GOOD SCIENCE, NOT IDEOLOGY

[Update 3/6/18] How Do You Assess if a Chemical Causes Cancer?  This is a good read, written by Dr. Guy-Andre Pelouze as published in the digital magazine "SLATE".  He is a thoracic and cardiovascular surgeon who did cancer research during his training, and lung cancer treatment during his practice.  Five things stuck in my mind from this article: --He states that when scientists and policymakers carelessly substitute risk for hazard, flawed conclusions are drawn. --there was a study of 89,000 farmers in Iowa and North Carolina showing no raised health risk.  --IARC being taken to task for publishing findings not consistent with their research.  --Benefit-risk ratio is important when it comes to regulatory action.  --Glyphosate is less toxic to humans than common chemicals like aspirin.
     At the recent Direct Seed Conference in Kennewick, Washington, one of the speaker presentations dealt with the anti-GMO, Glyphosate campaign that is gaining public acceptance world wide. Advocacy groups are driven by ideology, --good science be damned.  They are quite comfortable in substituting "it's possible" or "it probably is", for, "it does", and hype it "as fact", when it means nothing of the sort.  A lot of the public is gullible and  Laws are being written and products band or boycotted as a result of this hype.
      As near as I can determine, this demonizing of glyphosate and GMO's originates from the Organic Farming Industry.

      This is nothing more than a tug-of-war between holding on to the ways of the past, and moving on with new ways of the future.  Like everything else we encounter in life, we have to muddle through it.                              

                               ---  SCIENCE OVER ADVOCACY ---

       Below I'm including two websites that support science over advocacy.  The first is "Biology Fortified" < Biology Fortified >.   The second is the "Genetic Literacy Project" <  Science Not Ideology >
       I've also included two of the 501(c)(3) organizations that fund much, if not most, of the tirade against Monsanto and GMO's.  They are the Rodale Institute, and The Sustainable Food Alliance Inc.
                        _________________________________________________________

Biology Fortified explains the science behind GMO's and exposes the pseudo-science propaganda that shows up in the media.  < Biology Fortified >

Genetic Literacy Project (GLP), advocates “Science, not Ideology”.   Information about GLP can be obtained at:  < https://geneticliteracyproject.org/glp-board/ >  
I have pulled parts of the profiles of the individuals named below from the GLP website.  They are names that many of us recognize in the anti-GMO campaign. 

_____________________________________________________________________

ABOUT RODALE INSTITUTE

Rodale Institute is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit dedicated to pioneering organic farming through research and outreach. For over seventy years, the Institute has been researching the best practices of organic agriculture and sharing findings with farmers and scientists throughout the world, advocating for policies that support farmers, and educating consumers about how going organic is the healthiest option for people and the planet. Learn more at www.rodaleInstitute.org.

The Sustainable Food Alliance, Inc. (SFA) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, EIN 33-1123944 registered in the state of Delaware.

The aim of the SFA is to act as a catalyst to encourage collaborative engagement between individuals and organizations working in the field of sustainable agriculture.

Our mission is to accelerate the transition to more sustainable food and farming systems.

The SFA’s programs of work are delivered primarily by working in partnership with other organizations. We fundraise for and make grants to organizations working in the field of sustainable food and agriculture. We work alongside the Sustainable Food Trust, a UK-based charity that works internationally to advance our shared mission. The link to the summary article of: The Hidden Cost of UK Food .  I found this an interesting short read.  They include a lot of different elements into "the cost".  I can't disagree with what they are saying, but, (they don't lay out the details for feeding the world population)  I can't get my mind around replacing our high capacity production with "Organic Farming".

                             ______________________________________________

Judy Carman: Activist researcher promotes GMO scare studies in fringe journals?

Updated on November 29, 2017 | [wpv-post-taxonomy type="glp-types

PROFILE DETAILS

Judy Carman (born January 31, 1964) is an academic and anti-GMO activist. Her vanity site—GMO Judy Carman—was established by Henry Rowlands, the cybermaster behind GMO Seralini and the pro-organic website SustainablePulse, which promotes claims that genetically modified foods are unsafe despite the findings of every major independent science organizations that they are as safe or safer than other conventional or organic foods.

