Sunday, November 16, 2014

Mark Buchanan — The Trouble With the Genetically Modified Future

Like many people, I've long wondered about the safety of genetically modified organisms. They've become so ubiquitous that they account for about 80 percent of the corn grown in the U.S., yet we know almost nothing about what damage might ensue if the transplanted genes spread through global ecosystems. 
How can so many smart people, including many scientists, be so sure that there's nothing to worry about? Judging from a new paper by several researchers from New York University, including "The Black Swan" author Nassim Taleb, they can't and shouldn't.
The researchers focus on the risk of extremely unlikely but potentially devastating events. 
 
They argue that there's no easy way to decide whether such risks are worth taking -- it all depends on the nature of the worst-case scenario. Their approach helps explain why some technologies, such as nuclear energy, should give no cause for alarm, while innovations such as GMOs merit extreme caution.…
Bloomberg View
The Trouble With the Genetically Modified Future
Mark Buchanan

38 comments:

Ryan Harris said...

He says that bacteria are naturally facilitating exchange of genetic material across species which creates a risk that undesirable genes move across all species. This is supposed to be evidence that humans should not move DNA across species selectively because bacteria might move it, even more? They already do in an unselective manner. Always have. Always will.

Fuzzy economist thinking there. Probably shouldn't discuss dangerous heterodox ideas in public forums because media might pick the bad ideas up and spread the toxic knowledge to all the plebes. Could wipe out the entire new-Democrats paradigm. Since we can't know the risks of all economic policies and the media itself is unpredictable, the consequences could be dire for humanity.

NeilW said...

I hate this "don't do anything because something might go wrong" attitude.

Where does it come from?

Matt Franko said...

"It's akin to how, ahead of the 2008 financial crisis, analysts looked at 20 years of rising house prices and assumed they would always go up. The honest approach would be to admit that we understand almost nothing about the safety of GMOs, except that whatever happens is pretty likely to spread."

Well I listened to Waren and Mike discus the 2008 crisis in real time on Mike's show and they both knew it was going to be bad if the authorities didnt do the right things (which they didnt)...

Just like Mike right now is cautioning against not raising the "debt ceiling"....

So this was not a "black swan" as there were human beings smart enough to predict and analyze it and recommend prescriptive adjustments...

ie it was a "black swan" only for morons... much always is for morons...

so its probably the same thing now... this guy doesnt understand something so he doesnt want to see it done...

Ryan,

"They already do in an unselective manner. "

I thought the selection is being done it is just somehow "natural" selection?

rsp,






Roger Erickson said...

It comes from experience.

Yes, genes are well documented to move between species, carried by viruses and/or naked DNA transfer via viruses, bacteria (or even other symbionts and/or parasites).

Why doesn't it happen even more often? Simply because biological systems invest tremendous efforts in letting it happen ONLY under select terms - which pathogens, parasites & even self-efforts manage to bypass only at trace leakage levels.

What's the danger?
Same danger as with epidemics.
Same danger as with, say, DDT.
Same danger as with, say, thalidomide.
Same slowly emerging dangers as, say, finally recognizing the link between tobacco smoking & lung cancer. (That only took, what, ~80 years? Several hundreds, or thousands, if you go back to the beginning.)

Just because there are no immediately recognizable MAJOR risks does not mean that there aren't longer term consequences.

Most publicized cautions that I've heard of are:

1) slowly adaptations by whole host ecosystems as they adapt to altered niche of agriculture fields inundated with RoundUp and one or two plant species supposedly immune to RoundUp.
a) yes, resistant weeds are appearing
b) yes, novel pathogens are finding their way cleared of formerly competing species (1st cases noticed involve spread of novel plant fungal pathogens)

2) Slowly emerging correlation between kidney failure in ag workers in constant contact with RoundUp ready crops.

The FDA & USDA were finally set up precisely to manage the INDIRECT but already serious danger of carelessly introducing systemic agents into very complex ecosystems & physiologies.

