Startled Disbelief: organic

Showing posts with label organic. Show all posts

29 July 2014

There's Nothing Sinister Lurking in That Baby Formula

This is a guest post by Laura Creek Newman, RD, critically examining health claims about infant formula made by Meghan Telpner, "Nutritionista", in her recent article What's Lurking In That Baby Formula? This article is cross-posted from the Winnipeg Skeptics blog.

I am going to preface this with my background. I am a registered dietitian practicing for four years, largely in all areas of adult health. I am not an infant feeding expert, though I have recently been working in pediatrics and did have significant and evidence-based training in the area through my schooling and internship. I am also a mom of a 17-month-old; a mom who breastfed exclusively for six month and continued past a year. I am also a mom who had trouble breastfeeding and could not pump enough to bottle feed once I went back to work. I'm a mom who used formula. From my training and my own experiences feeding my daughter I do not belong to any particular camp: I believe breast is great when you can, but ultimately a baby needs to eat and baby formulas are the next best thing.

Photo by Alicia Voorhies, CC BY-ND 2.0

First off, I want to clarify something: genetically modified organisms (or GMOs) are everywhere. They are the bread we buy, the animals we eat, the vegetables I planted in my garden. All of them. No, I don't work for Monsanto. Pretty much every food crop humans have cultivated since humans learned to cultivate crops is genetically modified. This is due to selective breeding at the hands of skilled farmers or gardeners who cross-bred different plants or animals to create new varieties. They breed together organisms that have the same desirable characteristics for many generations until they reliably get a new strain of that organism. For example, say you have red petunias and white petunias, but you want pink. One would breed the red and white together; if some flowers come out pink, you would take those and breed them together, but you wouldn't breed them with the flowers that turned out white or red. Over time, one will get more and more pink flowers until they're all pink. And voila! You've created a new strain of pink petunia. You can thank these millennia-old techniques for helping produce strawberries, bananas, and the dozens of varieties of peppers and heirloom tomatoes we happily devour today. Our rapid technological advances in the last half century, particularly decoding the genomes of many organisms, have allowed us to speed up this process by picking out and only planting seeds that carry the desired genetic traits while leaving the rest. We have also been able to modify some of the traits in the lab to improve disease resistance, remove toxic substances, and improve the nutritional profile of foods. It is this latter part that has some people scared of "frankenfoods". Would these plants "naturally" have genes that make them super-resistant to drought, for example? Perhaps not. The important question to ask is: does this change in the genetic structure make the food unsafe? (The answer is no). This article gives a good overview of the subject. Whether you choose "organic" or not, your food definitely has been genetically modified somewhere through its history before arriving on your plate.

This brings me back to the article at hand. It is listed under the category "healthwashing" on the website. The author posits that most of the ingredients in conventional baby formulas, even many organic baby formulas, are unhealthy, thus making these products unfit for baby. While formula companies have used (and may still use) unethical marketing practices, this does not comment on the safety of their products. Infant formulas are some of the most heavily regulated and monitored food products (source, source) in the United States (similarly in Canada). There are several erroneous and potentially harmful comments made in this article and I would like to address them.

Human breast milk is our best way to understand an infant's nutritional needs. Breast milk contains about 42% carbohydrate as lactose (milk sugar), 50% fat (as a mixture of fatty acids, mainly palmitic acid), and about 7% protein with 67 kcal/100 mL (source: Krause's Food, Nutrition, and Diet Therapy 11th Edition, Mahan, L.K. & Escott-Stump, S., 2004, 8:221). From this, we assume that this is what infants require to grow properly, so infant formulas are designed to mimic as closely as possible this nutrient profile. In contrast, cow's milk contains 30% carbohydrate, 50% fat, and 20% protein, and also has 67 kcal/100 mL (ibid.); soy milk contains 21% carbohydrates, 44% fat, and 35% protein with 33 kcal/100 mL (source). Cow's milk is chosen as the primary base for infant formulas due to its similar nutrient and caloric profile to human milk. However, it requires processing and additional ingredients (particularly carbohydrates, vitamins, and minerals) to make it safe and appropriate for human babies.

The author first highlights an ingredient list for a soy-based formula from Similac: the author notes the first ingredient is corn syrup solids, the second is "genetically modified protein".

This infant formula contains 42.6% corn syrup solids, followed by genetically modified protein. You wouldn't eat that. If you can choose another option, choose another option!

It is unclear if the protein is in fact genetically modified, but as demonstrated above, this is likely not a safety issue. Soy protein isolate is protein extracted from soy meal that is 90% pure: this means that it is at least 90% soy protein with very little fat and carbohydrate. Infants do not require as much protein as adults and too much can be detrimental, so formula manufacturers use this product to most accurately control the proportion of protein in the final product. As for corn syrup solids, they "are defined by the FDA as dried glucose syrup (in which the reducing sugar content is 20 DE or higher. Corn syrup solids are generally recognized as safe (GRAS) as direct human food ingredients at levels consistent with current good manufacturing practices (21 CFR 184.1865)." (Source.) In essence, it is dehydrated corn syrup where the sugars are glucose and short glucose chains. It has a relatively low sweetness level compared to sucrose (corn syrup solids: 23–28, sucrose: 100). By comparison, lactose (milk sugar) has a sweetness level of about 16 (source), so corn syrup solids are slightly sweeter but comparable. Some type of sugar (short molecules) is needed for the carbohydrate source as it is harder for babies to digest starches (large molecules) and they get the energy too slowly, which can slow down their growth. As this example is of a soy-based formula, the manufacturer has to use a plant-based carbohydrate instead of lactose to make it appropriate for babies with lactose intolerance, galactosemia, and vegan/vegetarian babies*. As for the author's comment "you wouldn't eat that", well, the reader probably wouldn't eat/drink many things that an infant would, including any infant formula or breast milk. What one adult may or may not eat or find appealing is entirely subjective and not a useful commentary on infant nutritional products.

The second formula discussed by the author is Nestle Good Start, a standard infant formula and industry leader. The comments are as follows:

Partially hydrolized whey protein: Whey protein comes from cow's milk, which is one of the most common food allergies in children. Allergic reactions can include diarrhea, hives and swelling of the lips.

See above for why cow's milk is used as the base for most infant formula. It is true that it is the most common allergen among children, however, it is also one of the most likely allergies to be outgrown by the child's fifth birthday, unlike peanuts, tree nuts, and shellfish, which also make the list.

Corn maltodextrin: Corn maltodextrin is a food additive often found in snack foods like chips and crackers. Given that 80% of corn grown in Canada is genetically modified, it's safe to assume that this cheap food additive comes from GMO corn and not the organic kind. It's also a sweetener.

See above for the issues around GMO foods; there is no evidence to show that GMO-derived ingredients are hazardous to health. Organic maltodextrins are also available. Maltodextrins are short-to-medium starch molecules (up to 20 glucose molecules per chain) made by a similar process to corn syrup solids (source, source). The sweetness varies from no sweetness to mildly sweet; the relative sweetness factor ranges from 6–21 (recall that the sweetness of lactose is 16). For this reason, maltodextrins are not primarily sweeteners and may not impart any sweet taste to a food at all. The primary characteristics of maltodextrins are: high solubility, easy and rapid digestibility (high glycemic index), low sweetness, provision of smooth and full texture to foods (source, source). The author is correct that this ingredient is heavily used in many processed foods, particularly in the "snack foods and beverages" category. She is also correct that this is a "cheap" (inexpensive) ingredient. However, as the skeptics' mantra states: correlation does not equal causation; the presence of this ingredient in a snack food does not demonize that single ingredient. In the same vein, if water, bananas, or organic rolled oats appear as ingredients in a "junk" food, it does not mean that any of those things are inherently bad or unhealthy. Maltodextrins have found their way into baby formula for several reasons. First, they are inexpensive, and it would be naïve to deny that food manufacturing companies are not continuously looking for lower cost ingredients. Second, and most importantly, the aforementioned characteristics of these starches are very desirable for a baby formula. Their high solubility means that powdered formula will dissolve easily and fully without lumps; this makes it easier and tastier for a baby to drink. The fast and easy digestion is easier on a baby's developing intestines than regular starches and gives baby the quick energy he or she needs. The low sweetness factor makes the formula taste more like breast milk and helps avoid getting babies hooked on the really sweet flavour that comes from other sweeteners like honey, maltose, and sugar.

