Humanely raised veal

[fresco]

I find Norman Borlaug's thesis compelling: "Without biotechnology the world will need to clear more forests and wildlife habitats to keep food production balanced with rising populations."

The fallacy of this argument is the same fallacy that projects the need to cover half the surface of a city with roads to keep traffic moving.

The more roads we build, the more people will find that travel by car is cheap, fast and convenient. So more people will buy cars that they will use more often, clogging up the roads and enforciing the need to build yet more roads.

It's the same with food. Food availability is a natural delimiter on world population. The more food we provide to the world, the more the population will grow, demanding ever more food.

Whilst some may take offense at that idea, the reality is there today, staring us in the face. All the first world countries have food surplusses. They are producing far more food than their own population needs, or enabling other countries to produce the food for them to import. This has been so for the past hundred years, without the existence of GM foods.

At the same time, the third world countries almost all suffer from food shortages. Now there are two different ways to define a food shortage --- too little food supply for the existing population, or too great a population for the existing food supply. Whichever definition you prefer, the important question is why do not the countries with food surplusses transfer them to the countries with shortages ?

The answer is nothing to do with the cost of food production which is the angle that GM foods purport to address. It is due to the unavailability in third world countries of the means of distribution, and to do with the capitalist demand to maintain order in the worldwide food market. Neither of these problems is addressed by GM food production.

In fact, many GM crops have been carefully and wickedly designed with a genetic makeup which disables the crop's ability to self-propagate. This means that the third world country will in perpetuity have to buy new seed from Monsanto and the like, placing them in thrall to those companies forever into the future.

On the subject of cost, I would like to see evidence that GM foods, which have been sold in the USA for up to tewnty years (?) have had the claimed effect of reducing food prices. All my instinct says they have not. So why would they suddenly start to do so in the third world ?

The whole argument for GM as a means to "feed the world" is specious. What the world needs to do is to decide how much food can safely and sustainably be produced on this planet, and then stop producing more. The population of the world will naturally adjust to that availability.

If food availability was a natural delimiter to population, the developed world should have an explosive, out of control birth rate, while the developing world's birth rate would be in sharp decline. Rising education levels, on the other hand, especially for women, are, so far, the most potent force in reducing birth rate.

[slkinsey]

Hmm... I am not sure "twaddle" comprises a particularly effective refutation of FG's points.

Macrosan, let me see if I can sum up what I see as your core argument here:

1. A certain level of food production equals a certain world population. Food production is the prime (or a prime) determinant of world population.

2. Inherrent in #1 is the idea that the world population will grow or shrink according to the amount of food available.

3. Increasing food production, therefore, inevitably results in an increase in world population.

4. Due to #3 above, we should not seek to increase food production.

5. What we should to is determine the optimal world population, determine the level of food production that corresponds to that population and refuse to produce any food above that level.

In principle, this would actually work. Availability of food is, generally, a population-limiting factor. It works in a Petri dish and it could work on the world population of humans. However, the way population is limited by food production (aka food supply) is via starvation, disease and premature death. This is not exactly something I think we should be visiting upon our fellow humans.

As Steven points out, humans do not act like bacteria. They will not placidly die of starvation when they reach a growth-limiting condition. Rather, they will kill each other, they will terrorize those with food, they will reak havoc with the environment -- they will do anything they possibly can to avoid death by starvation.

I would suggest that there are better and more humane ways to control a world population that is growing to dangerously high levels. It has been amply demonstrated, for example, that lower population growth is strongly correlated with educational levels, career opportunities outside the home and overall freedom from oppression for women in a given culture. Overall affluence and education are also strongly associated with lower population growth. Let's start talking sex education and birth control while we're at it.

Now... the problem is that it is very hard to start even thinking about these things in areas where the population is concerned with the quotidian task of trying not to starve to death. In this light, it is possible that providing adequate food to these areas could eventually lead to lower rates of population growth, as the local culture becomes better able to address some of the elements I mentioned above -- not to mention getting rid of some of the oppressive dictatorships that, not coincidentally, are precisely the people who stand in the way of the effective distribution of food in areas under their control.

Consider this fact: high levels of food production per capita correlate with low population growth; low levels of food production per capita correlate with high population growth.

[Toliver]

Rising education levels, on the other hand, especially for women, are, so far, the most potent force in reducing birth rate.

As well as increased levels of herbicides, pesticides and estrogen which reduce the overall sperm count in men living in First World countries. Though this is still being debated, the very things that have helped increase the food supply and have bettered our standards of living may also be making us sterile.

Consider this fact: high levels of food production per capita correlate with low population growth; low levels of food production per capita correlate with high population growth.

1) The larger the family, the more hands you have working in the proverbial fields to put bread on the table.

2) Given the high death rate among children in Third World countries, having larger families increases the odds of some of them living to adulthood...survival of the fittest...those who survive propogate the bloodline, increase the number of the family and (see #1) increase the number of hands in the field.

3) Religion/The Church has a large influence in many Third World countries and usually the number one rule is "go forth and propogate"...more family members mean more "lambs of God" (and, cynically) more pews filled in the church. The Church has far less influence over the population in First World countries than they do in Third World countries so the "Go forth..." holds less sway in more developed countries.

[fresco]

Rising education levels, on the other hand, especially for women, are, so far, the most potent force in reducing birth rate.

As well as increased levels of herbicides, pesticides and estrogen which reduce the overall sperm count in men living in First World countries. Though this is still being debated, the very things that have helped increase the food supply and have bettered our standards of living may also be making us sterile.

Consider this fact: high levels of food production per capita correlate with low population growth; low levels of food production per capita correlate with high population growth.

1) The larger the family, the more hands you have working in the proverbial fields to put bread on the table.

2) Given the high death rate among children in Third World countries, having larger families increases the odds of some of them living to adulthood...survival of the fittest...those who survive propogate the bloodline, increase the number of the family and (see #1) increase the number of hands in the field.

3) Religion/The Church has a large influence in many Third World countries and usually the number one rule is "go forth and propogate"...more family members mean more "lambs of God" (and, cynically) more pews filled in the church. The Church has far less influence over the population in First World countries than they do in Third World countries so the "Go forth..." holds less sway in more developed countries.

I wouldn't lean too heavily on religion as a factor in overpopulation. For instance, Quebec, where the overwhelming majority of people are Catholic, has for years had the lowest birth rate by far in Canada.

Think you will also find that Spain, Italy, Portugal, Ireland and other Catholic countries also have very low birth rates.

As for pesticides (DDT especially) and other pollutants, aren't they far more commonly used and found in food sources in many countries with high birth rates than they are in places like Canada and the US?

[slkinsey]

As well as increased levels of herbicides, pesticides and estrogen which reduce the overall sperm count in men living in First World countries.

Evidence that this is actually the case?

Given the high death rate among children in Third World countries, having larger families increases the odds of some of them living to adulthood

However, one of the negative effects of Western medicine in these countries is that many more children are surviving to adulthood and yet there has been no compensatory change in the culture with respect to women or having large families.

As for pesticides (DDT especially) and other pollutants, aren't they far more commonly used and found in food sources in many countries with high birth rates than they are in places like Canada and the US?