______________________________________________

Jeffrey Smith: Former flying yogic instructor now 'most trusted source' for anti-GMO advocacy

Updated on November 29, 2017 

PROFILE DETAILS

Jeffrey M. Smith (born 1956) is a self-published American author, independent film producer, professional dance instructor and former politician known for his work in transcendental meditation and yogic flying, Lindy Hop swing dance and activism in opposition to genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

[Note: See Daily Show takedown of Smith]

Smith ran for the U.S. Congress as a candidate for the Natural Law Party (United_States), has authored several self-published books, DVDs and a movie on the dangers of genetic engineering,[1] serves on the Genetic Engineering Committee of the Sierra Club, and is a frequent conference speaker at advocacy, alternative health, organic and natural products conferences and his work is promoted on such nationally syndicated television programs as The Dr. Oz Show. Smith claims to have a background in communications and marketing,[2] has served as an occasional contributor to his local newspaper[3] and attended school at the Maharishi Institute of Management in Fairfield, Iowa where he resides.

______________________________________

Gilles-Éric Séralini: Activist professor and face of anti-GMO industry

Updated on November 29, 2017 

PROFILE DETAILS

      Gilles-Éric Séralini is a French scientist who has been a professor of molecular biology at the University of Caen since 1991. He is known for his controversial research concluding that genetically modified food and the pesticide glyphosate are unsafe for human consumption.

      Séralini was born August 23, 1960 in Annaba, Algeria, then known as Bône. He is president and chairman of the board of CRIIGEN (Committee of Independent Research and Information. He has published multiple studies alleging health risks associated with plant biotechnology which have been called flawed and biased by various regulatory and academic groups.

      A professor of Molecular Biology at the University of Caen, Laboratory of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, I.B.F.A., Esplanade de la Paix, 14032 Caen Cedex, France. Séralini studied in Nice and became a Doctor in biochemistry and molecular biology at the University of Montpellier in 1987. He left then for North America to carry out fundamental research for four years, at the University of Western Ontario and Laval University Medical Center, doing research on corticosteroid-binding globulin. Qualified to supervise research, he passed, at the age of 30, the French national competitive exam for University Professors.

       Séralini chose to focus on the interface of cancer research and endocrinology at the University of Caen, where he was appointed professor in June 1991, a position he has held ever since. He has written about 100 scientific articles and conference papers for international specialist symposiums. He assumes several roles in the Commissions of the University of Caen, where he leads a research team associated to CNRS (French National Centre for Scientific Research) and INRA."

       Funding for much of Séralini's research has come directly from the alternative health and organic industries, and in particular by various organizations tied to the Rodale Institute, that bills itself as "advocating for policies that support farmers, and educating consumers about how going organic is the healthiest option for people and the planet."  Anthony Rodale–chairman emeritus of Rodale’s Organic and grandson of the founder, is a vocal supporter of Séralini's work.

       The funds are funneled to the French scientist through the Sustainable Food Alliance (SFA), headed by Patrick Holden, former director of the UK Soil Association--Britain's organic industry trade group--which is a "charity campaigning for planet-friendly organic practices" and "healthy, humane and sustainable food, farming and land use”.  A study released in December 2016 claiming GM corn is not "substantially equilvent" to non-GMO varieties was financed by SFA.

__________________________________

Don Huber: Science still looking for Purdue professor's GMO pathogen time bomb

Updated on November 29, 2017 

PROFILE DETAILS

Don M. Huber (born 1935) is a former Purdue University professor who goes on publicity tours sponsored by organic[1], alternative health[2] and anti-GMO interest groups[3] claiming glyphosate and herbicide tolerant GM crops are causing health problems in people and animals. He also claims he discovered years ago a novel pathogenic microbe caused by agricultural genetic engineering–a GMO time bomb that is wreaking havoc on humans and animals.

    Huber maintains glyphosate and GMO herbicide tolerant crops are linked to human and animal health risks. He says animals fed GM crops are dying in record numbers and that their is a correlation between GM soy and GM corn with inflammatory bowel disease in humans in the United States. He alleges glyphosate is linked to alzheimer's disease, gout, diabetes, Parkinson's, allergies and fertility issues.  To support his claims, he cites research by a Maharishi movement expert in yogic flying Jeffrey M. Smith, and the debunked activist researcher Gilles-Eric Séralini.[5]

Huber has collaborated with anti-GMO activist researchers Judy Carman and Jack Heinemann in support of anti-GMO claims sponsored by extreme organic and biodynamic food and farming products company president Howard Vlieger.

ROUNDUP -- (Good or Bad ??)