Soybean oil: Soybean oil is cheap, which means it's found in virtually all processed foods. Like corn, unless otherwise noted, it most likely comes from GMO sources. It's a highly unstable oil, so food manufacturers partially hydrogenate it to raise the melting point and stabilize it so it won't turn rancid. The result? An altered chemical structure and, in many cases, trans fats.

Again, see above for safety concerns around GMO foods. The author is correct again in noting that, like corn and corn-based ingredients, soy is an inexpensive ingredient, and likely the cheapest source of fat available (partially due to high subsidies to producers). Historically, soybean oil was hydrogenated to make it more stable, and this had the negative side effect of increasing trans-fats (which are known to increase LDL cholesterol, decrease HDL cholesterol, and increase risk for cardiovascular disease). Since label reporting of trans-fats in foods and ingredients became mandatory in 2006, food producers have generally moved to breeding low linolenic acid varieties of soy that produce a more stable oil without hydrogenation (source, source). Further to this, hydrogenated oils are not allowed to be used in infant formulas 14. Similarly to breast milk, infant formula does contain a small amount of trans-fat (around 2–3%; source, source) but a large portion of this is naturally occurring from cow's milk (gut microbes in cows produce a small amount of trans-fat during digestion that is passed on to cow's milk). Thus, it is unlikely that infant formulas contain much, if any, commercially hydrogenated trans-fats.

Palm olein: Research has shown that babies can't properly digest palm oil — in fact, it reacts with calcium, causing the formation of "soaps" in the baby's intestines, leading to hard stools and lowered bone mass.

Palm olein is a fat that is high in palmitic acid as well as a source of oleic acid (source). It is often used to mimic the fat profile of human milk, of which the primary fat is also palmitic acid. Here the author's concerns regarding the addition of palm-based fats to infant formulas are not entirely unfounded. There is some controversy over the use of this ingredient as several published studies (source, source, source) have demonstrated lower fat absorption and lower bone mineral density in infants up to 6 months of age who are fed palm olein-containing formula compared to peers not fed this formula. On the flip side, several other studies note that these differences are still within normal range for normal term infants (source, source) and that these differences likely do not persist once infants start solids and/or become toddlers (source), source). In a nutshell, some differences may exist, but they do not appear to affect a child's long-term bone mass.

High oleic safflower oil or high oleic sunflower oil: Safflower/sunflower oils are extremely common in packaged foods (read: cheap) are very high in pro-inflammatory omega-6 fatty acids. If these oils are harmful for adults, why would we feed them to babies just after birth?

Similarly to palm olein, high oleic sunflower/safflower oils are added to formula to provide oleic acid, a mono-unsaturated fatty acid present in human milk. Standard versions of these oils are high in omega-6 fatty acids which can be pro-inflammatory and may have an impact on health (though this is generally in context of inadequate omega-3 fatty acid intake, combined with excessive calorie consumption, etc). The high oleic versions are actually quite low in omega-6 fatty acids; 100 mL of standard oil contains 65.7 g poly-unsaturated fat (mostly omega-6), while the high oleic version contains 3.8 g poly-unsaturates per 100 mL (source). The author's argument here is void. Finally, I would like to return to my much earlier statement that there are many things that adults would not care to ingest, but that does not necessarily make them unsafe for infants.

Choosing the right milk/formula for one's infant can be stressful and challenging as all parents, including myself, want to do right by our kids and give them the best possible start to life. I do believe that breast milk is fantastic and should be treated as the first choice; I applaud people who go to great lengths to try to give their infants breast milk (through lactation consultants, medications, or milk donors) but these options can be stressful, terribly time consuming, and often expensive, and milk donors are frequently unavailable in most parts of the country. Given this, there are so many reasons why parents may need and/or want to use formula. When it comes to making decisions about infant nutrition, make sure you are consulting qualified sources, including registered dietitians practicing in the area of pediatrics, pediatricians, and infant feeding experts (hint: look for an MD, RD, RN and/or PhD behind the person's name; if it's not there, be wary). Infant nutrition is a totally different ball-game from adult nutrition so you want to make sure your sources are truly informed in this area; please exercise caution when taking advice from articles like the one I have referenced.

The infant formulas available today in Canada are safe and proven to produce healthy babies. There is no "healthwashing" about it, and do not let an unqualified person convince you otherwise.

* It should be noted that in cases of cow's milk protein allergy, soy formulas are not recommended as a standard formula replacement due to the high rate of soy allergy among cow's milk allergic children. Instead, extensively hydrolyzed cow's milk formulas (where the protein is highly broken down to the point where it no longer produces allergy symptoms) are recommended.

Sources:

http://www.popsci.com/article/science/core-truths-10-common-gmo-claims-debunked
http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/Transparency/Basics/ucm336546.htm
http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm048694.htm
Krause's Food, Nutrition, and Diet Therapy 11th Edition, Mahan, L.K. & Escott-Stump, S., 2004, 8:221
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soy_milk#Health_and_nutrition
http://www.grainprocessing.com/food/maltodextrins-corn-syrup-solids.html
http://owlsoft.com/pdf_docs/WhitePaper/Rel_Sweet.pdf
http://www.althealth.co.uk/help-and-advice/nutrition/maltodextrin/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maltodextrin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy#United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans_fat#Health_risks
http://extension.agron.iastate.edu/soybean/uses_lowlinsoy.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soybean_oil
http://www.codexalimentarius.org/input/download/standards/288/CXS_072e.pdf
http://www.issfal.org/statements/pufa-recommendations/statement-2
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16582027
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12728082
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9710840
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15342879
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/106/6/1355.abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15990636
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunflower_oil

02 September 2013

Irish Company Solves World Hunger, Climate Change, Small Chickens

Cross-posted from Skeptic North.

Image Credit:
Andrew Balfour and the good folks over at Boing Boing

A news article from the Irish Independent has been making the rounds these last few days. With the cheery title of "Wave goodbye to global warming, GM and pesticides" this (almost) unbelievably credulous bit of reportage claims that a new technology developed in Ireland will solve pretty well every modern-day agricultural woe.

"But how?" you ask. "Easy," the researchers reply: "Radio waves!"

This bit o' tech, marketed under the name Vi-Aqua, involves "energising" water by exposing it to a radio signal. Attach this small device to your garden hose, and you can (apparently) expect bigger fruits and vegetables that are resistant to pests and disease! It's a solution to every problem! Water treated with this simple technology repels insects! Crops resist blight! Yields are increased! It even sequesters carbon! Who knows? Maybe it will also reduce the appearance of fine lines and wrinkles!

Most skeptics recognize that panaceas are (generally speaking) not to be trusted. As Irish blogger "Unshaved Mouse" pointed out, this article is found not in the newspaper's Science section (it doesn't seem to have one), but in its Business section, which for the Irish Independent apparently means the "we'll provide credulous free advertising for you without asking any tough questions" section.