DDT, as far as I know, is quite benign with respect to humans. The reason DDT was banned in the US and other countries was not because it is bad for humans but rather because of the effect it can have on the reproduction of other animals. Specifically, it caused the eggshells of certain birds to be thinner, which resulted in fewer of of these eggs surviving to hatch.

[Hest88]

Fascinating what this thread has become since I last visited. I just want to bring it back to this point, which I think is the most relevant:

The major problem on the recipient end is inadequate distribution.

What needs to be addressed is not the quantity of food, but how to get it to starving populations given the economic, social, and political problems in impoverished countries.

[fresco]

As well as increased levels of herbicides, pesticides and estrogen which reduce the overall sperm count in men living in First World countries.

Evidence that this is actually the case?

Given the high death rate among children in Third World countries, having larger families increases the odds of some of them living to adulthood

However, one of the negative effects of Western medicine in these countries is that many more children are surviving to adulthood and yet there has been no compensatory change in the culture with respect to women or having large families.

As for pesticides (DDT especially) and other pollutants, aren't they far more commonly used and found in food sources in many countries with high birth rates than they are in places like Canada and the US?

DDT, as far as I know, is quite benign with respect to humans. The reason DDT was banned in the US and other countries was not because it is bad for humans but rather because of the effect it can have on the reproduction of other animals. Specifically, it caused the eggshells of certain birds to be thinner, which resulted in fewer of of these eggs surviving to hatch.

DDT may well have a worse reputation than it deserves, but I would stop short of characterizing it as "benign" with respect to humans. The following piece, which is a defence of DDT, is at pains to point out that research does suggest a link between heavy DDT exposure and low birth weight and premature births.

http://web.ask.com/redir?bpg=http%3a%2f%2f...gourevitch.html

[slkinsey]

DDT, as far as I know, is quite benign with respect to humans.  The reason DDT was banned in the US and other countries was not because it is bad for humans but rather because of the effect it can have on the reproduction of other animals.  Specifically, it caused the eggshells of certain birds to be thinner, which resulted in fewer of of these eggs surviving to hatch.

DDT may well have a worse reputation than it deserves, but I would stop short of characterizing it as "benign" with respect to humans. The following piece, which is a defence of DDT, is at pains to point out that research does suggest a link between heavy DDT exposure and low birth weight and premature births.

http://web.ask.com/redir?bpg=http%3a%2f%2f...gourevitch.html

Ooops. I should have paid more attention to what I was typing. I meant to say "relatively benign" rather than "quite benign." My point was that the stuff isn't exactly cancer in a bag, and that there are plenty of things out there that are 100 times worse for humans than DDT.

Interesting quotes from the web page you linked to:

The critics were so successful that, although the administrative judge presiding over the hearings concluded that "DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man ... DDT is not a mutagenic or teratogenic hazard to man," the EPA banned it anyway in 1972

***  ***  ***

By 2000, a group of environmental activists, led by the World Wildlife Fund, was promoting a U.N. "persistent organic pollutants" treaty known as the Stockholm Convention, which would have banned DDT worldwide for all uses. Only at the last minute was an exemption added for public health use.

But over the years, mainstream scientific opinion has absolved DDT of many of its supposed sins. Indeed, the Stockholm Convention partially backfired because it brought to light a slew of studies and literature reviews which contradicted the conventional wisdom on DDT. Like nearly any chemical, DDT is harmful in high enough doses. But when it comes to the kinds of uses once permitted in the United States and abroad, there's simply no solid scientific evidence that exposure to DDT causes cancer or is otherwise harmful to human beings.

Not a single study linking DDT exposure to human toxicity has ever been replicated. In 1993, Mary Wolff, an associate professor at Mount Sinai Medical Center, published a small study linking DDT exposure to breast cancer. But numerous follow-up studies with human subjects--including one large five-study review comparing 1,400 women with breast cancer to an equivalent number of controls--found no evidence for the link. David Hunter, an epidemiologist at Harvard University who ran one of the follow-up studies, says of the breast cancer connection, "the studies have really put that idea to rest." Similarly, various studies have contradicted initial concerns that DDT might cause myeloma, hepatic cancer, or non-Hodgkins lymphoma.

Other reports over the years postulating human toxicity in DDT exposure turned out to be cases of correlation without causation. In its heyday, for instance, DDT was mixed with a variety of dangerous chemicals, sometimes petroleum derivatives. In every anecdote of death or human harm by DDT that Carson related, the chemical had been dissolved in some other, highly toxic, substance, such as fuel oil, petroleum distillate, benzene hexachloride, or methylated naphthalenes.

That's pretty darn harmless in my book. YMMV, of course.

As for whether or not the article points to a study that posits a link between heavy DDT exposure and low birth weight and premature births, as you suggest:

Matthew Longnecker studied American women who had lived during the period of high DDT use and suggested that high levels of DDT in the bloodstream of pregnant women might cause pre-term delivery and low birthweight, for instance. But public health use doses--two grams per square meter of wall sprayed indoors at most every six months--aren't likely to produce those concentrations. Since DDT is not absorbed through the skin, spraying DDT in houses is unlikely to expose pregnant women--or anyone else--to amounts great enough to pose a danger. And scant evidence suggests DDT gets into the environment in significant amounts when sprayed indoors

The emphasis is mine, and would seem to indicate that Longnecker's study didn't even correlate the presence of DDT in the bloodstream of these women, but rather simply observes that women who lived during the ara when DDT was in heavy use tended to have silghtly a slightly higher incidence of pre-term deliveries and low birthweights. This is not particularly convincing evidence, IMO.

[badthings]

Are you seriously suggesting there's any question that GM crops are more productive than non-GM crops?

There is considerable debate on this, but RR soybean yield does seem to be lower than conventional soybeans. See this article (Nature Biotechnology 2001 -- not sure if you can read it without a subscription) for background.

Currently available GM crops are not engineered to affect yield, but instead to resist Roundup or to express bioinsecticidal proteins derived from soil bacteria. In the absence of chemical pesticides (such as in developing countries), the latter variety would have greater yields, but not as a quality intrinsic to the engineering. Of course, genetic engineering does have the potential to increase yields: e.g., the latest Nature Biotechnology reports on genetically engineered dwarf rice (dwarfism increases the efficiency of the plant, and is the trait Borlaug used to start the "Green Revolution").

The question is, who will develop these higher-yielding varieties, and how will the farmers who need them most pay for them? After all, they could dramatically increase their yields right now if they could afford the massive (and unsustainable) inputs required by existing green revolution varieties. It is not going to happen. And there are very real questions about the long-term viability of current GM techniques, both in terms of genomic stability, and biodiversity. The issue is not cut-and-dry either way, and it is intellectually dishonest (or naive) to claim that it is. It is a technology that we can not afford to ignore, or to ingore the repercussions of.

Addendum: there is in fact evidence from European historical demography to show that peasant societies adjust their birthrate in response to economic conditions. Perhaps not so useful in the face of such overwhelming food insecurity that as many children as possible seem necessary, but still food for thought. I will have to look up the references tonight.

[macrosan]

Hmm... I am not sure "twaddle" comprises a particularly effective refutation of FG's points.

I think it adequately refutes FG's chosen policy of wilfully misinterpreting what I said (despite my explanations and denials) and then walking off in a huff

Macrosan, let me see if I can sum up what I see as your core argument here:

1. A certain level of food production equals a certain world population.  Food production is the prime (or a prime) determinant of world population.