UPDATE 2/24/18:  I recently received a critique on the book "Whitewash", a bash piece on GMO's and Glyphosate by Carey Gillam.  The timing and purpose of the book was to educate the public on the cancer causing effects of glyphosate and pressure the EU to not re-register glyphosate for use last fall.  The critique by Karl Haro von Mogal shreds the book and shows how, through the misuse of data,  and using partial truths, the anti-glyphosate crowd is misleading the public for the benefit of the "Organic" movement.  It's a bit difficult to read.  Because of the mirth employed, I had to read it twice to get the straight of the message.  The critique can be read at: < "Whitewash" is hogwash>

    Glyphosate was introduced to the public in 1974 following it's discovery by Monsanto chemist John E Franz in 1970.  Since it's discovery, Glyphosate has been under constant scrutiny with research trying to prove what glyphosate does or does not do.  What we do know is that it has been a very effective herbicide.  We also know that there are some resistant cultivars, and more will become resistant to the effects of glyphosate.  There is no revelation here, all our chemistry has developed resistant cultivars, --it's merely a matter of time.
     Our operation has used a lot of glyphosate and we have been comfortable with knowing that research proved over and over that it is safe for humans and animals.  At times we seem to bathe in the stuff.  We try not to ingest the chemical, but that has probably happened as well.  The first real concern over safety I'm aware of came around 2010, when Purdue professor emeritus, Dr. Don Huber dropped a bomb, stating that Glyphosate and GMO's are harming human, animal and earth's health.  The research that he based his conclusions on has never been duplicated.  With his continual repeating the claim, and the inability to duplicate the results at Purdue and other universities, Purdue disavowed him.  He is the darling of the anti-GMO crowd and continues to lecture world wide on the evils of glyphosate and GMO's.  The next big hit on glyphosate was when the World Health Organization (WHO) through the International Agency for Research on Cancers (IARC) published a statement that glyphosate "probably" is a Group 2a carcinogen.  The label "probably" can be used on a lot of chemistry and preservatives used for growing and processing our food.  Forty three years of research should be able to determine yes or no, --not a "probable".   However, if you want it to be a carcinogen but can't prove it then the next best thing is to damn it with the adverb "probably".   In fact,  Reuters has an investigative arm.  They state that the IARC research conclusions were changed from no evidence of being a carcinogen in the draft version, to a neutral or positive conclusion of being a carcinogen in the final published version.   The < Glyphosate Battle > is an interesting read.   Reuters has been stonewalled by both WHO and the researchers of the IARC on the reasoning for changing their position, --it wasn't apparently the science.   Since WHO's pronouncement, anti-Monsanto/Roundup/GMO activists, using all available media upped the public concern to the point where several countries are considering removing glyphosate from the register of approved herbicides, along with the State of California.
      In the November 2017 edition of No-Till Farmer there is an article on glyphosate titled,  Is Glyphosate Harming Your No-Till Soils?  The article states that the glyphosate molecule is hanging around longer than anticipated.  Glyphosate is negatively effecting some soil microbe communities.  Glyphosate is encouraging some plant diseases.  Glyphosate is interfering with nutrient uptake.  And, glyphosate is effecting mycorrhiza.  Some serious stated findings.
       I have been working with WSU researcher, Tim Paulitz, for several years on glyphosate interaction with soil biota, --principally bacteria and fungi.  Over the years I have gained a lot of respect and confidence in his work and knowledge of glyphosate.  He heads up a lot of glyphosate research and reads journal entries about glyphosate research worldwide.  His own research projects have found no statistical difference in either the bacteria or fungi communities, between ground that has never had glyphosate applied, and ground that has had a lot of glyphosate applied.  He is doing this study over a wide area of the Palouse and is working in three rainfall zones, ---high, medium, low.  I asked him why this study was in conflict with his findings.  His response:
       Tracy, ---- I looked over the No-Till article.  There is nothing new in this article, except the work from Cornell. The rest of the article refers to old work by Robert Kremer. As I mentioned before, he did not have the molecular tools to really address the questions about microbial communities.  He was only working with the small fraction of fungi and bacteria that can be cultured-  less than 1% of what is out there.  Kind of like trying to paint a picture of the world by only looking through a small narrow slit. Rather than trying to rebut his work, I think it is more useful to look at the new work we have done.