Red Flags

This article displays several of the typical warning signs that we may be dealing with pseudoscientific crankery. It's important to note that none of these red flags serve to prove that this is a scam. In fact, if I'd just read a simple summary of the research, my response might have been, "Huh. That's strange. I wonder if other researchers will be able to replicate this." However, there are a few items of concern that should be addressed.

"Groundbreaking" Research and "Miraculous" Results

Cries that the research is "groundbreaking", "paradigm-shifting", "miraculous", or any other hyperbolic nonsense tends to make me nervous. Not because groundbreaking research doesn't happen, but because most scientists try very hard to communicate the limits of their research, while it's hucksters who tend to make grandiose claims.

A GROUNDBREAKING new Irish technology which could be the greatest breakthrough in agriculture since the plough is set to change the face of modern farming forever.

Since the plough? Admittedly, I didn't grow up on a farm, but the claim that this "could be" the most important agricultural technology in the last four to eight thousand years strikes me as... well, extraordinary. Especially given, you know, that whole Green Revolution thing.

It also produces the miracle of rejuvenating the soil by invigorating soil-based micro-organisms. ... [T]he technology is being hailed as a modern day miracle.

Oh! It's a miracle! Well, I suppose that explains it, then.

The Chopra Effect

I'm also worried by claims that mix scientific (or sciencey-sounding) language liberally with folksy details. Deepak Chopra is the go-to example for this sort of nonsense, but he hardly has a monopoly.

Vi-Aqua makes water wetter and introduces atmospheric nitrogen into the water in the form of nitrates – so it is free fertiliser.

I'll admit that I did a bit of a double-take when I read that (perhaps it was more of a quadruple-take). It makes water wetter? What does that even mean? (The science behind wetting, incidentally, is quite interesting.)

While the article didn't go into much detail here, the Vi-Aqua website claims that their product makes water "wetter" by "altering the configuration of hydrogen in water" (although their brochure claims that Vi-Aqua "alters the hydrogen content", which doesn't at all strike me as the same thing).

Unfortunately, according to Stephen Lower, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry at Simon Fraser University, "These claims are bunk; there is no scientific evidence that water can be 'energized', re-structured, or otherwise altered by filters or external forces." He specifically calls out Vi-Aqua for claiming that their device is "proven" without offering any scientific evidence to support the claim.

Vague Claims Supported by Anecdote

Claims that are vague are consequently difficult to verify, and we are provided with scant evidence for efficacy.

Not only are the plants much bigger but they are largely disease-resistant, meaning huge savings in expensive fertilisers and harmful pesticides. ... Extensively tested in Ireland and several other countries, the inexpensive water treatment technology is now being rolled out across the world.

Although the number "30 per cent" is thrown around several times (this technology will at once increase yield by 30% and decrease water consumption by 30%), the article is very light on the details.

The Vi-Aqua website (and as a software developer, I have to say that the website is a travesty top to bottom) lists many of the benefits of this technology, but nowhere does it link to any published research (not even in its "Test Results" section). Instead, it mentions that a two month test was carried out in 2001 (that's twelve years ago, but reportedly trials are "still ongoing"), and then offers a series of testimonials. There is no way to evaluate the scientific rigour of the trials, the statistical significance of the findings, or any potential abuse of multiple comparisons or other researcher degrees of freedom. In fact, the file drawer effect here seems to be absolute.

Or so it looked at first.

Ray Peterson of the Winnipeg Skeptics managed to find a PDF copy of a document titled "Scientific Information Dossier: 'Vi-Aqua' Vitalized Water" (although the file name reads "Full Scientific Doc Proof"). This document begins with some general background information, and then describes a series of trials undertaken in 1998 to "prove" the efficacy of the Vi-Aqua product.

Despite being described as "proof", it doesn't look good. The majority of tests performed showed no statistically significant difference between the control group and the treatment groups. Two tests showed improvements in one of the three treatment groups that barely met statistical significance, but there did not seem to be any attempt made to control for multiple comparisons. The results are preliminary at best, and seem indistinguishable from noise.

Perhaps its most endearing feature is that the dossier invokes "water memory", stating that "electromagnetic modification is imprinted in the water for several hours, slowly decaying with time". Note that this is after admitting that "[t]he magnetic water memory effect is a controversial and exciting issue that is not explained by any current theory," and that water loses any complex structure within picoseconds. But I guess if "water memory" is good enough for homeopaths like Jacques Benveniste, it's good enough for these guys.

So far as I can determine, despite the sciencey language, there's no plausible mechanism of action here, which does not bode well for Vi-Aqua. The trials described also make it clear that no blinding was employed to control researcher bias: the test and control groups were clearly labeled. This is the same level of evidence we see from those selling homeopathy or Power Balance bands.

If it weren't for the implausibility of it all, and the fact that they're selling to consumers, I'd say, "Hey, this is some neat preliminary research! I hope this passes replication!" But, despite the claims of "miraculous" results, after seventeen years there doesn't seem to be any peer reviewed literature evaluating the claims, and these claims don't seem to have gained traction in the field. I'm not a scientist (not really, and this certainly isn't my area of expertise)—but you know who are scientists, and who do specialise in this field? Those who perform peer review in the relevant academic journals.

Currently, I'm having trouble seeing the difference between this research and the "independent" studies commissioned by the charlatans at Power Balance.

Conflicts of Interest

While not a smoking gun, it's always worrying to see the same people who conduct the research profiting directly by selling the product they're studying to consumers (especially prior to publication of results).

The two researchers involved in this project, according to the article, are Professor Austin Darragh and Dr. J.J. Leahy, both of the University of Limerick. Although the Vi-Aqua website does not make it clear exactly who is profiting from the sale of the devices, a simple Whois lookup discloses that the site is registered to Anna Darragh. If she is not related to Professor Darragh, I will be very surprised indeed. I'm concerned that this may be an example of researchers who, instead of engaging with their peers in the scientific community via the literature, are largely ignoring the scientific process in favour of going directly to the consumer (and consumer's wallet).

While the testimonials page features prominently a glowing endorsement for the product from Dr. Leahy, I was not able to determine whether he stands to benefit from Vi-Aqua sales.

Additional Research

According to their University of Limerick faculty pages (which, to be fair, may be out of date), neither Austin Darragh nor J.J. Leahy have published any research evaluating the benefits of "radio-energised" water in agriculture.

I reached out via email to both Professor Darragh and Dr. Leahy, asking if they could provide links or references to any peer reviewed scientific literature on the subject and to clarify their involvement in direct-to-consumer sales of the Vi-Aqua device.

Dr. Leahy was kind enough to provide me with a brief response. He noted that his field is physical chemistry, not agriculture, and that the work that he conducted on the project was many years ago. He provided me with a PDF copy of "The Effects of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation on the Adhesion Behavior of Aqueous Suspensions", published in the Journal of Colloid and Interface Science in 2000.

In essence, the goal of the experiment is to determine whether a radiofrequency signal can serve to reduce buildup of scale on the interior surface of pipes used to transport water or aqueous solutions by preventing disolved particles (in this case, copper and zinc) from precipitating and adhering to the pipe wall. While the results of this investigation are interesting, they do not relate directly to the question of whether using water exposed to radiofrequency EMF results in increased agricultural yield, decreased pesticide use, or improved carbon sequestration—or even whether we should expect it to.

Dr. Leahy did not comment on the sales or marketing of the Vi-Aqua device. I did not receive a response from Professor Darragh, but I will provide an update if I do.