2. Inherrent in #1 is the idea that the world population will grow or shrink according to the amount of food available.

3. Increasing food production, therefore, inevitably results in an increase in world population.

4. Due to #3 above, we should not seek to increase food production.

5. What we should to is determine the optimal world population, determine the level of food production that corresponds to that population and refuse to produce any food above that level.

As I previously explained, no to most of this. I have re-read my original, then my explanatory post, and I truly can't see how they could be misinterpreted this way. But it must be me so let me try again

I do not advocate the deliberate limiting of food production as a means of population control.

I stipulate that there is a natural relationship between food supply and population. Food is one of many factors which control population, probably not the most important, and I listed some of them in my previous post. Increasing food supply may or may not increase world population. Given that people like FG are stating that people are dying of hunger, he is certainly saying that increasing the food supply to those people will prevent them dying of hunger and so presumably increase the population.

The clearest error in your list is #5. This is exactly the opposite of what I said earlier, and surely you must realize that if you read my post. What I said was :

What the world needs to do is to decide how much food can safely and sustainably be produced on this planet, and then stop producing more. The population of the world will naturally adjust to that availability.

Your "summary", Sam, is clearly an exact reversal of my words, and of course directly misrepresents my view. Now FG maintains that the world should produce as much food as is scientifically possible without regard for either safety or sustainability or both, and I repeat that I consider that to be a foolish and dangerous position to take.

Note that this whole discussion started as an aside by FG on the subject of GM food production. I hold to the view that GM development may prove to be as costly and short-sighted as the development of DDT and other pesticides. That might be a risk worth taking if there were significant rewards to be obtained. The major "rewards" claimed by the GM lobby are cheapness (of which there is no actual or even hypothetical evidence) and the ability of the West to feed the poor of the world. I am refuting this latter point.

Edit note: I amended the word "misquoting" to "misrepresenting" in the first line, since I wouldn't want to misrepresent what FG did

Edited August 26, 2003 by macrosan (log)

[Toliver]

As well as increased levels of herbicides, pesticides and estrogen which reduce the overall sperm count in men living in First World countries.

Evidence that this is actually the case?

Here's an excerpt of a U.S. Government Report on this subject. The gist of it: chlorinated hydrocarbons, products of detergent and surfactant manufacture, some products released from plastics and exposure to estrogenic chemicals may cause the decrease in male fertility.

Also, note that I said in the following sentence, that this causality is still being debated.

I also stumbled across a medical study that showed wearing polyester also decreases male fertility, which explains a lot about the '70's.

[slkinsey]

Macrosan, apparently I have misconstrued some of your points.

That said, I'd like to examine a few things...

Me: 1. A certain level of food production equals a certain world population.  Food production is the prime (or a prime) determinant of world population.

You: Food availability is a natural delimiter on world population.

These seem pretty close to being the same thing to me.

The logical conclusion of the above is:

Me: 2. Inherrent in #1 is the idea that the world population will grow or shrink according to the amount of food available.

You: The more food we provide to the world, the more the population will grow, demanding ever more food.

Now, it is a fact that you didn't say exactly what I said. You only said that the population would grow as the food supply grows. However, the idea that the population will shrink as the food supply shrinks is part and parcel of your original statement. It also happens to be true in a somewhat limited sense. The population may not grow beyond the limits of the available food supply, so the food supply determines the maximum possible population. If the food supply grows, the maximum possible population grows. Likewise, if the food supply shrinks, the maximum possible population shrinks.

Me: 3. Increasing food production, therefore, inevitably results in an increase in world population.

You: The more food we provide to the world, the more the population will grow

Again, these seem like pretty much the same thing to me.

Where your statement above is wrong, in my opinion, is that it assumes the human population will always grow up to the maximum possible size as determined by whatever by whatever growth-limiting conditions exist -- in this case, available food supply. In fact, as evidenced by countries like Italy, the actual population may be smaller than the maximum determined by food production, depending on many other variables.

Me: 4. Due to #3 above, we should not seek to increase food production.

You: The whole argument for GM as a means to "feed the world" is specious. What the world needs to do is to decide how much food can safely and sustainably be produced on this planet, and then stop producing more. The population of the world will naturally adjust to that availability.

These are a little different, it is true. My statement could be taken to imply that we should not seek to increase the food supply above today's levels whereas yours seems to imply that we should not seek to increase the food supply above a level that we somehow determine is "safe and sustainable."

Me: 5. What we should to is determine the optimal world population, determine the level of food production that corresponds to that population and refuse to produce any food above that level.

You: What the world needs to do is to decide how much food can safely and sustainably be produced on this planet, and then stop producing more. The population of the world will naturally adjust to that availability.

You are absolutely correct that my statment here puts the cart before the horse. That said, I am not sure it is an "an exact reversal of your words." Rather than deciding on the desired population first and determining the level of food production that corresponds to that population, as I erroneously attributed to you, you advocate deciding on a "safe and sustainable" level of food production which then corresponds to some inherrently desirable population. No matter which way you look at it, it would seem that a big part of this idea would be to refuse to produce food beyond a certain level. And what exactly do you think would happen if the "safe and sustainable" level were less than the current level of consumption by the world population?

I hope I have not misconstrued or misrepresented your position. However, it must be said that whether or not you advocate the deliberate limiting of food production as a means of population control, your statement above would seem to indicate that you do, in fact, advocate the deliberate limiting of food production. You are correct when you say that whatever restrictions on the food supply happen to exist will delimit population. However, when you advocate deliberate limitation of the food supply you inherrently advocate limiting the population by these means. Because the fact of the matter is that, when you limit the food supply people will starve, people will kill, people wil succumb to disease and people will die. This is exactly what happens in the so-called "natural world" every day.

However, as humans the idea is that we want to be humane to one another. And the fact is that ample evidence exists showing that a limit on food production does not necessarily limit reproduction in an individual basis. This is to say that it doesn't limit the creation of new lives, it just limits the rate at which those new lives persist to reproductive maturity. In other words, it's not necessarily the case that mothers have fewer children... it's mostly the case that more of the children die before they can have children of their own. Indeed, there is every indication that cultural values adjust to this phenomenon so that women reproduce more, not less.

Another big problem with your idea is that it is very hard to determine just what is "safe and sustainable." That might mean tree-hugging organic non-GM farming and a relatively small human population to some people. However, it could also mean massive genetic manipulation of both plant and animal life along with other drastic changes to the environment -- including perhaps the total extinction of all forms of life not necessary to support human consumption needs -- to feed a truly gigantic human population. There is no reason to suppose that one choice is inherrently "safer and more sustainable" than the other. I certainly prefer the former, but one cannot prove that the latter wouldn't work just as well.

So, in sum, I think that FG is correct that we must seek ways to feed the world's population today. It is inhumane to do otherwise. Similarly -- and here is where I think the "first world" is failing -- we must aggressively seek to improve those other aspects of human existence that seem to go along with lower population growth. And I don't think it can be ignored that societies with plenty of food, with higher levels of affluence and education, where women are educated, have opportunities outside the home and are relatively free from oppression, and where sex education and birth control are ubiquitous tend to have low population growth. In my opinion, it may be the case that problems aren't solved by throwing food at them, but is certainly is the case that plenty of problems are created by a lack of food. I hardly see how it would be possible to create the conditions that might lead to lower population growth until people have enough to eat.

