What You Really Need to Know About GMOs and the Maui County Voter Initiative

Busting through the propaganda on both sides

Unless you've been living in a cave (or maybe even if you have), you've heard a lot of propaganda on both sides of the GMO debate.  If you live on Maui, then you probably know there's an initiative coming up that would put a moratorium on growing GMO plants.

My goal here is to educate you.  Yes, my views are made clear, but whether you agree with me or not please base your decisions on facts, which I will do my best to present to you, and not on irrational fear or flawed logic.  I'll start out by saying that I'm not a geneticist or an agricultural engineer, but I have a background in science (I worked for 8 years in the field of limnology, the study of water quality) and am strongly in favor of things that protect the environment and human health.  I am not a shill for Monsanto and in fact I loathe their business practices.

If you've received the anti-initiative flyers in the mail, like any campaign flyer they are pretty much nonsense and reading them probably made you feel a bit nauseous.  But make no mistake: The health food industry is a $35 Billion per year industry in the US alone.  Don't think that they are a small local industry without resources for propaganda, they're just more skilled and subtle in their use of propaganda.  The existence of propaganda, regardless of the skill of the propagandists, doesn't make them right or wrong.

Is the Initiative a Ban?

There has been a lot of discussion about whether or not the initiative is a "ban."  The question I have is: who cares what label you put on it?  But if for some reason you really do care whether or not it's a ban, the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a ban as "to prohibit especially by legal means."  Well, this is a law prohibiting the cultivation of GMO crops, so at least by the dictionary definition then yes, it's a ban.  Whether you want to call it a moratorium or a ban, it prohibits cultivation of GMO crops and doesn't have a specific expiration date.  But that's a red herring.  Instead of trying to figure out what label to put on it, how about understanding what it actually is?  Proponents claim that it's a moratorium because it's temporary, and can be lifted once we know whether or not GMOs are safe.  Well, guess what?  It has already been proven independently using the scientific process that GMOs are safe (see the next section) so following their own claims, the moratorium should already be lifted before it even starts.

GMOs Are Scary

It is normal human nature to fear what we don't understand.  But in this case, there is no reason to remain ignorant.  Instead of just prohibiting what we don't understand, why not take a few minutes to understand it?  Then maybe it won't be so scary and you'll at least be better informed.

There are 2 types of GMO crops that are of main concern with this initiative: Roundup Ready and Bt.  Roundup (glyphosate) works by disrupting a very specific enzyme, EPSPS. Plants rely on EPSPS to produce four required amino acids, but it is only found in plants and microorganisms, not animals, and has no function whatsoever to animals. It’s presence or lack thereof does not affect animals. In Roundup Ready plants, the gene that is responsible for synthesizing EPSPS is replaced with another gene that creates another version of EPSPS that produces the same amino acids.  It is not affected by glyphosate but otherwise serves the exact same function in the plant, and again is irrelevant to animals. What’s cool about this method of gene replacement is that we know exactly what gene is changing and exactly what it does.

Then there is Bt GMOs. Bt is naturally produced by a naturally occurring bacteria, Bacillus thuringiensis. Bt is effective at controlling caterpillars and worms such as corn borer. It does not affect other animals, including humans, mammals, or even other orders of insects such as beetles, flies, or bees. Bt is commonly used in Organic farming. That’s right, if you eat Organic foods you’ve consumed Bt.  Bt is safe as long as you're not a caterpillar or worm, which is why it was selected both for Organic farming and for genetic modification.  With Bt GMOs, the genetic sequence for Bt is added to the plants’ genetic sequence. Again, like Roundup Ready plants, we know exactly what changed in the plant’s DNA and what its function is.

Organic Genetic Manipulation: A Comparison

Want to know what type of genetic modification is used for Organic (and non-organic of course) crops, but is not considered "GMO?" Mutation breeding, aka Mutagenesis. Mutation breeding is when seeds are blasted with ionizing radiation (high energy radiation) that causes random changes in DNA. The seeds are then bred and the breeders decide if they like the resulting plant better than what they started with. The changes are random and the breeders don’t know what part of the DNA has changed. It’s a mystery, they just decide if the resulting plant has desired characteristics, even though it may have other unknown characteristics. The same thing is also commonly done with chemicals that randomly change the plants’ DNA. There are over 3200 plant varieties that have been modified using this method, they are common and can be considered Organic! That’s right, if you eat certified Organic non-GMO foods you’ve actually eaten foods that have been genetically modified using this method.  So really, which is more scary, mutagenesis in Organic food or known, specific, targeted GMOs?

What About the Health Effects of GMOs?