The Unabashedly Absurd

They truly save the best for last. This is the second-to-last paragraph of the article, in its entirety:

Intriguingly, chickens and sheep fed the energised water turned into giants. . . but that's another story!

Artist's Impression

That's another story? Maybe it's just a matter of personal taste, but this device creates giant farm animals and you choose to report on pesticide use and carbon sequestration instead?

The Bottom Line

Hey, anything's possible I guess, but these claims are extraordinary. If they're legitimate: great! But why not actually link to reputable scientific literature to back up the claims, rather than presenting the claims exactly the way we would expect them to be presented if they were a scam?

Let's review: The claims of the product are extraordinarily implausible. The researchers are associated with the company selling the product. I was unable to find independent corroboration of the claims, or any peer reviewed research at all that evaluates the efficacy of the Vi-Aqua device. The language used by the researchers to describe the technology is hyperbolic and contradictory. This stuff makes water wetter and turns chickens into giants.

This article was so bad that I briefly wondered if it were satire. Unfortunately, it wasn't posted in April, the Irish Independent is an actual news organization, and there's a website dedicated to selling the stuff. Although we might all hope that it's simply a hoax meant to expose bad science journalism (sorry, business journalism), I think this is more likely an example of hucksters managing to get mainstream coverage. If it does all turn out to be a joke, however, I will be thoroughly relieved.

In the meantime, be careful: the radio waves employed by the Vi-Aqua device may trigger your electromagnetic hypersensitivity.* Or they could turn you into a giant.†

(My friend and fellow Skeptic North writer Richelle McCullough pointed out that Professor Darragh apparently also believes that antibiotics are responsible for chronic fatigue syndrome. So... there's that.)

Hat tip to Ray Peterson who sent several relevant links my way, and to Brendan Curran-Johnson for reminding me about Norman Borlaug. I'll give Ray the last word: "The joke could be on us and it's all real. A simple textbook electronic circuit sitting under our noses all this time making water wetter."

* Note: Not actually a thing that will happen.

† Note: Probably also not a thing that's going to happen.

30 June 2013

LUEE Episode 60: "Frankenfoods"

Episode 60: "Frankenfoods"

Update (3 December 2013): Séralini et al.'s controversial study claiming to demonstrate that GE corn causes cancer in rats has been retracted. We discussed a few of the (many) problems with the study on this episode, but if you need a refresher, Steven Novella has more at Neurologica.

16 June 2013

LUEE Episode 59: Organic Agriculture

Episode 59: Organic Agriculture

In the first part of Life, the Universe & Everything Else's two-part series examining organic farming and genetically engineered foods, Mark Forkheim, Leslie Saunders, Gem Newman, and Laura Creek Newman discuss the science, politics, and ideology of organic agriculture.

Life, the Universe & Everything Else is a program promoting secular humanism and scientific skepticism presented by the Winnipeg Skeptics and the Humanists, Atheists & Agnostics of Manitoba.

Background Information: Organic | Organic Compound | Organic Model | Organic Farming | Organic Food | Green Revolution | Groundwater | Aquifer | Topsoil | Haber-Bosch Process

Scientific Papers: Glenlea Long-Term Crop Rotation: Historical Research Results | Are Organic Foods Safer or Healthier Than Conventional Alternatives?: A Systematic Review

News Articles: Pesticides Found in Canadian Organic Produce | Battling Foreign Farm Subsidies | Canada's Organic Food Certification 'Little More Than an Extortion Racket' | Less Fertile Crescent: The Waters of Babylon Are Running Dry | Land Rush Leaves Liberia's Farmers in the Dust | Stanford Scientists Cast Doubt on Advantages of Organic Meat and Produce

Other Links: Mark Lynas: Lecture to Oxford Farming Conference | Mark Lynas: Time to Call Out the Anti-GMO Conspiracy Theory | Skeptoid: Organic Food Myths | Skeptoid: Organic vs. Conventional Agriculture | Worldwatch: Can Organic Farming Feed Us All? | Health Canada: Pesticides and Food | We Love Chemicals | 2013 World Hunger and Poverty Facts and Statistics | Neurologica: Organic Food, Pesticides, and Cancer | Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, by Jared Diamond | Growing Resistance: Canadian Farmers and the Politics of Genetically Modified Wheat, by Emily Eaton | Food, Inc.

Contact Us: Facebook | Twitter | Email

Listen: Direct Link | iTunes | RSS Feed

12 June 2013

Mark Lynas Examines Junk GMO Anti-science

While you wait with breath bated for this weekend's Life, the Universe & Everything Else episode on Organic Agriculture, I'd recommend giving this article a read.

Here, Mark Lynas (who has rapidly become my favourite environmentalist) takes aim at a junk science paper out of Australia claiming that a diet consisting of only "genetically modified" grain vastly increases the risk of severe stomach inflammation in pigs. Really, it shows nothing of the kind.

15% of non-GM fed pigs had heart abnormalities, while only 6% of GM-fed pigs did so. Similarly, twice as many non-GM pigs as GM ones had liver problems. Why no headlines here? "Pigs fed non-GMO feed 100% more likely to develop heart and liver problems, study finds" – I can just see it in the Daily Mail. But of course negative results were not what Carman et al were looking for.

...

Table 3 actually shows that many more pigs fed non-GMO feed had stomach inflammations than those with GMO feed. So 31 non-GM pigs had "mild" inflammation, while only 23 GM pigs had it. For "moderate" inflammation, a GMO diet again seemed to be beneficial: 29 non-GM pigs had moderate inflammation of the stomach, while 18 had it. So that's 40% vs 25%. Do Carman et al perform a test for statistical significance to see if GMO feed has a protective effect on pigs stomachs? Of course not – that's not the result they are after. These findings are ignored.

Instead, it is the next line of data that they play up: for "severe" inflammation 9 non-GM pigs were determined to have it, while 23 GM-fed pigs had it. Shock, horror. You can immediately see how the data is all over the place from the previous results, which also rule out any causal mechanism with GMO feed – if GMO feed is causing the severe inflammation, why is the non-GMO feed causing far more mild to moderate inflammation? It's clearly just chance, and all the pigs are not doing well and suffering stomach problems: about 60% of both sets had stomach erosion.

Previously: Mark Lynas apologises for his past anti-GE activism and calls out the conspiracy-driven thinking that plagues the environmental movement.

30 April 2013

More Mark Lynas on Genetically Engineered Crops

Please take a moment to read this wonderful speech that environmentalist Mark Lynas delivered at Cornell yesterday, in which he addresses anti-GMO conspiracy theories. (For those who don't recall, Mr. Lynas made waves in January when he repudiated his former anti-GMO activism, denouncing the anti-science rhetoric of his contemporaries and endorsing the use genetically engineered crops.)

03 January 2013

Environmentalist Apologises for Anti-GMO Activism

I don't have time to comment at the moment, but suffice it to say, you should read this Slate article about leading environmentalist (and anti-GE crusader) Mark Lynas' recent change of heart. As he puts it, he "discovered science".

Hat tip to Phil Plait on Facebook.

30 September 2012

LUEE Episode 33: News Update

Episode 33: News Update

In this episode of Life, the Universe & Everything Else, Ashlyn Noble is joined by Brendan Curran-Johnson, Mark Forkheim, and Gem Newman to discuss local and international news of interest to skeptics, including teaching kids to program, women banned from Iranian university programs, Amish hate crimes, the Ig Nobel awards, and more!

Life, the Universe & Everything Else is a program promoting secular humanism and scientific skepticism presented by the Winnipeg Skeptics and the Humanists, Atheists & Agnostics of Manitoba.