        But I will comment on the article from Cornell by Aristilde.  By the way, this article was reviewed by Kremer.  First of all, the No-Till article was misleading in talking about this work, when it said that “beneficial Pseudomonas… decreased when glyphosate seeped into the surface soil layer by leaching or release from glyphosate treated plants”.  In the Cornell paper, they did not work in the soil, or with plants.  All their work was done in the lab in culture. There may have been other work that they did in soil, but I could not find it published.  They took 4 biocontrol strains of the bacterium Pseudomonas and tested them in culture to see how sensitive they were to glyphosate.  Three were relatively insensitive, but one was completely inhibited at 5 mM.  It was also slightly inhibited at 0.5 mM. This is well known- some bacteria have a form of the enzyme that is sensitive to glyphosate, others are insensitive.  Nothing new here. In fact, the original gene that was used in Roundup Ready crops came from a bacterium, Agrobacterium.  But when I converted the molar concentrations into ppm, it came out to 84 ppm and 845 ppm.  Bacteria in the soil environment will never be exposed to these concentrations, unless there is a chemical spill on the soil. So I would say that this study is not really relevant to the real world.  Many things we do in the lab are useful to develop theories and basic understanding, but the key question is, --does this really happen in the real world? If you hit just about any microbe with a high enough concentration of a chemical in culture, growth will be inhibited.  Also remember that bacteria and fungi may behave in culture very differently from in the soil.   In the study they used high tech state of the art metabolomics to show that the shikimic acid pathway and aromatic amino acids were inhibited.  This has been known for 40 years.  These are the target of glyphosate, --an enzyme in the shikimate pathway that plants, bacteria and fungi use to make aromatic amino acids, which are essential.  They also showed you could supply these amino acids to the bacteria and overcome the growth inhibition. Again, this is nothing new.

         Let me address a few other points in the article. The work on Roundup ready soybean and Fusarium was not done with isogenic lines, so the difference could have been inherent differences in the genetic background of the two lines, There is a picture  of petri dishes with bacteria in the article, and says he can tell by looking at them that there are mostly non-beneficials in the glyphosate treatment.  You cannot tell by looking at cultures.  He talks about gene issues, and having transgenic DNA in the soil, --DNA is quickly broken down in the soil, and there is no evidence of these genes being transferred to other bacteria.  He talks about nutrient complications, --again, a non-issue for us since we do not have GMO wheat, --and others from Purdue have rebutted this argument.  The amount of glyphosate in the environment is so small, it does not play a role in chelating nutrients in the soil, which are in much larger concentrations.  He also cites a study on his farm of taking out fescue and then planting soybean, and noted higher levels of fungus on the roots of soybean in the glyphosate take out.  This is classic green bridge effect, and we have known about this risk for 30 years.  

        So, in summary, I think the main risks of glyphosate that our farmers in the PNW have to worry about is the green bridge effect of carrying over root pathogens to a new crop (and we have known this for 30 years) and the risk of developing glyphosate resistant weeds by overuse, --as has happened in the Midwest.  In the end, farmers have to weigh risks with benefits.

        Timothy Paulitz,USDA-ARS,Wheat Health,Genetics and Quality Research Unit,Washington State University, Pullman, WA, Phone- 509 335-7077, 
email: timothy.paulitz@ars.usda.gov

      The Green bridge referenced by Tim P. was discovered and studied by Dr. Jim Cook of WSU.  Root diseases can be carried over from one cultivar to another when planted into a  dying cultivar.  The recommendation is to not plant within 20 days of a Roundup application. Time is part of the recipe for sanitizing a field along with cultivar rotation and cultivar diversity.

HOW DO I SEE THE FUTURE!

         Regardless of  glyphosate or any other chemistry's fate, --they are all under attack, we have to get smarter about raising crops with fewer chemical inputs.  That means we have to learn how to manage cover crops for the purpose of suppressing weed competition and supplying nutrients to our cash crops.  This is a challenge, and the "How-To Book" is just starting to be written for the Inland Pacific Northwest.

GMO's -- safe ( ?- ! )

     This morning KREM 2 with Charlie Rose and crew had a segment that featured an interview with Monsanto's CEO.  He did a horrible job.  No useful information was expressed.  Answers to questions were shunted to platitudes like GMO's are safe, Roundup has been studied for 40 years, and he eats GMO foods without concern.  What a wasted opportunity.
     His appearance did bring back to mind a statement I heard about a year ago from an industry spokesman, that FDA needed to study the safety of the various process' used in GMO developments, and not the individual cultivar developed from a specific process.  It would save a lot of time and money, and give the public some assurance that questions about public health and environmental issues are being addressed.  I thought that it was a good statement and a direction that needed to be taken, and still do.  This irritating interview did put me back on the web search for information about GMO's.  There are four or five basic process' used for GMO's.  I remember that one process that encompassed crossing genes of different species needed to be looked at closely. I haven't come up with the right key phrase yet to get those names.
     It is apparent to me that GMO, GE, and GM labels are used interchangeably, depending on whose talking and which area of the world the information is coming from.
     I did find a website that gives an excellent discussion on the many different aspects surrounding GMO's.  It's sectioned for easy access of specific subjects.   It's the website for JRSM (Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine).  It's a long journal entry but packed with information that is not too technical.       <  Journal of the Royal Society of medicine  >