The real meat of the "GMO debate" is whether or not they are safe for human consumption.  How do we know what kind of effects these mystery frankenfoods will have on us?  Well, if you read the previous sections then hopefully you understand them a bit and no longer see them as mystery frankenfoods, and see that inserting specific genes is much less of a mystery, and a much more known quantity, than traditional methods of genetic manipulation that aren't considered GMO and that you've been eating every day of your life (unless you're a hunter/gatherer who eats only native plants, and animals that eat only native plants).

Monsanto says they're safe, but Monsanto is a fundamentally evil corporation who only cares about profits, so doesn't that mean they're lying?  No.  While I have no doubt Monsanto and their ilk would happily lie to us if it increased their profits, it doesn't mean what they say is automatically a lie, it means we shouldn't trust them and instead look to independent sources.  Luckily, there is a method of validating what those independent sources discover, and that method is called the scientific method.

The anti-GMO folks would have you believe that we don't know the health effects of GMOs yet, and that they haven't been well studied.  That's a primary reason for the desire to prohibit GMOs.  However, this is a misconception.  GMO safety has been very well studied, and continues to be studied even more.  Hundreds of independent researchers, conducting thousands of studies in many different countries, using the scientific method and verified as valid science by the peer review process have come to the same conclusion: GMOs are safe for human and animal consumption.

But you don't have to take my word for it, nor should you take any one person's word for it one way or the other.  Here's a good starting point: An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research.  It's a review of about 1,700 peer-reviewed scientific research papers about the safety of GMOs.  It has a lot of references that you can look up to read the original scientific research.

Environmental Concerns

Note: I added this section after it was brought to my attention that I didn't address environmental concerns.

The link posted above:
http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Nicolia-20131.pdfHas references and analysis of 847 scientific, peer-reviewed studies done on the interaction of GMO crops with the environment, and I’ll summarize some of it here.

“Superweeds"/Roundup resistant weeds

People are concerned about gene flow to weeds, and that “super weeds” will be produced, and that this could happen through cross-pollination between weed and crop plants.  As a review from high school biology, pollination is sexual reproduction.  In order to reproduce sexually, two organisms must be of the same species, or so close that they genomes are nearly identical (such as a blackberry and raspberry resulting in the boysenberry, or a wolf and a domestic dog).  Just as you can't breed a dog with a cat, you can’t breed a GMO corn or soy plant with an entirely different species.  To the best of my knowledge, we do not have much wild soy or maize here, and if there is then it is not noxious and not of concern.  It would be a different story if they were growing Roundup Ready plants that were the same species as wild noxious weeds, but that is not occurring nor would it be lucrative for an big evil corporation to do.

What about Roundup resistant weeds that we’ve heard about?  Aren’t those from contamination from roundup ready crops?  NO.  Roundup resistant weeds are roundup resistant because they produce an excess of EPSPS.  It is the same form EPSPS that glyphosate blocks, not the form of EPSPS that Roundup Ready crops have been modified to produce.  The reason that they’re resistant to glyphosate is that they produce enough EPSPS so that even though much of it gets blocked, they still have enough to survive.  Additionally, although they are resistant to glyphosate, they are at an evolutionary/competetive disadvantage to their non-resistant counterparts because the excess ESDS that is produced is a waste of energy.

Biodiversity

Biodiversity is another concern.  Starting with biodiversity of non target species (other species in the environment that may interact with the crop but are not the target of the genetic modification), biodiversity is not decreased in GMO crops, and in fact in the case of Bt crops, biodiversity of non-target arthropods is actually increased.  “Target” means the thing that they’re hoping to destroy…which with Roundup Ready crops means noxious weeds and in Bt crops means the specific pests that Bt kills, then it is reducing biodiversity of the targets, because that’s what it’s meant to do.  Although reducing pests is considered a good thing, those studies have actually been misrepresented by anti-GMO folks to argue that GMOs are reducing environmental biodiversity, which is totally bogus.

Maybe somebody can explain something to me:  Why is it that so many of the same people shut down the climate-change deniers by saying the science says anthropomorphic climate change is real and is a problem, but then go against the science when it comes to being anti-GMO?  The exact same scientific process that tells us anthropomorphic climate change is real and is a problem also tells us that GMOs are safe for human and animal consumption.

What About Pesticides?

There is scientific evidence that shows some pesticides are harmful.  Some are only harmful when inhaled before they dry, some are harmful to nearby residents from overspray, some are harmful to the environment, and some haven't been well studied.  One of the primary arguments for the GMO moratorium is that tons of pesticides are applied to them.  Want to know what else tons of pesticides are applied to?  Non-GMO crops.  Part of the reason/excuse is that testing of experimental pesticides are being conducted on GMO crops.  For some reason, people think that if GMO crops are prohibited that the companies testing these pesticides will just give up and stop testing them.  Why do they think they won't just continue testing them on non-GMO crops?