Links: Back to School Request: Teach Kids to Code | The Mechanical Turk | Anger as Iran Bans Women from Universities | Organic Food No More Nutritious Than Conventional Food (Winnipeg Free Press, The Guardian, The Atlantic) | Amish Guilty of Hate Crimes in Ohio Beard-cuttings | Ig Nobel Awards (Improbable Research, Wikipedia)

Contact Us: Facebook | Twitter | Email

Listen: Direct Link | iTunes | RSS Feed

26 September 2012

A Brief Summary of my Thoughts on the Subject of Organic Agriculture and Its More Conventional Alternative

We've been trying to get an episode of Life, the Universe & Everything Else on the subject of Organic Agriculture together for quite a while. But, as this is a very complicated topic, and I am very busy, we haven't recorded it yet.

Image (CC BY-SA 3.0) by Bluemoose via Wikipedia

My friend Ali (who you may remember from the LUEE episodes Leaving Faith Behind and Justice and Hate Crimes) asked for my thoughts on the subject, specifically focusing on the question, "Is organic agriculture more environmentally friendly?" And so, here are my thoughts. I've tried to keep them brief. But I'm not very good at that. I also tried to stay on topic. But I'm not very good at that, either.

Is "organic" better for the environment? The answer to that seems to be: it depends. Probably, but it's very complicated.

There have been several large studies that seem to show that the production of organic foodstuffs is no more environmentally friendly than conventional agriculture (and may in some cases be more harmful). See this recent study, for example.

These summaries of the evidence, by Brian Dunning, are pretty good in my opinion:

Organic Food Myths
Is it a revolution in health and the environment, or a counterproductive fad?

Organic vs. Conventional Agriculture
Is organic agriculture truly safer or better for the environment than modern farming?

Amy Davis Roth of Skepchick also did a pretty good job with this Q&A: Ask Surly Amy: Genetically Modified Plants.

My provisional view on the matter is that when it comes to safety or health, there doesn't seem to be any real difference between organic and conventional agriculture. When it comes to environmental concerns, I tend to lean more toward conventional agriculture, as I am persuaded by the argument that centralized distribution is more efficient, and by the argument that while yields may not be substantially bigger with conventional crops, they tend to be hardier and require fewer "inputs" (fertilizer, etc.). My concerns come in when you have large and aggressively litigious agribusiness companies controlling large swathes of the food supply (which we now do), who have patented certain organisms and who force farmers to be completely dependent on them for seeds year-by-year. This is bad, for a plethora of reasons, most of which should be obvious.

I'll conclude with a few stray observations about "organic" foodstuffs.

Turning to safety, there was recently a completely terrible study published claiming that GE corn resulted in cancer in rats. For a lengthy discussion (and takedown) from a skeptical oncologist, I recommend reading this. Additionally, a large meta-analysis was recently published, finding no significant nutritional benefits from organic produce.

I am annoyed by the "organic" label, because the term "organic" has a very rigorous and well-defined meaning in chemistry, but not so much when it comes to agriculture. But that's mostly just me being a linguistic prescriptivist, and I recognise that this position is untenable. (On a side note, the French term, "biologique", translates as "biological", which is even worse.)

I am supportive of the "free range" movement. Unfortunately, as far as I can tell "free range" isn't a regulated term, so there's no guarantee that the animals involved are actually better treated.

I am concerned that use of antibiotics in livestock may be excessive, and are in some cases used to "enhance productivity" instead of to "target an identified pathogen". The issue is complicated, however. (This whitepaper has some fairly good summaries, in terms of antibiotic use in agriculture; it does disclose that the conference that generated it was partially funded by Pfizer, etc.)

Also, I advise against using terms like "GMOs" (Genetically Modified Organisms), because every agricultural product is genetically "modified" in some way, via hybridization and/or artificial selection (either intentional or unintential). Instead, I prefer to speak about "GE" foodstuffs (Genetically Engineered).

So, in my mind, there may be good reasons to avoid the products of big agribusiness companies like Monsanto: but these criticisms tend to have more to do with big business and less to do with science.

There remains, of course, much more to be said (about the various things that "organic agriculture" can mean, for example, or the several disparate ideologies that may motivate some people to choose organic), but that incomplete (and probably flawed) analysis of this complex topic will have to stand. For now.

15 July 2012

LUEE Episode 26: "Thrive"

Episode 26: "Thrive"

In this episode of Life, the Universe & Everything Else, Gem Newman, Gary Barbon, and Mark Forkheim discuss the online conspiracy film "Thrive" with Robert Shindler, Richelle McCullough, and Greg Christensen.

This episode was recorded over Google+, so the audio quality is occasionally inconsistent. Unfortunately, due to technical difficulties, Greg, Richelle, and Robert had to drop out of the show early, but Mark, Gary, and Gem soldiered on!

Life, the Universe & Everything Else is a program promoting secular humanism and scientific skepticism presented by the Winnipeg Skeptics and the Humanists, Atheists & Agnostics of Manitoba.

News Items: Bad Science Watch | Students at Quebec School Have Adverse Reaction to Hypnotist Act | Hypnosis (Wikipedia, The Skeptic's Dictionary) | Obese Father Loses Custody of His Children | Do Atheists Have a Sexual Harassment Problem? | Freethought Blogs Roundtable (Harassment at Conferences, Why Talk About Social Justice?) | SkeptiCamp Winnipeg | Winnipeg Skeptics Anti-Harassment Policy | New NSA Docs Contradict 9/11 Claims (Salon, National Security Archive) | Prometheus: It Sucked

Addressing Some of Thrive's Claims: Thrive | Entropy and Life | Graphical (Linear) Projection | The Flower of Life | Skeptoid on UFOs | SkeptiCamp Winnipeg: Perpetual Motion and Free Energy | The Hutchison "Effect" | The Death of Eugene Mallove (Suspects Arrested, Schaffer Enters Guilty Plea) | Interviewees Repudiate Thrive (Interviewees Distance Themselves from the Film, John Robbins Speaks Out Against Thrive) | Thrive Debunked (Index, Ancient Astronauts, Crop Circles, "False Flag" Attacks, Global Domination)

What Are You Reading? Hitch-22 | Against Intellectual Monopoly | Hegemony or Survival | Fundamentals of Computational Neuroscience | Going Solo | Singlism | Dying of the Light | John Dies at the End | Redshirts | I Am Legend | Why Are You Atheists So Angry? | Before Watchmen

Contact Us: Facebook | Twitter | Email

Listen: Direct Link | iTunes | RSS Feed

21 November 2010

In which I feed the trolls...

Cross-posted from the Winnipeg Skeptics Blog.

About a week and a half ago, I posted a letter from Simon Singh, which urged interested parties to sign a petition for British libel reform.

A commenter by the name of "betty" had something to add:

Genetically modified food is our future. Actually, we already eat a lot of it. Is it safe?

"- Media are invited to join Monsanto and other industry stakeholders for the official Grand Opening of the new, state-of-the-art Monsanto Canada Breeding Centre, located adjacent to Monsanto’s existing Canadian Head Office at the University of Manitoba’s Smartpark.Tues, November 23, 201010:30 am to 1:00 pm (lunch provided)"
http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/Monsanto-Canada-Breeding-Centre-Grand-Opening-1354370.htm

Um… I’d skip the lunch.

GMO crops are the main contributing factor in Colony Collapse Disorder which is decimating bee populations worldwide. We’re in for a future of eating gruel if we don’t do something fast. The mainstream media, big business and governments must stop whitewashing GMO science. http://www.energygrid.com/ecology/2010/03po-colonycollapse.html

Somebody from the media needs to crash this party and ask the tough questions!