Just because we can now tinker even more aggressively with very complex systems doesn't mean that we should do so without applying the scientific method to managing the supposedly known risks & outright uncertainties associated with random tinkering. Remember that current biological hierarchies are the end result of ~3.5 billion years of selective pressure. Such systems may be very complex, but that does not mean that they aren't vulnerable to very simple disruptions.

It's far easier to accidentally break Humpty Dumpty - no matter how complex - than it is to put him back together again.

Just ask the FDA. Unexpected and unpredictable drug, chemical & even food interactions are the norm, not the exception.

All that said ... the solution is simple. Do NOT let Monsanto et al test ONLY for short term complications. Just apply the same scientific method used to prove sought after results. Just use that same statistical method to control for the likelihood of disrupting highly conserved, densely engineered systems.

If we want to preserve Public Health, Monsanto el al should be subject to the same risk/uncertainty avoidance that NASA employs, to make sure that spacecraft return from moon visits.

If that makes Monsant's biz model unprofitable ... then it should remain unprofitable until they can guarantee Public Health remains resilient. Just make 'em do their long term experiments on sealed test farms, and NOT on the public at large.

Roger Erickson said...

link for one of the "unpredictable" events that led to re-organization of the FDA

http://www.fda.gov/aboutfda/whatwedo/history/productregulation/sulfanilamidedisaster/default.htm

if you read the legal details, it could have been far, far worse:

In a letter to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, a woman described the death of her child:

"The first time I ever had occasion to call in a doctor for [Joan] and she was given Elixir of Sulfanilamide. All that is left to us is the caring for her little grave. Even the memory of her is mixed with sorrow for we can see her little body tossing to and fro and hear that little voice screaming with pain and it seems as though it would drive me insane. ... It is my plea that you will take steps to prevent such sales of drugs that will take little lives and leave such suffering behind and such a bleak outlook on the future as I have tonight."

Matt Franko said...

Well if they move thru other organisms then they dont directly move 'from one species to another".. the PATHogen is ignored. ..

This is like economists ignoring banking systems. . Rsp

Roger Erickson said...

here's a timely link

over-bred chickens; more meat, more health problems
http://www.vox.com/xpress/2014/10/2/6875031/chickens-breeding-farming-boilers-giant

Nobody in the diabetes ward 'cept us chickens (& consumers), Wall St. boss.

Matt Franko said...

Roger with "Buffalo Wild Wings" driving up the price of wings to 3x thighs per pound I'm reasonably certain there is some sicko out there as we speak trying to GMO a 4-winged chicken....

Tom Hickey said...

Back in the early 80's a friend of mine was a university biologist that specialized in research. Universities depend on research grants and he got a big one from a major company to do research on GMO's. He was excited about it at first, but then decided to turn the grant back owing to lack of adequate safety precautions for pretty much the reasons that Buchanan suggests and Roger explains. My friend was concerned that the plan was just just to rush to market without adequate testing and controls, and that is exactly what happened. He is glad he washed his hands of it although it was tough at the time turning back the grant.

Malmo's Ghost said...

249http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2013/10/14/2000-reasons-why-gmos-are-safe-to-eat-and-environmentally-sustainable/2/

"The researchers also address the safety of transcribed RNA from transgenic DNA. Are scientists fiddling with the ‘natural order’ of life? In fact, humans consume between 0.1 and 1 gram of DNA per day, from both GM and non-GM ingredients. This DNA is generally degraded by food processing, and any surviving DNA is then subsequently degraded in the digestive system. No evidence was found that DNA absorbed through the GI tract could be integrated into human cells—a popular anti-GMO criticism....

....In short, genetically modified foods are among the most extensively studied scientific subjects in history. This year celebrates the 30th anniversary of GM technology, and the paper’s conclusion is unequivocal: there is no credible evidence that GMOs pose any unique threat to the environment or the public’s health. The reason for the public’s distrust of GMOs lies in psychology, politics and false debates..."

