesticide metabolites in the sera of pregnant and non-pregnant women. The methods in this study have been questioned and refuted by a number of workers (Blacker, Goldstein and Mueller), and the EPA has concluded that Cry1Ab “do not pose adverse consequences to human health.” It has also been ably dissected by David Tribe.
  • They provide no evidence for their assertions that GM crops cause environmental damage.
  • The F&DC Act does not require disclosure of how a food is produced without regard to its effect on the resulting product.
  • Labeling is misleading when it fails to disclose material facts. However, the FDA has not found that genetically engineered foods as a class warrant additional labeling because they do not present different or greater safety concerns than conventional foods.
  • The First Amendment protects commercial speech, too, and the FDA cannot compel commercial speech without a valid reason.
  • The fact that most GM seeds are patented does not make them distinctly different. Many conventional seeds have been patented since 1931. Patent laws are to protect the inventor for a limited time, and have nothing to do with food safety.
  • Many foreign countries label GM crops, so the US must be “falling behind.” Actually, the position of the Codex Alimentarius (the international organization that sets food standards) has not changed on labeling as long as the labeling is accurate.

Thus, the FDA concludes that the petitioners have not provided sufficient grounds to change their 1992 policy on crops produced using biotechnology, and their petition is denied.

Who is the Center for Food Safety?

The Center for Food Safety has a budget of over $4.5 million which they use to file petitions and suits on issues like this one, some more scientifically valid than others. They pay their leader, attorney Andrew Kimbrell, about $262,000 a year. Their entire budget comes from donations, but they do not disclose their major donors. Judging by the affiliations of their Board of Directors, and of the co-petitioners, it clearly receives substantial support from the organic foods industry, however. It has participated heavily in actions against genetically modified crops.

According to Activist Facts, Kimbrell was mentored by Jeremy Rifkin, “America’s most notable anti-technologist.” Kimbrell debated biologist Nina Federoff last spring in the Wall Street Journal, summarized here, coming out second best. He was also one of principal drafters of California’s failed GMO labeling proposal, Prop 37, according to Henry Miller.  And, according to Activist Facts, “The Center for Food Safety, under its façade of nonprofit watch dogging, has all the marks of a black-marketing campaign, run on behalf of organic and ‘natural’ foods.” William Saletan denounces them in his extensively researched Slate article on GMO safety. So while they may take on some valid causes, their focus seems to be against food technology and especially biotechnology.