GLYPHOSATE - A Recent Study

     Last year we were contacted to participate in a glyphosate study.  Interest in us came from the knowledge that we have land that has had many gallons per acre (≈20+)applied over the last 30 years, and also land that has never had glyphosate applied.  The researchers were looking for changes in the soil that could be attributed to Glyphosate.  There are six locations with different operators in the project that extends across the greater Palouse area.  This year they are expanding the research project to look more in-depth at each of the microbiological communities.
     To date, the short simple answer is that they have found no evidence that glyphosate is impacting our soils beyond normal variations found in soil types, crop cultivars, and location.
     In our discussion it was brought out that the glyphosate molecule is of a fairly simple structure that has P, S, and C as part of it's makeup.  With these elements, arranged as they are, this molecule should be a good food source for the soil microbiological community.  Part of the study is to identify which  communities use glyphosate as a food source.  One characteristic of glyphosate is that it has an affinity for mineral soil, and is held very tightly.  This does have an impact on what microbes use this product as food.
     Several times I have done an internet search on glyphosate.  It's amazing how many hits are out there, and the vast number are negative on glyphosate and Monsanto.  Even though I know that most of these "THE TRUTH ABOUT GLYPHOSATE", and the like, articles, are garbage, --occasionally there will be a statement that gives me pause.  In these situations, I go back to trusted, peer reviewed articles for the answer, --and sometimes, there is no answer.  What I have noticed, is that Monsanto's detractors work on emotion, with few facts to support their claims.  They will make unsupported statements like, --40 researchers from around the world support the truth that glyphosate creates "Super Weeds".  Statements like this is not a a total lie.  A grain of truth normally can be found in these proclamations, but they are always, "over the top", miss leading.  Any one in the business of production agriculture knows that every class of chemical we use is becoming less effective in killing unwanted plant cultivars, --including glyphosate (Roundup).  This gives rise to a reference of "Super Weed". We have run out of known "modes" of action on which to attack a plant cultivar, so now we are using mixes of chemicals that combine different modes of action.  Rarely is a single chemistry recommended to assure a clean crop.
     One disturbing question (for me) that I am now working on finding the answer too is:  does multiple applications of Roundup (on Rt tolerant crops, GMO's) build up in the food supply (seed, forage)?  The followup question is: if so, is that a problem for human or animal health?  I think the answer to the first is NO, if used according to the label! --which, sort of says that it could if the label is not followed, (which I am sure occurs).  I'm unsure on the second question.  Early research said no, but I'm not sure what more recent "peer reviewed" research says.  There is plenty of junk science that will say that Roundup causes grotesque cancerous warts, and is the root of every imaginable disease known to mankind.
     Groups like Earth First and EWG(Environmental Working Group) have as much credibility with me as televangelist's do.  They both live through their greed, and peoples fears they skillfully nurture, and/or create!


   

GMO's are safe !

       This guy expresses my view on the subject. <  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vM1x2wnhtz4 >   Unfortunately, like most people expressing their opinions on GMO's (pro or con) he is long on generalities and short on supporting material.  Most of the con's that I have looked into, make the mistake of using material that is not peer reviewed.  To me, that is a red flag, giving question to it's credibility.  Most of the GMO critics that I take the time to read or view reference work and statements of Dr. Don Huber of Purdue University.  When put under the scientific microscope, his research and conclusions could not be replicated.  Purdue and it's scientific community has distanced themselves from him.
      I noticed a logo in the video -- "VOCATIV".  <http://www.vocativ.com/>  This turns out to be a media and technology company founded by Mati Kochavi.  Vocativ uses proprietary data-mining technology(??) to explore the [deep web](??) in order to discover stories and generate original content.  Interesting -- I'll keep track of them.  They may be more credible than the run of the mill media we get most of our information from.
      Another information source that piquet my interest is "Genetic Literacy Project".
                            http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/mission/

GMOs and Labeling

      An interesting presentation by a Sociologist at Iowa State University on why people are caught up in the labeling issue.  This video is 6m30s long.  You have to listen close to the questions directed to Carmen Bain as they are a little hard to hear.
      [Summary] -- Labeling is a "proxy" issue that encompasses many different issues in peoples minds about science and food safety.
       click to view---->       Carmen Bain on Labeling of GMO's