Tom Hickey said...

Right. This debate is the flip side of human causality in global warming. Pick the side you want to believe and cite some research to prove your point. This is going to be decided politically in different jurisdictions rather than based on "definitive" evidence.

Roger Erickson said...

Managing risk & uncertainty requires statistical analysis of what the known risks & complete uncertainties are.

So no absolute amount of "research" matters, only the amount necessary to mitigate known risks & unknown uncertainties.

In practice, this boils down to proving things in controlled experiments, rather than on uncontrolled experiments on the population.

The old farmers adage was "don't bet the farm." We're at the point of "don't bet the species"

Tom Hickey said...

And we have several such bets out there now.

Malmo's Ghost said...

Not sure what it means to mitigate an unknown uncertainty? Also not sure what "bets" are out there? If it's AGW or GMOs you're alluding to then I'll take the side that Freeman Dyson takes regarding AGW and continue to eat GM produce till the cows come home.

NeilW said...

There is no way either pharma or GMO research should be done by anybody that isn't publicly funded.

Public funding (should) guarantee that the public is protected since they are paying the piper.

Otherwise some narrower interest calls the tune.

Roger Erickson said...

"mitigate an unknown uncertainty"

Classic way is to retain resiliency, by stockpiling as much diversity as possible, or the ability to scale up diversty-upon-demand (hyper mutation rates).

Going to agricultural mono-cultures is double-indemnity.

If if can't survive in the wild then, long term, it shouldn't - unless someone domesticates it WITHOUT destroying the rest of the environment.

Roger Erickson said...

Even publicly funded doesn't guarantee much. Our banks are publicly funded, for Pete's sake.

Openly regulated? I'm sure that's what you intended, Neil.

Malmo's Ghost said...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2013/10/14/2000-reasons-why-gmos-are-safe-to-eat-and-environmentally-sustainable/


"The claim that genetically engineered crops are ‘understudied’—the meme represented in the quotes highlighted above—has become a staple of opponents of crop biotechnology, especially activist journalists. Anti-GMO campaigners, including many organic supporters, assert time and again that genetically modified crops have not been safety tested or that the research done to date on the health or environmental impact of GMOs has “all” been done by the companies that produce the seeds. Therefore, they claim, consumers are taking a ‘leap of faith’ in concluding that they face no harm from consuming foods made with genetically modified ingredients.

That is false.

Every major international science body in the world has reviewed multiple independent studies—in some cases numbering in the hundreds—in coming to the consensus conclusion that GMO crops are as safe or safer than conventional or organic foods. But until now, the magnitude of the research on crop biotechnology has never been cataloged. In response to what they believed was an information gap, a team of Italian scientists summarized 1783 studies about the safety and environmental impacts of GMO foods—a staggering number.

The researchers couldn’t find a single credible example demonstrating that GM foods pose any harm to humans or animals. “The scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazards directly connected with the use of genetically engineered crops,” the scientists concluded..."



Of course if this isn't enough peer reviewed science for you then you can always go ketogenic.

Tom Hickey said...

Also not sure what "bets" are out there?

The two big bets on the table right now that threaten species survival, or at least civilization as we have come to know it, are climate change and WMD.

Another is an epidemic.

And another is a global depression.

These are, of course, not mutually exclusive although even one could be devastating.

Global depression could result from any of the other three others, and this combo would greatly amplify the damage.

This leads into civilizational collapse. Civilization hangs by a few threads and if any of them break, the others are quickly stretched to the max.

Civilization is a highly integrated system and breakdown of some key component like food supply could test the resilience of the entire edifice, especially if panic sets in and people start doing stupid stuff en masse.

While these are not things that most of us need to be concerned with directly, some people do and we just have to trust that they are making the right decisions based on the best motives, methods, and information.

Malmo's Ghost said...

Don't disagree, Tom, except for the climate change alarmism.

Jeff65 said...

You're all having the wrong argument. The argument is about corporate control of food through patents. The argument is about whether GMOs are necessary or even beneficial.