Now... I am only looking at a few sentences that you wrote. Perhaps you meant for it to come out differently, or perhaps you were just pursuing an idea that came to mind and think differently. I'm cool with that. What do you think then?

[slkinsey]

As well as increased levels of herbicides, pesticides and estrogen which reduce the overall sperm count in men living in First World countries.

Evidence that this is actually the case?

Here's an excerpt of a U.S. Government Report on this subject. The gist of it: chlorinated hydrocarbons, products of detergent and surfactant manufacture, some products released from plastics and exposure to estrogenic chemicals may cause the decrease in male fertility.

Also, note that I said in the following sentence, that this causality is still being debated.

Call me a cynic, but I don't give a whole lot of weight to something that appears in "Rachel's Environment and Health Weekly." Especially as they seem to make an awful lot more of this study than I see there.

[macrosan]

Well now, Sam, how nice to find someone who can coolly and intelligently discuss an important but fundamentally difficult subject When you come down to it, you and I agree on most of the fundamental facts and principles.

There is a hugely important difference of principle between "determining what is the optimum population of the world and matching food supply" and "determining what is the optimum food supply and allowing world population to match". You see the latter determination is nothing but a matter of science, although granted we don't have the facts or research yet to reach a conclusion. Whereas the former determination (of optimum world population) is nothing but a highly suspect political judgement, which could never achieve universal agreement.

Of course I recognize that we can't yet formulate an intelligent opinion on optimum food production, but we have to take incremental decisions along that path. A decision on GM is just one of those. What we cannot do is to ignore the fact that interim policy needs to be made, without the benefit of all the facts, and we must acknowledge that some day a final decision will have to be made. This uncertainty is what makes the whole subject difficult to address.

Perhaps most of all, it is no good humanity kidding itself that it can produce enough food for a limitless population. That's a child's fairy story, isn't it ? The planet has finite resources until science comes up with a way of creating new raw materials and energy. So even those who advocate "feeding the world" as tenet of faith must be aware that they cannot achieve that unless they put some numbers on it.

So to advocate GM (for example) as a means to feed the world is intellectually dishonest. If those advocates are willing to specify how much GM food they are willing or able to manufacture, and then define the number of people in the world that would feed, and finally agree that they would need somehow to limit world population to that figure, then I understand the argument. Alternatively, if they will stipulate what they project as the growth in world population that would result from making food resources freely available, then specify how much resource (land and money and research, etc) they would need to allocate, and then prove that GM is safe and sustainable, and that the commercial and political capability exists to meet that plan, then I understand the argument. But all I hear are vested commercial interests mouthing PR about the humanitarian benefits of their product, and supporters accepting the principles without having sufficient facts.

And there is the purely commercial dimension. What is the point of making huge quantities of GM food available to people who can't afford to buy it ? Or is the intention to give it to them free ? Forever ? Do we have any evidence that GM food is cheaper than conventional food ? If it is, then why have food prices for raw food materials not reduced in the USA ? If it is cheaper for the third world to buy right now, do the Monsantos of the world guarantee that it will remain cheaper ? If it is cheaper, by how much ? If the third world cannot afford to buy the first and second world's current food surplusses, then I guess GM would have to be hugely cheaper to enable them to buy that.

So I repeat the thesis from my previous posts that the much spouted claim for GM that it will enable us to feed the world is specious. Someone needs to answer all my questions above, but until they do I will assume that the GM lobby is playing on people's emotions to gain support for their commercial venture.

If I am right, then exactly what are the benefits of GM ? Where are the overriding needs to take such huge risks, based on incomplete science at best, and irreversibly changing the course of world agriculture ?

The human race has inevitable tinkered with the world around it on a few occasions. Development of nuclear bombs was one consequence, and I have yet to meet someone who, with benefit of hindsight, is glad we did that. But even that development was containable, in that the human race can just decide not to make those bombs. It is universally acknowledged that many element of GM development will be totally irreversible. I just say we don't have enough knowledge yet.

[slkinsey]

Well now, Sam, how nice to find someone who can coolly and intelligently discuss an important but fundamentally difficult subject   When you come down to it, you and I agree on most of the fundamental facts and principles.

Thank you. I don't see much value in tossing around accusations and personal remarks of trying to force a certain interpretation onto what someone said in order to pump oneself up with righteous indignation. Not that I am referring to you in any way, but I have observed and experienced more than a bit of this in online discussions over the years.

That said, while you and I do seem to agree on many of the fundamental facts and principles I am not sure we agree on the interpretation of those facts and principles, nor the road down which they lead.

There is a hugely important difference of principle between "determining what is the optimum population of the world and matching food supply" and "determining what is the optimum food supply and allowing world population to match". You see the latter determination is nothing but a matter of science, although granted we don't have the facts or research yet to reach a conclusion. Whereas the former determination (of optimum world population) is nothing but a highly suspect political judgement, which could never achieve universal agreement.

There is definitely a difference between the two, but I am not so sure it is such an enormous gulf. Ultimately both are virtually impossible to determine by purely scientific means and would be highly political decisions no matter what. And, of course, since the two are so closely interrelated, it becomes very difficult to separate the two. As I said before, when determining the optimum food supply, as you suggest, subjective decisions would have to be made as to the kind of world in which we want to live, because there are many possibilities for "sustainable" depending on the nature of what is being sustained. Do we want it to be a world in which we have a rich and varied mix of wildlife, plenty of "natural" landscape "unspoiled" by human intervention, etc.? Well, the level of food production that corresponds to that kind of world will likely be smaller than what is needed to feed the current or projected population. OK... so maybe the optimum food production is something else. What? Plenty of politics in there.

Of course I recognize that we can't yet formulate an intelligent opinion on optimum food production, but we have to take incremental decisions along that path. A decision on GM is just one of those. What we cannot do is to ignore the fact that interim policy needs to be made, without the benefit of all the facts, and we must acknowledge that some day a final decision will have to be made. This uncertainty is what makes the whole subject difficult to address.

How are we to arrive at any such policy, interim or not? I am also at a loss to understand where "a decision on GM" falls into your model.

There is a fundamental problem with deliberately limiting the food supply or making decisions that have the effect of deliberately limiting the food supply. The problem is that it is the nature of animal populations to expand to their natural limits. If food supply is the major growth-limiting factor -- which it would be in your model -- certain things happen at the margins of the population: the organisms die of starvation and starvation-related conditions. That is how the population is limited and it is unavoidable when food supply is the principal growth-limiting condition. This is why, for instance, deer hunting is a humane practice in areas where deer have a limited food supply (the idea being that it is more humane to die from a bullet than to inevitably starve to death). Such a situation is unacceptable from a moral point of view where human beings are concerned, however.

Luckily, human beings are different from other organisms. Our sexual drive is not so closely linked to reproduction, and as "first world" cultures demonstrate, we do not have to grow our population until some natural growth-limiting condition (food supply, disease, etc.) is reached. Indeed, as I have pointed out earlier, the cultures with the lowest population growth are precisely those which are the least encumbered with natural growth-limiting conditions. This leads me to conclude that the tendency of human populations to grow until a limiting condition prevents further growth is largely cultural and that the conditions which allow such a cultural outlook to develop largely depend on the ready availability of food. The things that correlate highly with lower population growth -- and I have already pointed out some of them -- are unlikely to flourish in cultures where food is scarse and starvation is a concern.