Need motivation? Check these out:

American Academy of Environmental Medicine calls for immediate moratorium: http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopost.html

The World According to Monsanto: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8hFuuDAZjk

David vs. Monsanto: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E42ndfjnP1g&feature=fvst

The Future of Food: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9Y_QH_c70s

Food, Inc.: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eKYyD14d_0&feature=fvw

Vanishing of the Bees: http://www.vanishingbees.com/

RoundUp causes cancer: http://www.organicconsumers.org/Monsanto/glyphocancer.cfm

Join the protest outside the event.

Please tell a friend.

This comment was flagged for moderation, and I duly marked it as spam because it didn't actually address anything in the post to which it was appended. Either WordPress made an error or one of my fellow Winnipeg Skeptics bloggers disagreed, approving it for publication. Although the comment wouldn't pass muster on my blog (it is in violation of several sections of the comment policy), far be it from me to start a fight over something so trivial.

So if you were hoping for a post on the subject of the Winnipeg Skeptics' recent trip to Winnipeg's Creation Museum, then I'm afraid I'll have to disappoint you. You have "betty" to blame for derailing me, because I'm going to briefly address a few of the points that she makes in her comment.

Genetically modified food is our future. Actually, we already eat a lot of it. Is it safe?

It certainly seems to be. Are you asserting that it is not? Oh, goody!

“- Media are invited to join Monsanto and other industry stakeholders for the official Grand Opening of the new, state-of-the-art Monsanto Canada Breeding Centre, located adjacent to Monsanto’s existing Canadian Head Office at the University of Manitoba’s Smartpark.Tues, November 23, 201010:30 am to 1:00 pm (lunch provided)”
http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/Monsanto-Canada-Breeding-Centre-Grand-Opening-1354370.htm

Um… I’d skip the lunch.

That is, of course, your prerogative. I work just across the street: if I had a media pass, I'd stop by for a bite.

To be clear, I'm no huge fan of Monsanto. Based on some of the actions that they've taken in the past, I'm of the very tentative view that they're a bunch of bastards. But that is irrelevant to the question of whether or not genetically engineered foodstuffs are safe.

GMO crops are the main contributing factor in Colony Collapse Disorder which is decimating bee populations worldwide. We’re in for a future of eating gruel if we don’t do something fast. The mainstream media, big business and governments must stop whitewashing GMO science. http://www.energygrid.com/ecology/2010/03po-colonycollapse.html

FAIL.

This was at one time thought to be a potential cause of Colony Collapse Disorder, however no credible research has demonstrated such a link.

From The Status of Pollinators in North America, pages 80–81, published by The National Academies Press:

For honey bees, the concerns involved the potential lethality of insecticidal transgenic proteins, the sublethal effects of these proteins on insect behavior, physiology, and reproduction and the economic effects of transgenic pollen as a contaminant of honey. Malone and Pham-Delègue (2001) reviewed the small literature on this topic and concluded that, in some cases, there are negative but sublethal effects attributable to consumption of transgenic pollens. These effects varied with the identity of the transgene and the amount of its expression but in no case have any effects of transgenic crops on honey bee populations been documented. [Emphasis added.]

Honey bees are not a target species for Bt toxin, however it is not implausible that they may be affected in some way. The alternative to Bt strains would be to revert to using traditional pesticides in larger doses, which could pose similar problems—especially if those pesticides were organic, in which case they could pose additional risks.

Professor Galen Dively, Pest Management Specialist in the Department of Entomology at the University of Maryland summarised the current state of the research very well:

First, the endotoxins currently expressed in Bt corn (Cry 1 types against caterpillars; Cry 3 types against beetles) are not active against hymenopteran insects such as the honey bee, nor do the CCD symptoms resemble those expected in Bt intoxicated organisms. Yes, the increase in bee loss has somewhat paralleled the increase in Bt crops in the U.S., but severe bee losses have occurred in Europe and in areas of Canada where Bt crops were not grown.

It seems very likely that this is a case of correlation (and weak correlation, at that) rather than causation. Wikipedia has a fairly excellent and well-referenced entry on Colony Collapse Disorder, including suggested causes.

But back to "betty":

Somebody from the media needs to crash this party and ask the tough questions!

Sure. By all means. The press release indicates that several key spokespeople will be available to take questions from the media. That's why they have these events.

Now that you have the science, let's take at look at the link that "betty" provided. And I quote:

Forword [sic] by Dan Winter from FractalField

We know that fractality is medically defined as the quality in your heart (HRV) which statistically predicts how long you will survive.

We now know this principle of measuring HARMONIC INCLUSIVENESS — is the way fractality can be measured in EVERY LIVING THING — TO PREDICT ITS SURVIVAL:

applies to forests ( Bioacoustic Habitat Theory)

voice analysis (Signature Sound Works, Biosonica, Biowaves.com etc)

AND BY EXTENSION — it follows that harmonic inclusiveness — measuring FRACTALITY — can be used accurately, scientifically — to predict the viability / survival of EVERY LIVING THING ( atoms, babies, galaxies, .. the Dodeca — Universe etc etc..)

SO — now lets apply that to DNA.

Do you know what would be the DEATHLY OPPOSITE of harmonic inclusiveness or FRACTALITY in DNA?

THAT… would be… MONOCULTURE — A PHILOSOPHY OF DEATH FOR SELF-ORGANIZATION in all of DNA.

Winter then goes on to prove that Monsanto is evil by searching Google for "monsanto+evil" and reporting the hit count. He uses the same technique to prove that aspartame is poison (I think that there should be a Godwin-style internet law about this one). I appreciate that among the four or five items that fit into the category of "EVERY LIVING THING", only one is actually alive. Also, what the hell is a dodeca-universe? A universe with twelve sides? The crazy is strong with this one.

To be fair, that's just the foreword. The actual article is written by someone who could actually rub two words together to make a fire. (What? What does that even mean?)

Unfortunately, the actual arguments that he uses to state his case are tenuous hypotheticals (which are, in my opinion, adequately addressed by the papers that I quoted above), bolstered by claims that some scientists have incorrectly characterised the uses or efficacy of genetically engineered foods (which is not relevant).

Need motivation? Check these out:

American Academy of Environmental Medicine calls for immediate moratorium: http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopost.html

The World According to Monsanto: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8hFuuDAZjk

David vs. Monsanto: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E42ndfjnP1g&feature=fvst

The Future of Food: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9Y_QH_c70s

Food, Inc.: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eKYyD14d_0&feature=fvw

No.

I have a long-standing policy of not wasting my time on YouTube videos: although the rhetoric can be persuasive, video presentations are notorious for not citing their sources, making them incredibily difficult and time-consuming to fact-check. They're also a lot harder to quote! I'll take a scientific paper over a video any day.

RoundUp causes cancer: http://www.organicconsumers.org/Monsanto/glyphocancer.cfm

The article in question quotes a 1999 study which purportedly "revealed clear links" between glyphosate exposure and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. I managed to track down what appears to be that very study on PubMed. Although I have access only to the abstract, the conclusion stresses that among herbicides MCPA was most strongly associated with non-Hodgkin lymphoma—RoundUp (glyphosate), a completely different chemical compound, was not listed at all.

However, when pooled with a second Swedish study, exposure to glyphosate was associated with a significant increase in risk of NHL.

The picture is muddied further by a more recent and significantly larger study:

Although there has been little consistent evidence of genotoxicity or carcinogenicity from in vitro and animal studies, a few epidemiologic reports have indicated potential health effects of glyphosate.

...

Glyphosate exposure was not associated with cancer incidence overall or with most of the cancer subtypes we studied. There was a suggested association with multiple myeloma incidence that should be followed up as more cases occur in the AHS.