Roger Erickson said...

Malmo,
You're conflating the real issues.

A test orchard of GMO apples (genetically "modified" by old breeding methods, or new molecular insertion methods) is a more controllable event.

100 million acres of crudely modified, RoundUp Resistant Soybeans or corn ... that's an entirely different matter.

There are many risks/uncertainties we can be reckless about. Public health or ecology have not proven to be the better places for dabbling in mass risk or uncertainty.

ps: "Everyone knew" that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq too. As soon as corporate lobbyists are spending millions on sponsored research ... warning flags go up.

And no, there is NOT consensus in ag-science disciplines about the safety of rushing into mass-production of crudely/grossly GMO-modified crops.

Actually, the RR-ready distortion is being handled the same was as antibiotics. As soon as you offer mass-exposure of ANY bio-agent to whole ecosystems ... the appearance of bio-workarounds is guaranteed, in the form of highly selected resistance genes. And yes, those are already present.

The worst thing about this illogic is that we already know how to avoid rapid selection for resistance factors. Just do what evolution has always done.

1) when required, always use diverse cocktails (metabolites, agents, catabolites), and never purified weapons.

2) highly compartmentalized, transient use of all bio-weapons (so opponents don't recognize & adapt)

Instead, we're clumsily spreading huge amounts of purified (patentable) agents, everywhere. Expect the same response as for antibiotic resistance ... only even more disruptive.

It's just sloppy, and it's not science. The scientific method can't stop in the lab. To matter, it must extend out through policy as well.

Aggressive lobbying is NOT science. It's just reckless, factional positioning.

Malmo's Ghost said...

Much of the GMO scaremongering reminds me of the low carb quacks--Gary Taubes, et al-- going on about how carbs make us fat rather than a positive energy glut fueled by too many calories. They then go on to claim the USDA and Ancel Keys are/were in a conspiracy against the masses to benefit agribusiness. This is all nonsense, of course.

I don't give a damn about anything short of getting at the truth in as scientific a way as possible. I just refuse to be paralyzed by irrational fear.

Living is a risk. Getting in a car is a risk. Getting fat is a risk. Science says GMOs aren't, and climate change is simply a political wax nose that can be shaped any way you want.

Tom Hickey said...

You're all having the wrong argument. The argument is about corporate control of food through patents.

That's a separate issues — actually a whole range of issues that cut to the heart of neoliberal capitalism. The general thrust of neoliberal capitalism is global control of provision of goods and services, as well as governing institutions. This is the real battleground and most everything is subserviently related to this as gears in a machine.

Then there is the transparency issue, too. The safety and preference issues are something that people should be able to decide for themselves, so there needs to be transparency in labeling and publication of relevant information. Interested parties are preventing that from happening, which is illiberal. Of course, this applies to many other matter such as this one.

There is also the propagation issue that is now to the fore legally as GMO strains spread beyond their supposed boundaries.





Malmo's Ghost said...

Sorry, Roger, but the established science regarding the so called dangers of GMOs doesn't support your claim. That's not to say I wouldn't change my mind if the evidence goes the other way, but it hasn't. If you think every scientist whose studied GMOs is a bought and paid for shill then say it. I'm not that cynical.

Roger Erickson said...

"Science says GMOs aren't"

?? Malmo, I'm just uncomfortable with your blanket belief that this is a solved issue.

Science isn't a voting numbers game. As long as there are known risks, certain uncertainties, and dissent ... then "science" hasn't proven anything incontrovertibility.

At one time "science" said that tobacco smoking, DDT use & thalidomide use were all safe. It's reckless to jump on bandwagons purely for narrow profit motives.

If you're being paid to support GMO crop research, say so. :)

Tom Hickey said...

MG, have you read The Precautionary Principle (with Application to the Genetic Modification of Organisms) by Nassim Nicholas Taleb, Rupert Read, Raphael Douady, Joseph Norman, Yaneer Bar-Yam that Mark Buchanan cites and comments upon?