The place where we are right now, however, is one in which we already have some trouble feeding the world population (although there are many complicating factors such as distrubution, etc.). It is also a fact that there will be many more mouths to feed in the immediately forseeable future. These mouths will need to be fed before we can even think of effecting any cultural changes that may lead to lower population growth. This is where GM foods can come in. Now, it may or may not be the fact that GM foods and the companies that make them are not working towards this purpose right now. But it is quite clear that GM can indeed help in this regard. The point is that the advisability or morality of GM food as a concept is not inextricably bound to what companies are doing with it right now.

If an American farmer can get twice as much corn out of one acre using GM corn or if an African farmer can use GM corn that is drought resistant (etc.) this is a gain. Whether or not these things are currently being done with GM, they certainly can be done with GM. It seems fairly clear to me that heirloom tomatoes and line-caught salmon is not going to feed those mouths. Now... maybe one day the world population will be at a place where this may be possible, but inorder to get to that place I think we need to worry about feeding the people who are here now. GM foods seem to me clearly a part of how we are going to have to do that. And I don't think that it is "inellectually dishonest" (whatever that means... something that is dishonest in a manner that is informed by the intellect rather than by emotion or experience?) to suggest that this is the case.

So... while I don't think we should think of GM as a way to create an inexhaustible food supply, it seems quite reasonable and indeed inevitable that GM foods will be a big part of how we feed the world population in the foressable future.

So I repeat the thesis from my previous posts that the much spouted claim for GM that it will enable us to feed the world is specious. Someone needs to answer all my questions above...

Macrosan, this is a little fatuous. You can't answer those kinds of questions about your viewpoint either. No one can. It's too complicated and we don't have enough information.

The human race has inevitable tinkered with the world around it on a few occasions. Development of nuclear bombs was one consequence, and I have yet to meet someone who, with benefit of hindsight, is glad we did that.

Yea yea yea... all the tinkering we have done has been so horrible that better nutrition, medicine, and other forms of technology have enabled people in the "first world" to enjoy unprecedented longevity, freedom from disease and a standard of living unimaginable only 100 years ago. Nuclear bombs are pretty bad, I'll agree. But nuclear power is pretty good. And it is not clear to me that nuclear bombs as we have experienced them are all that much worse than, say, the Black Plague.

Now, about that veal...

[macrosan]

... when determining the optimum food supply, as you suggest, subjective decisions would have to be made as to the kind of world in which we want to live, because there are many possibilities for "sustainable" depending on the nature of what is being sustained.  Do we want it to be a world in which we have a rich and varied mix of wildlife, plenty of "natural" landscape "unspoiled" by human intervention, etc.? 

I consider that the "kind of world we live in" issues are negligible in this argument. "Sustainable" to me means the planet contains the necessary resources to sustain it. In other words, if it were the case that GM food production consumes more energy resource than it returns to the ecosystem (and I have no idea whether this is the case) then it is not sustainable. We have every to believe that "natural" farming up to a certain production volume is sustainable, because that is exactly what the ecosystem is designed to do, and it does it naturally without human intervention (ie plants and animals grow in the wild).

Measuring the sustainable optimum is primarily a matter of science, coupled of course with a smattering of risk analysis. The politics follows that process, it doesn't precede it.

Of course I recognize that we can't yet formulate an intelligent opinion on optimum food production, but we have to take incremental decisions along that path. A decision on GM is just one of those. What we cannot do is to ignore the fact that interim policy needs to be made, without the benefit of all the facts, and we must acknowledge that some day a final decision will have to be made. This uncertainty is what makes the whole subject difficult to address.

How are we to arrive at any such policy, interim or not? I am also at a loss to understand where "a decision on GM" falls into your model.

Well we arrive at a policy by discussing the issues. This is no different from arriving at a policy on international trade, or nuclear arms, or terrorism. Pending a full and clear policy, we still have to make day-to-day decisions without the benefit od that policy. And we have to make a decision on GM (should it be allowed, encouraged, etc) today, before we have a total policy on the superior issue of world food production.

There is a fundamental problem with deliberately limiting the food supply or making decisions that have the effect of deliberately limiting the food supply.

Of course there is a fundamental problem. But it is an unavoidable problem. Whatever humanity ever does in respect of food production, it will still create the same problem. No matter how much food we produce, we will be (to use your terminology) "deliberately" limit the food supply. All that your policy will do is to ensure that the accusatiory finger is pointed at our descendants rather than us.

The place where we are right now, however, is one in which we already have some trouble feeding the world population (although there are many complicating factors such as distrubution, etc.).  It is also a fact that there will be many more mouths to feed in the immediately forseeable future.  These mouths will need to be fed before we can even think of effecting any cultural changes that may lead to lower population growth.

Just to restate what I said above, the place where we are right now is the same place we were at a hundred years ago, and the same place we will be in another hundred years, irrespective of the decisions we take on this issue.

I accept that there will be many more mouths to feed, but I don't want to increase that "many" to "vastly more", and that is where we depart in approach, I think. I too feel huge sympathy for people who are starving today, and my humanitarian instinct moves me to support your view that the absolute priority is to feed them. Hang the long-term consequences, we will deal with those in the long term. But we are working with limited resources, and the scale of resources we allocate to meeting a short-term humanitarian need might well preclude us ever being able to deal with the long-term consequences. It's the classic war-time dilemma of tactic against strategy. And what I have in this area are not solutions, but very many concerns.

This is where GM foods can come in.  Now, it may or may not be the fact that GM foods and the companies that make them are not working towards this purpose right now.  But it is quite clear that GM can indeed help in this regard.

All I can say on this is that it is not quite clear to me. I have read much on both sides of the GM argument, and the best that can be said for either side is that there is insufficient science or evidence on either side.

If an American farmer can get twice as much corn out of one acre using GM corn or if an African farmer can use GM corn that is drought resistant (etc.) this is a gain.

This is exactly an example of my point above. The "ifs" are huge ifs, and there is no hard evidence. This may or may not be a gain. There is no evidence of what long-term losses there might be. It's like saying that if a car travels twice as fast, it will get there in half the time, but unfortunately no-one checked if it had any brakes.

Whether or not these things are currently being done with GM, they certainly can be done with GM.

That sounds to me like an article of faith in science, Sam. I don't accept that science can, or should, do anything.

I think we need to worry about feeding the people who are here now.  GM foods seem to me clearly a part of how we are going to have to do that.

Yeah, you sure have got me on the first part again. I truly wouldn't want to argue with you on that. But there is a line that says "Be cruel to be kind" which also has some grain of truth and rightness to it.

And yet again, on the second part of that quote, I just lack your total belief and certainty in what GM foods can do, and what the risks are.

So... while I don't think we should think of GM as a way to create an inexhaustible food supply, it seems quite reasonable and indeed inevitable that GM foods will be a big part of how we feed the world population in the foressable future.

I certainly see no inevitability. Europe is quite successfully resisting the onslaught of American GM, and I don't see why it shouldn't succeed.

And yet again, I have to repeat that I don't believe that GM foods can "feed the world population" in the sense that you mean.