This prospective cohort study had 57,311 participants (roughly 30 times as many as the Swedish studies). So it looks like there may be an effect here. Then again, there may not. But it's important to remember that the (potential) increase in cancer risk is only seen in people who handle the raw herbicides directly, and not in consumers of the foodstuffs.

Also, this is a gigantic tangent with little to do with genetically engineered agricultural products. Sigh.

Join the protest outside the event.

Please tell a friend.

No.

Go away now.

For more "organic" skepticism, please refer to my other posts on organic versus genetically engineered foodstuffs.

14 July 2010

Organic. Again.

A new study was recently published in PLoS ONE, "an international, peer-reviewed, open-access, online publication" (I like the sound of that!) investigating the environmental effects of "organic" versus conventional pesticides.

I've talked about organic agriculture before, so I'll cut to the chase:

We found that in addition to reduced efficacy against aphids compared to novel synthetic insecticides, organic approved insecticides had a similar or even greater negative impact on several natural enemy species in lab studies, were more detrimental to biological control organisms in field experiments, and had higher Environmental Impact Quotients at field use rates.

If you want the CliffsNotes version, you can read about it in the CBC article that originally caught my eye. The full text is available online for free.

It's just one study, sure. One more study. There have been many. There will be many in the future. I think this lovely and eloquent quotation from one of my favourite science enthusiasts about sums it up:

Science. It works, bitches.

—Randall Munroe,
xkcd

16 June 2010

The Revenge of Genetic Engineering

I was going to call this post Revenge of the Jedi, but apparently Jedi don't take revenge, so I'll talk about genetically engineered crops, instead.

I've been involved in a discussion with Rob, a fellow member of the Winnipeg Skeptics and blogger over at The Plan.

It started with a post here on Startled Disbelief briefly commenting on a recent report from the U.S. National Research Council, which found that "many U.S. farmers who grow genetically engineered (GE) crops are realizing substantial economic and environmental benefits".

Rob commented that he had changed his mind about GE crops after watching a YouTube video, to which he posted a link. My response was somewhat terse, due to the many noted problems with YouTube as a medium for the communication of ideas, especially when those ideas are contentious.

Rob replied via email, informing me that he had responded to my second post on his blog. I'll be excerpting heavily from that post in my response, but interested readers ought to read his original post.

In retrospect, I should not have just posted a video link without actually giving my perspective on the matter and saying which specific arguments in the video convinced me. ... I should have re-viewed the video before posting it because I hadn't seen it in a few months and didn't recall the exact content.

Hear hear! The video was rather long, and I had not found the transcript that Rob links to in his post, which also made it difficult and time-consuming to quote. I find few things more frustrating than receiving an email which amounts to nothing more than a link to a video, and if the video exceeds five minutes I'm unlikely to watch it at all. (If you want to know why, read the previous GE post, in which I address the specific video in question, or read the posts that I linked to above from the Conspiracy Science and Atheist Experience blogs.)

I should have also specified that my problems with GE organisms were largely outside the scope of the scientific issues you tackled in your original post.

I'm glad to hear it! It's easy to forget that although many of us have a tendency to be rather combative on "teh intertoobs", we're real people, and (most) real people have a visceral dislike for conflict. Believe it or not, I would really like it if we could all just get along—but I will not allow that ideal to compromise the free expression of ideas.

It would be fantastic if everyone could completely separate their egos from their ideas. Alas, it seems that our puny ape brains will not easily free us from that bizarre defensiveness that arises from the idea that someone disagrees with one of our precious opinions. And so I'm glad to hear that our points of contention are narrowing!

And the scientific issues are really what concerns me. I certainly do think that the industry requires oversight and regulation, and many of their practices do seem to be cause for concern. So let's get started.

Allow me to summarize your first post: "all natural" and "organic" are scientifically meaningless[;] genetic engineering is more efficient than artificial selection; genetic engineering results in lower production costs, fewer pest problems, reduced use of pesticides, and better yields; we need to be vigilant about the over-use of certain pesticides; overall, GE crops are good for people and the planet. I agree with every single point you make except for the conclusion that you reach (good for people and planet).

Sure. I think that, for the most part, you've fairly summarized my position. But allow me to make a few clarifications:

"All natural" is scientifically meaningless. "Organic" is scientifically meaningful ("of or pertaining to carbon-based compounds"), but is most often used in a scientifically meaningless way. But close enough.
I did claim that genetic engineering is more efficient than artificial selection in many (not necessarily all) ways. When I say "efficient", I mean than genetic engineering can allow scientists to achieve their goals with minimum wasted time and effort. Providing that the genetic structure of the organism is sufficiently understood (a fairly large caveat, I know), the use of recombinant DNA technology and/or direct genetic manipulation could accomplish in one generation what would take several with the use of forced breeding alone.
I did not assert in my original post that genetic modification results in "lower production costs, fewer pest problems, reduced use of pesticides, and better yields". That assertion comes (word for word) from the NRC report that I was discussing. It also bears mentioning that when I quoted this contention, I included the qualifier "many U.S. farmers" from the original article. By removing this qualifier it may be (erroneously) argued that this statement applies in all cases.
Where Rob really loses me is when he claims that "the conclusion that [I] reach" is that "overall, GE crops are good for people and the planet". Perhaps I missed it during my reread, but I don't believe that I said anything of the sort. The first article concluded with "Science isn't the enemy", and the second with the slightly more verbose:

I want to be clear (something that apparently I'm not very good at): I am not saying that all GE foods are safe. I am not saying that organic foods are bad for you. I am not saying that testing new products is unnecessary. And I am not simply siding with biotechnological companies.

What I am saying is that the label "organic" is not scientifically meaningful: it's marketing, like putting vitamins in your shampoo. What I am saying is that GE crops have been shown to provide specific benefits over traditional crops.

I think that genetic engineering has great potential for good, and reflexive dismissal or absolute denial of its benefits serves no purpose. (I am not saying that this is what Rob is doing. I am simply clarifying my position.)

As some readers may note, some of my points of contention with Rob's summary of my position relate to the removal of a simple qualifying word or statement (e.g., "many"). This may seem like a small point, but I believe it to be a very important one. Many colleagues have encouraged me to take firmer stances and to make grand, sweeping declarations about the way things are, as it would add authority to my position. But I am not, as I have told CEOs and executives on many occasions, a businessperson—and I'm going to make every attempt to stay within the bounds of the evidence, even when that may weaken the perception that others have of the positions that I take or the work that I do.

We're not talking about evolution versus creationism or the heliocentric and geocentric views of our solar system—this is a fairly young science, and it isn't as cut-and-dried as all that. And so I'm going to approach the subject with at least a modicum of intellectual humility. It also leads to fewer "gotcha" moments later on, as more evidence comes in.

And for those of you who would accuse me of picking nits: well, you're probably right. Let's move on.

How is it possible that we agree on all these facts and yet reach different conclusions? The answer is that you left out some very important questions about implementation in your analysis.

As aforementioned, I have some objections to Rob's analysis of my position. I am also vaguely annoyed with the (uncharacteristically) patronising tone that he takes, here. If a person feels the need to describe him- or herself as either "pro-GE" or "anti-GE" (or even "pro-organic" or "anti-organic"), that person is likely not sufficiently considering the complexity of the issue, which is excusable: we have a tendency to crave the simplicity of black/white dichotomies. But it is also wrong-headed. The fact that I have pointed out that many of the arguments made by pro-organic, anti-GE ideologues are fallacious does not mean that I am pro-GE and anti-organic. There is reason to be cautious about genetic engineering, and I would not want the practice to be completely unregulated.