Abstract—The precautionary principle (PP) states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing severe harm to the public domain (affecting general health or the environment globally), the action should not be taken in the absence of scientific near-certainty about its safety. Under these conditions, the burden of proof about absence of harm falls on those proposing an action, not those opposing it. PP is intended to deal with uncertainty and risk in cases where the absence of evidence and the incompleteness of scientific knowledge carries profound implications and in the presence of risks of "black swans", unforeseen and unforeseable events of extreme consequence.

This non-naive version of the PP allows us to avoid paranoia and paralysis by confining precaution to specific domains and problems. Here we formalize PP, placing it within the statistical and probabilistic structure of "ruin" problems, in which a system is at risk of total failure, and in place of risk we use a formal"fragility" based approach. In these problems, what appear to be small and reasonable risks accumulate inevitably to certain irreversible harm. Traditional cost-benefit analyses, which seek to quantitatively weigh outcomes to determine the best policy option, do not apply, as outcomes may have infinite costs. Even high-benefit, high-probability outcomes do not outweigh the existence of low probability, infinite cost options—i.e. ruin. Uncertainties result in sensitivity analyses that are not mathe- matically well behaved. The PP is increasingly relevant due to man-made dependencies that propagate impacts of policies across the globe. In contrast, absent humanity the biosphere engages in natural experiments due to random variations with only local impacts.

Our analysis makes clear that the PP is essential for a limited set of contexts and can be used to justify only a limited set of actions. We discuss the implications for nuclear energy and GMOs. GMOs represent a public risk of global harm, while harm from nuclear energy is comparatively limited and better characterized. PP should be used to prescribe severe limits on GMOs.


This is about the precautionary principle, which you don't seem to be discussing.

Roger Erickson said...

"Established" science? LOL!

You mean orthodoxy?

People get Nobel prizes for orthodoxy. Taking that line as evidence gets you nowhere among scientists.

No part of science is ever established. Most advanced involve disproving prior established conclusions.

Malmo's Ghost said...

"There is also the propagation issue that is now to the fore legally as GMO strains spread beyond their supposed boundaries."

Not sure what you're implying here? At any rate, just sticking with the question regarding GMOs and human consumption thereof being safe, it seems they clearly are. All the tangential stuff supposedly related to GMOs in this comment section, while interesting, aren't really germane.

Roger Erickson said...

"it seems they clearly are"

Well, that proves it, right?

Doesn't matter what indirect problems slowly come to light?

How many years does it take for many carcinogens or metabolic disorders to manifest? Even thalidomide took 9 months for personal proof of problems - and longer, before it's sales were reconsidered.

If problems don't show up overnight, they don't exist?

Brilliant! You should go into Investment Banking. You'd be good at selling it.

Tom Hickey said...

just sticking with the question regarding GMOs and human consumption thereof being safe, it seems they clearly are.

That wasn't the original issue. It was the precautionary principle in Taleb et al, over risk and uncertainty regarding long-term safety for human consumption and impact on the environment.

Malmo's Ghost said...

I haven't read PP other than MB's alluding to it. It's not scientific gospel, it's merely an ideological postulate for a plan of action. His claim that GMOs represent a public risk of global harm and should be curtailed because the PP says so is silly. Scaremongering nonsense.

Jeff65 said...

"There is also the propagation issue that is now to the fore legally as GMO strains spread beyond their supposed boundaries."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Schmeiser

Jeff65 said...

Patents should never be granted to technology that can't be controlled. Once planted, cross-contamination of non-GMO crops can't be prevented.

Malmo's Ghost said...

"Even high-benefit, high-probability outcomes do not outweigh the existence of low probability, infinite cost options—i.e. ruin

Who gets to decide? GMOs were an awful example too.

Ryan Harris said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ryan Harris said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ryan Harris said...

Prakesh posted a good critical review of Taleb's precautionary principle paper..