So I repeat the thesis from my previous posts that the much spouted claim for GM that it will enable us to feed the world is specious. Someone needs to answer all my questions above...

Macrosan, this is a little fatuous. You can't answer those kinds of questions about your viewpoint either. No one can. It's too complicated and we don't have enough information.

No it isn't fatuous. I am not the one making sweeping claims about GM without providing the necessary evidence. It is the American companies who are doing that. So I am entitled to ask them relevant questions to support their claims. Of course I can't answer those questions about the status quo --- I am not a huge multinational conglomerate with vast sums of money to spend on research, but they are.

Pending answers to relevant concerns, I simply say that the status quo should be maintained.

Nuclear bombs are pretty bad, I'll agree.  But nuclear power is pretty good.  And it is not clear to me that nuclear bombs as we have experienced them are all that much worse than, say, the Black Plague.

OK, I'll allow a little rhetoric, Sam, but it only takes a few nuclear bombs to destroy all those wonderful things you talk of. And what we should be doing is learning from our past mistakes (or near-mistakes if you wish) and be a little more careful than we were last time.

I think that perhaps GM food will prove to be a greater menace to humanity than nuclear bombs. It's just that -- a fear. And all I ask is that my fear be allayed by being given more careful, impartial, unadulterated information than is the case right now. If that takes time to produce, well so be it. We must take that time, because the consequences of haste may be terrible.

And if the consequence of my delay is that we delay bringing help to starving people which it turns out we could safely have given then I will have been wrong, and I will retrospectively be seen to have allowed unnecessary suffering. If I am alive when that is found to be the case, I will have my incorrect judgement on my conscience, and that is not something I treat lightly.

But the same applies to your side of the argument.

All we can ever do is what we believe to be right.

And as long as the veal is humanely raised, I will be delighted to discuss the best form of preparation and to share it with you

[badthings]

Demography:

Basically, in early modern Europe, the marriage rate closely tracks real wages, after a short lag. What this means is that when the economy improves, more people marry. This is significant because marriage rates determine population growth rates in societies without birth control (and without significant amounts of out-of-wedlock children).

Thus, Malthus's "preventative check."

This phenomenon is called the "European marriage pattern," and it is alleged to be unique to early modern Europe, but I don't see how this can be proved without comparably detailed documentation. Nor has anyone explained convincingly why this would be uniquely European.

Be that as it may, it is certainly worth inquiring into the demography of contemporary subsistence societies to try to determine precisely how food availability influences population growth. (I'm sure people are doing this, I just don't know anything about it). If nothing else, the European marriage pattern shows that population growth does (or can) respond to economic conditions short of starvation.

Like a lot of these issues, more complicated than it might seem.

Sources:

J. Hajnal, "European Marriage Patterns in Prespective," in D. V. Glass and D. E. C. Eversley, eds., Population in History (London, 1965).

E. A. Wrigley and R. S. Schofield, The Population of England, 1541-1871. A Reconstruction (London, 1981) (the most complete data).

[macrosan]

Hi Sam

In my eagerness to respond to all the challemging questions you raised, I completely forgot to ask you one of my own.

While I acknowledge that my own opposition to GM is founded largely on cynicism, I'm interested to know why specifically it is that you support it. Have you read some independent material that I haven't seen which has convinced you of its virtues ? If so, I'd like to read it too.

Thanks.

[slkinsey]

While I acknowledge that my own opposition to GM is founded largely on cynicism, I'm interested to know why specifically it is that you support it. Have you read some independent material that I haven't seen which has convinced you of its virtues ? If so, I'd like to read it too.

Sorry I have been too busy to respond to your previous post, although there is not much to add to that debate that really stays on topic for eGullet.

As for my feelings about GM foods, I find that most alarmists don't really understand the science. It's just like people who think that irradiating food makes it "dangerous" or perhaps "radioactive." the advantage I have is that my parents are both academic research chemists. In particular, my mother has done quite a bit in the biology/medical research side (cancer, AIDS, etc.). As such, she needless to say has a very good understanding of how genetics work and an interest in cloning and GM, and has been able to inform me about many of these things. Basically, once we figure out GM better, DNA can make anything living do just about anything. If we wanted to develop, for example, plants that were extremely hardy, that were capable of surviving a season in specific weather and soil conditions, that were resistant to certain pests, that were absolutely sterile and always died after one season, that were extremely nutrient rich, etc... we could do it if we worked at it hard enough. Or, on the other hand, we could produce transgenic goats that produce milk containing substances that help fight certain childhood ailments. Or, on the GM-engineered third hand, we could have transgenic pigs that grew actual human organs for transpant. Or, on the nuclear waste mutant's fourth hand, plants or animals or bacteria that break down and use the plastics in our landfills. How about cotton that already grows in whatever colors you want, with no need for the fabrics to be dyed and no fading with use? How about sheep that grow any color wool you want? The possibilities are endless, and it's all right there in the DNA.

GM can, and almost certainly will be used to line the pockets of the makers. And I understand that it is largely being used that way right now. But it is absolutely a fact that a food plant of food animal could be engineered via genetics in such a way that it would produce greater yield from smaller resources. You're basically talking about only three things: what is the efficiency with which the organism utilizes the nutrients that are available to it; what is the efficiency with which it stores those nutrients; and what is the form in which it stores those nutrients.

You have to understand that things like Roundup-resistant soybean plants are only the first tiny stumbling steps in what is possible with GM. The future is virtually limitless. Now, should there be processes in place to ensure that companies proceed safely and cautiously? Absolutely. But, fundamentally, if certain guidelines are adhered to there is no reason GM crops shouldn't be a shitload safer than a lot of other things we are doing to the ecosystem. And, in many ways, they hold out the prospect of potentially being safer and better. I would certainly rather eat corn that had been engineered to be unpalatable to worms, or rye that had been engineered to resist ergot than corn or rye that had been sprayed with whatever pesticides were needed to produce similar effects.

[macrosan]

Human ingenuity has no known limits, and I am inclined to believe that we can genetically engineer pretty much anything that our minds can conceive. I find that both exciting and frightening in equal measure.

I also have few misgivings about the likelihood of genetically engineered foods poisoning us. They might well create some long-term genetic change in human make-up, but since we are genetically evolving anyway, I am relatively undisturbed by that prospect. Just as a matter of policy, I would want all genetically engineered food to be subject to the same compliance as pharmaceuticals, through organizations like the FDA; I would also like to see the necessary timescale for clinical testing greatly extended as compared with pharmaceuticals, simply because the likely time for any adverse effect to be recognized would be greater for GM food. I repeat that at this stage of development of the science, I would not expect to encounter food safety problems, but if GM becomes widespread in application, there will be exponentially greater opportunities and incentives for commercial companies to cut corners.

When I talk about the safety of GM agriculture, I am thinking of the safety to the ecosystem, not so much the safety of the food. Let me paint a scenario (in which you'll have to excuse my lack of agricultural knowledge).