Rob claims that I "left out some very important questions about implementation in [my] analysis". My analysis of what? Of the study conducted by the NRC? Isn't that what we were talking about? That study had nothing to do with "implementation"—it had to do with impact. (I'm assuming based on context that by "implementation" he means the process by which a genetically engineered organism moves from the realm of theory to the realm of your dinner table.)

Unsurprisingly, the same types of greedy corporations that build showers that electrocute soldiers in Iraq and drill for oil without adequate safety measures or contingency plans also do shady things with GE crops that don't show up in scientific studies about crop production and profitability.

This is an interesting paragraph. It seems that Rob is attempting to link KBR and BP (two companies with fairly ugly histories) with Monsanto (another company with a fairly ugly history) and its ilk. Aside from (convincing) allegations of corruption and corporate misconduct, I was not able to find any meaningful connection between these companies. This paragraph seems to be a fairly straightforward example at poisoning the well supported by a red herring.

This strikes me as fairly odd, considering that Monsanto (for example) is already by most accounts a pretty awful company, and are correspondingly easy to smear. I actually work across the street from Monsanto's Canadian head office (which qualifies me to speak about Monsanto with roughly the same authority than an Alaskan governor can bring to bear in a discussion of Russian foreign policy), and they seem like genuinely nice folks. That doesn't mean that they aren't misguided or mistaken on some fronts, however, and it doesn't speak to the beneficence of the company for which they work. Take it away, Ben:

If you really want to dig deeper, Monsanto is also very simply an unpleasant company (it made Agent Orange during the Vietnam War, for example).

—Ben Goldacre,
Bad Science

If I have in any way misunderstood Rob's argument, here, I apologise. But I have been unable to find any relevant connection between companies that electrocute soldiers or recklessly drill for oil besides his assertion that they all fall under the category of "greedy corporations" (which I grant, by the way). But perhaps I'm doing his argument an injustice. This is what it seems to amount to:

Greedy companies have done bad things in the past.
Monsanto and similar biotech companies are greedy.
Therefore, Monsanto and similar biotech companies will do bad things in the future.

While that may pass muster as a rule of thumb, it is certainly not a logically valid argument. But let's look at what these companies are actually doing.

For starters, some GE companies sell "terminator seeds". These seeds only produce one generation of plants because the seeds produced by the first generation are sterile. This is very harmful for impoverished farmers in the third world because they rely on saving seeds from the previous year's crop. Terminator seeds force them to return to agriculture companies year after year in order to buy new seeds. The companies' goal is not to feed the world more efficiently; they are only motivated by profit.

Yes.

For those of you who haven't read it, I highly recommend Bad Science, by Ben Goldacre.

I remain extremely wary of GM for reasons that have nothing to do with science, simply because it has created a dangerous power shift in agriculture, and 'terminator seeds', which die at the end of the season, are a way to increase farmers' dependency, both nationally and in the developing world, while placing the global food supply in the hands of multinational corporations.

—Ben Goldacre,
Bad Science

I agree—with some caveats, that is. I don't think that it's fair to say that the companies are only motivated by profit. Primarily motivated by profit? Absolutely!

But there are other concerns, too. Rob goes on to state:

When one company's GE crop dominates a region then there is a drastic loss of genetic diversity. Genetic diversity is an important safe-guard against catastrophic crop failure due to disease, fungus or pests. Crop failure on a large enough scale could result in millions of deaths due to starvation.

I definitely agree that genetic diversity is important, and I'm all in favour of preventing millions of deaths. But, according to seed manufacturers, it is precisely that diversity that genetic use restriction technologies (terminator crops) are meant to protect:

The induced sterility in seed using GURTs cannot spread. By its very nature, sterile seed cannot reproduce and thereby produce pollen necessary for propagation. Biodiversity is not threatened.

Now, don't get me wrong: I recognise that these companies are worried about their bottom line, protecting their intellectual property, etc. Credit should go where credit is due, but I think that most intellectual property laws are straight-up bonkers. All the same, I feel that it is incumbent upon me to present the other side of the argument. Yes, terminator seeds do force local farmers "to return to agriculture companies year after year in order to buy new seeds." But they are also intended to address the biodiversity argument that Rob raised.

Are terminator seeds a good idea? I certainly don't think so! But let's be fair.

GE crops are patented and many can only be sprayed with patented pesticides that are produced by the same companies that make the seeds.^{[citation needed]}

I'm not saying that's not true. I am saying that I couldn't find any references to it.

Another problem with the patenting of life that occurs with GE crops is that it results in multinational corporations enforcing their patents by suing farmers.

Agreed. I don't like the idea of patenting life any more than Rob does, and large, multinational corporations do seem to have a tendency to behave poorly.

One big problem with GE crops is that they are less nutritious than their pre-GE counterparts. In fact, selective breeding is also guilty of causing our food to be less nutritious than it once was. For the entire history of agriculture, plants have been bred for their resistance to environmental factors, quick growth, pleasing appearances and ease of transportation. The most important thing that genetic engineers should be worried about is making sure that the food we eat is more nutritious, not less.

I agree that nutrition should be a focus for future genetic engineering, although I think that in developing countries food quantity may outrank food quality as a priority for the moment.

I've heard the organic-is-more-nutritious argument before, although I've never heard it explained plausibly until now. Thanks to Rob for the link! Nutrition is important (I have to say that: my wife is a dietitian, after all!), but I don't think that the issue is as clear as all that. While the mechanism proposed by Davis in the Steattle Post-Intelligencer article linked to by Rob seems superficially plausible, we need to assess whether the effect that it explains actually occurs.

It may. Davis' findings seem to suggest that nutritional degradation is a reality. But a recent literature review comparing the nutrition-related health outcomes of consumption of organic and conventional agriculture concluded:

From a systematic review of the currently available published literature, evidence is lacking for nutrition-related health effects that result from the consumption of organically produced foodstuffs.

There are other plausible mechanisms for deficient nutrition that don't involve genetically engineered foodstuffs. Soil depletion due to over-farming, for example.

As I said, nutrition is important. If GE crops are currently insufficiently nutritious, this is simply a matter of focus: we could concentrate our engineering efforts on nutrition in addition to size and pest control.

Despite the fact that his rhetoric is a little over the top and many of his facts related to the science of GE crops are questionable at best, Mr. Smith's recommendations to only grow GE crops indoors and to end the practice of patenting life seem quite reasonable to me. He encourages us to be vigilant of both the scientific and economic dangers involved with GE crops.

I'm not certain that I'd go so far as to mandate indoor cultivation for GE crops, primarily because of the additional cost that it would involve for the farmers who depend on them. But if Monsanto is willing to foot the bill? Why not?

I emphatically agree with you when you say, in summarizing the original post, that "science isn't the enemy." You've outlined several arguments that demonstrate that there are clear advantages to using GE foods and that the labels 'all natural' and 'organic' rely on consumer ignorance of the naturalistic fallacy. However, while science isn't the enemy, it also isn't the panacea that some make it out to be. Science needs to be reigned in by sound legislation and rigorous regulation in order to protect the environment and future generations of humanity. ... What better ways could there be to assure cautious progress?

Agreed.

And props to Rob for making me blow coffee into my sinuses with his link to Spider-Goat.

As Thomas Dolby so concisely put it: "SCIENCE!"

Further Reading:
The Skeptic's Dictionary: Organic
Science-Based Medicine: Is Organic Food More Healthful?

Minor Edit: The missus has insisted that I change the spelling of dietician to "dietitian" above. Apparently that's the industry standard.

Main Site

Quotation