GMO crops are not the real issue here, the real issue is pesticide application.  So why would you want to prohibit GMOs when what you really want to prohibit is the spraying of pesticides near your house?  The solution to this involves two things:

1. Mandatory Use Reporting.  This would mean that all commercial application of herbicides and pesticides would need to be reported and made publicly available.  The pesticide companies and commercial applicators don't want this because we might discover they are spraying something harmful near people and may be forced to stop, but we should be putting our safety (when there's a real reason!) before corporate profits.   California and New York (probably elsewhere too) have mandatory reporting laws, and they haven't caused an undue burden on commercial applicators.  This has nothing to do with GMOs though.

2. Mandatory Buffer Zones.  This means commercial applicators wouldn't be allowed to apply within a specified distance of residences, hospitals, and schools.  Obviously they don't want this because they don't want restrictions on where they can spray because it could limit their amount of useful land, but we should be putting our safety (when there's a real reason!) before corporate profits.  This has nothing to do with GMOs though.

Prohibiting GMOs to prevent pesticide application is like trying to ban red cars because people driving red cars text and drive.  Well, people driving green, blue, white, and black cars text and drive too, and banning red cars just means texters will be driving a different color car.  This is totally flawed logic.

Business Practices of Monsanto and Their Ilk

Another common argument is that GMOs are evil because Monsanto is evil.  There seems to be a logical disconnect here.  People think that because Monsanto is evil it automatically means that all their products are harmful (also please be aware that Monsanto is not the only company creating GMOs).  Monsanto is the creator of Agent Orange, which they insisted was safe.  So let's be clear: Monsanto is not to be trusted.  However, as I stated above, we don't have to trust them, there is a mountain of independent evidence that says that GMOs are safe (and that Agent Orange isn't).

The corporate evilness as it relates to GMOs comes from their abuses of patent law, not from the GMOs themselves.  In patent law, in order to patent something it has to be novel (nobody has done it before) and non obvious (other people wouldn't have thought of it without copying you).  You can patent inventions (things) or processes.  Okay, so let's look at the genes they replace.  In Roundup Ready organisms, did they invent the gene?  No, they got the gene from a different organism.  How about Bt?  Same thing.  Soooo....they didn't invent the gene, they just got it from somewhere else, the gene is not novel and shouldn't be patentable.  If they invented a novel and non obvious process for replacing the gene, then they can patent that process, but they can't prevent farmers from replicating the organisms using breeding.  Plants have been having sex long before patent law existed, so they can't patent the process.  Okay, so they can't patent the gene, and they can't patent conventional breeding, yet somehow they are able to get away with preventing farmers from doing exactly that, thus causing the farmers to be beholden to them for seeds every season.  The solution here is to fix patent law, not ban GMOs.

Monsanto is also part of an industry that lobbies for corn subsidies.  This leads to things like massive amounts of high fructose corn syrup in a lot of our foods, which helps contribute the epidemic that is obesity, and ethanol in our gasoline, which is actually leads to more fossil fuel burning than straight gasoline. The solution here is to fix ridiculous corn subsidies, not ban GMOs.

Monsanto is a publicly traded corporation.  By law, Monsanto is a sociopath.  They are required to do things solely in the best interest of their shareholders, not their customers or the public (which is why we look at the independent research into the safety of GMOs).  But they're huge, right?  Companies like Whole Food rely on people being anti-GMO so they shop there instead of Safeway, but Whole Foods dwarfs in comparison to Monsanto, right?  Wrong.  Whole Foods is also a publicly traded corporation, whose sole interest by law is shareholder profits, not customers.  Additionally, Whole Foods revenue is on par with Monsanto's!  Yet, just because Whole Foods is a big sociopath corporation, does that automatically mean all of their products are evil and harmful?  Of course not!  That would be ridiculous.

Who Does the Initiative It Apply To?

Everyone.  The proponents of the initiative will try to tell you that it's meant to target the large corporations, or those testing pesticides, not the local farmers or the backyard gardener.  However, there is no language in the initiative regarding the size of the company or the size of the crop.  For example, that means you can't grow rainbow papaya in your backyard.  76% of the state's papaya acreage is growing the GMO rainbow papaya, and it's what saved our papaya production from the ringspot virus, and it would be banned by this initiative.

Conclusions

1. Independent, validated, scientific research has proven that GMOs are safe for human and animal consumption.
2. Pesticide application, especially near residences, is a serious issue, but it is a separate issue from GMO cultivation or consumption.
3. Large corporations are, by law, sociopaths, and are thus evil.  However, evil business practices do not automatically mean their products are evil, which is why we rely on independent science.
4. The anti-GMO Maui County Voter Initiative is based on fear of the unknown and the misunderstood, not rational logic or real evidence.