A farmer in Oklahoma plants 10,000 acres of GM corn which is resistant to worms. That means that worms don't eat the seed or the corn, so they lose their food source, so they die off in a couple of years. In the next year, the mice and moles and birds for whom the worms were their main food source migrate to the neighbouring state to find food. Then the predators who fed on the mice and the moles migrate. In time, 10,000 acres of Oklahoma becomes a worm-free, bird-free, animal-free zone. Now the birds have gone, insects on which those birds also fed, for example locusts, discover they have a bird-free zone, and start to inhabit the farm. They feed on every other crop within ten miles except the farmer's GM corn, and those farmers go out of business and leave their land to moulder. A few years after that, the farmer of the GM corn dicovers that his land has become effectively sterile as a result of the lack of worms and insects and animals which used to keep the soil broken up and manured. So he has to use articficial soil nutrients, and much heavy machinery, to keep his crop growing.

Now my scenario has no end, because I think the series of causes and effects is infinite. I don't think the scenario is at all extreme, and I think that in principle at least it's more likely than unlikely.

Of course my scenario is negative, and of course even within its context some benefit has been created. I just say that we don't know enough to be even reasonably satisifed that GM agriculture will not set us along a path with the potential for serious and irreversible harm.

That doesn't mean that I discard GM for ever. I want to see scientific research into these cause and effect scenarios. I want to see provision for continuous monitoring of the effect on the ecosystem of GM crops. I want to see contingency plans in place for occasions where there appears to be a problem. I want to see advance guarantees by the GM companies of how they will compensate if it transpires that their products have caused harm. That programme will cost a huge amount of money. That's OK with me. The GM companies have the money and they need to be made to spend it. The programme will also take a long time, and that too is OK with me. I'd rather get it right later than wrong now.

Edited August 28, 2003 by macrosan (log)

[slkinsey]

I also have few misgivings about the likelihood of genetically engineered foods poisoning us.

What makes you think that "normal" foods aren't already poisoning us? Have you ever seen a list of all the different toxins that exist in raw vegetables? People can and do die every year from eating non-genetically engineered foods that poison them. One of the things that genetic engineering could do is create foods that are less poisonous than their unaltered counterparts. For example, one could engineer fava beans so that they were safe to eat for people with a glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency (up to 20% of the African population, and 4% to 40% around the Mediterranean depending on locale). This could save many, many people who would otherwise have died of favism.

[Genetically engineered foods] might well create some long-term genetic change in human make-up...

How do you think this wouold happen? We do not interact on a genomic level with the DNA of the foods we eat. So it is basically impossible that the consumption of foods with engineered DNA could somehow change our DNA. It doesn't work that way. Humans are not going to start growing gills if we eat potatoes that have some frog DNA spliced in.

Now... could eating certain foods cause changes in our DNA on an evolutionary scale? Sure. But this will take millions of years.

Just as a matter of policy, I would want all genetically engineered food to be subject to the same compliance as pharmaceuticals

There should definitely be strong oversight, this is true. And, as far as I know, there is strong oversight.

I would also like to see the necessary timescale for clinical testing greatly extended as compared with pharmaceuticals, simply because the likely time for any adverse effect to be recognized would be greater for GM food.

I'm not entirely sure I agree with this, but is isn't an entirely invalid opinion. I don't think it is reasonable to test all GM foods for 50 years, if that's what you have in mind.

When I talk about the safety of GM agriculture, I am thinking of the safety to the ecosystem, not so much the safety of the food.

Macrosan, there are already horrible problems that have been caused by so-called natural organisms that we have introduced to various environments. Ask anyone in the Southern US what they think about Kudzu... Ask the Aussies what they think about rabbits and cats... Etc...

Let me paint a scenario (in which you'll have to excuse my lack of agricultural knowledge).

A farmer in Oklahoma plants 10,000 acres of GM corn which is resistant to worms. ... A few years after that, the farmer of the GM corn dicovers that his land has become effectively sterile as a result of the lack of worms and insects and animals which used to keep the soil broken up and manured. So he has to use articficial soil nutrients, and much heavy machinery, to keep his crop growing.

You are forgetting something very important: Before the farmer got the GM corn, he was already spraying his "normal" corn with shitloads of pesticides in order to kill off the worms anyway. It is not necessarily the case that the GM corn will be any more effective in keeping away the worms than the pesticide. But, it certainly might be the case that the GM corn has a lot less "collateral damage" (i.e., kills fewer non-worm organisms in the cornfield) as compared to the pesticide. So, in this way, the GM corn is actually better for the environment than the "normal" corn. For example, the birds can simply eat the earthworms and crickets and other little bugs in the cornfield that don't happen to eat the parts of the corn plants that we want to eat. Not only should there me more of these other organisms present in a GM cornfield, since they are no longer being poisoned by pesticides, but the birds would not be ingesting the pesticides either.

It goes without saying, by the way, that the farmer is already using artificial soil nutrients and much heavy machinery to keep his crop going. Again, there may be things that genetic engineering can do to actually reduce the degree to which these things are needed. It should not be ignored, however, that there are other things that can make a big difference as well. I have relatives who are cotton farmers in West Texas. One of them had an Israeli underground irrigation system installed in one of his fields. These are perforated pipes that run several feet under the ground, so the fields may be irrigated from underneath. This has two important benefits: 1) the water doesn't evaporate as it does on the surface, so less water can be used; 2) fertilizers are deployed via the underground irrigation pipes directly to the roots, so there is no surface run-off and less fertilizer can be used. The main benefit, however, is the fact that his field with the underground irrigation system yields twice the coton per acre compared to his other fields.

Now my scenario has no end, because I think the series of causes and effects is infinite. I don't think the scenario is at all extreme, and I think that in principle at least it's more likely than unlikely.

There are many things that can be done to minimize most of your negative scenarios. One particularly potent one is to produce GM organisms that are sterile and that are genetically programmed to die after a certain period of time (one growing season, for example).

[badthings]

It's probably annoying to the two of you that I keep busting in on your debate, but this just came out today:

Paul L. Raymer and Timothy L. Grey, "Challenges in Comparing Transgenic and Nontransgenic Soybean Cultivars," Crop Sci 2003; 43 1584-1589

Here's a (fair use) excerpt from the abstract, since you need a subscription to read it:

 

Genetically modified soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] cultivars containing herbicide resistance have become the predominant cultivars marketed in the USA. This technology dramatically changed weed management strategies in the USA and created controversy and new challenges within various segments of the industry. This review seeks to summarize many of the issues that arose within the soybean industry surrounding the introduction of the world's first major transgenic crop.... Initially, the new transgenics made the already difficult, yet critically important, task of cultivar selection even more arduous and confusing. Lack of university data, high cultivar turnover rates, and the added burden of factoring in technology fees, yield lag, and weed control costs into the decision of which cultivar to plant were frustrating to most producers. Industry's early insistence on separate cultivar performance trials for Roundup Ready (RR) cultivars taxed limited testing resources and increased the size of the already massive data sets generated. Most often, the end result did not provide a direct comparison with popular conventional cultivars. As this new technology has become fully accepted and assimilated into our industry, comparisons with conventional cultivars are less important since most farmers are selecting only among RR cultivars. The current literature indicates that soybean variety test (SVT) programs with limited resources can effectively compare soybean cultivar performance using combined trials treated only with conventional herbicides with little risk of yield loss or herbicide x cultivar interactions. However, the use of a systems approach or separate RR trials to evaluate the performance of soybean cultivars is now commonplace in the USA due to the sheer dominance of RR cultivars. Many larger SVT programs will soon consider discontinuing separate trials for conventional cultivars as their numbers and importance diminish. 

They go on to discuss the different numbers on "yield lag," and assert, plausibly, that this problem has basically been overcome.

Not to drag this out unnecessarily, but I think this demonstrates the need to really familiarize oneself with what we do know before getting all het up about this. E.g., FG seemed really pissed off by the suggestion that GM crops had lower yields, though this is in fact the case. Lots of biologists talk lots of shit about demography to argue their case knowing nothing more about it than the latest FAO projections, which are always wrong. Lots of anti-GM people talk about human health risks, which is absurd and alarmist. And, Sam, I'm not trying to attack you, but this is a common, and very, very lame, argument:

Macrosan, there are already horrible problems that have been caused by so-called natural organisms that we have introduced to various environments.

I.e., since human stupidity has already fucked up so many ecosystems with invasive species, it makes sense to do it more, with transgenic species the genomes of which we have altered in unpredictable ways of which we cannot reasonably project the long-term implications. This is a red herring. It has nothing to do with the question at hand.

And you are certainly right about the potential of crop biotechnology to do all kinds of wonderful things -- but it is merely that, potential. No one is close to commercializing anything that's going to help feed the world, or do anything except try to get Monsanto in the black. Which does not mean that it's by definition evil, but the pro-GM people need to stop talking about saving the world and actually do something before they trot out that argument again.

Finally, the last sentence of that abstract is food for thought:

Many larger SVT programs will soon consider discontinuing separate trials for conventional cultivars as their numbers and importance diminish.

I have no stake in heirloom soybean varieties, but one thing that we really do not want to do, if we're going to feed the world, is eliminate agricultural biodiversity.

sorry to interrupt.

[slkinsey]

It's probably annoying to the two of you that I keep busting in on your debate, but this just came out today:

Paul L. Raymer and Timothy L. Grey, "Challenges in Comparing Transgenic and Nontransgenic Soybean Cultivars," Crop Sci 2003; 43 1584-1589

[Excerpt snipped for brevity.]

Not to drag this out unnecessarily, but I think this demonstrates the need to really familiarize oneself with what we do know before getting all het up about this. E.g., FG seemed really pissed off by the suggestion that GM crops had lower yields, though this is in fact the case.

Um... I read your excerpt several times over, and I couldn't find anything in there that says GM soybean cultivars have lower or higher yields as compared to non-GM cultivars. So I am not exactly sure how you think your point is supported by this excerpt.

I should point out, however, that a GM crop does not necessarily have to have a higher yield for the genetic engineering to have value. It also seems quite clear to me that genetic engineering does hold great promise for higher yields.

Sam, I'm not trying to attack you, but this is a common, and very, very lame, argument:

Macrosan, there are already horrible problems that have been caused by so-called natural organisms that we have introduced to various environments.

I.e., since human stupidity has already fucked up so many ecosystems with invasive species, it makes sense to do it more, with transgenic species the genomes of which we have altered in unpredictable ways of which we cannot reasonably project the long-term implications. This is a red herring. It has nothing to do with the question at hand.

If you think that is what I was saying, then you missed my point entirely. My point was that there is no reason to suspect that GM crops are any more dangerous than non-GM crops in this regard. I should add, by the way, that there are plenty of things that could be done with genetic engineering to make GM organisms significantly safer than non-GM organisms in this regard. If, for example, the cats introduced to Australia had been genetically modified so that they were incapable of reproducing in the wild and could only do so via artificial insemination, they wouldn't be having the problems with wild cats they're having over there.

And you are certainly right about the potential of crop biotechnology to do all kinds of wonderful things -- but it is merely that, potential. No one is close to commercializing anything that's going to help feed the world, or do anything except try to get Monsanto in the black.

So what? Just because GM is being used a certain way right now doesn't mean that the idea of genetic engineering should be tossed away like the proverbial baby with the bath water. I don't know what arguments others have made, but I would certainly never assert that GM as we know it today is something that could even begin to address world hunger or any of the other myriad possibilities this technology promises. Does it have the potential to make an impact in these areas in the relatively near future? Say, 50 years? Absolutely.

Finally, the last sentence of that abstract is food for thought:

Many larger SVT programs will soon consider discontinuing separate trials for conventional cultivars as their numbers and importance diminish.

I have no stake in heirloom soybean varieties, but one thing that we really do not want to do, if we're going to feed the world, is eliminate agricultural biodiversity.

Boy, talk about uninformed... Just how much genetic diversity to you think existed in commercially grown American soybeans before GM was introduced? Well, I'll tell you a secret: not very much. This is a fait accompli, I'm afraid. I certainly don't mean to imply that this is a good thing, but to lay the problem of poor genetic diversity in commercially grown crops at the door of genetic engineering is unrealistic at best -- one could almost say "intellectually dishonest" if one was into using such language .

In fact, well-executed genetic engineering with this goal could potentially cause there to be more genetic diversity in American soybean crops than was present in, say, 1990.

[badthings]

Sorry:

Although yields of some RR cultivars in some trials were often above the mean yield of the trial, seed yields of the population of RR cultivars as a whole averaged 2.9 units below the mean. In comparison, seed yields of conventional southern regional check cultivars averaged 1.0 unit above the trial mean and 3.9 units higher than the average of all RR entries. Minor (1998) reported similar findings from southern SVTs

There's a lot more research on this -- my point was that initially yields were definitely lower, but that they have now pretty much fixed the problem.

If you think that is what I was saying, then you missed my point entirely.  My point was that there is no reason to suspect that GM crops are any more dangerous than non-GM crops in this regard.

Of course, but saying that x is no more dangerous than y doesn't make x safe. It's true, it's just not a legitimate argument for GM crops.

there are plenty of things that could be done with genetic engineering to make GM organisms significantly safer than non-GM organisms in this regard

Absolutely. Maybe someone should start doing them.

Just because GM is being used a certain way right now doesn't mean that the idea of genetic engineering should be tossed away like the proverbial baby with the bath water.

I agree. That is what (I thought) I was trying to say. Faster than 50 years, too.

Boy, talk about uninformed...  Just how much genetic diversity to you think existed in commercially grown American soybeans before GM was introduced? 

I was trying to make a little joke. The problem that is unique to GM crops -- not soy! -- is if the transgenic material conveys an adaptive advantage, introgresses into wild relatives, then outcompetes plants without the transgenes. They go away, along with their genes that aren't as valuable at the moment as glyphosate resistance, but might have come in handy later on. That, I think, is a serious concern, particularly with corn among the GM crops now grown.

Sorry if I seemed shrill, I've been reading a lot about this, and some of the advocates on either side are intellectualy dishonest.

[mcdowell]

Boy, talk about uninformed...  Just how much genetic diversity to you think existed in commercially grown American soybeans before GM was introduced?  Well, I'll tell you a secret: not very much. 

187 varieties, according to FJ Herman's 1962 USDA Technical Bull. A revision of the genus Glycine and its immediate allies (revised down from the suspected 323 after chromosonal testing).

I'm not a horticulturalist, or anything close, so I can't tell you if that's "not very much" or not. Seems like a lot to me. I could just be uninformed.

Even so, I interpreted badthings use of soybeans as example to make a point.

I'll step out of y'all boy's way now.