So far, GMO supporters
have managed to frame the GMO labeling controversy as a battle between
pro-science and anti-science, and by and large they've been able to get away with it. That’s been a key factor in the battles over
labeling laws, most of which the anti-GMO side has lost. Undecided voters may be unsure of science
or even vaguely afraid of it, but they respect it and don’t want to be on the
wrong side of it.
The only thing that will change this is showing them that scientific opinion is turning against GMOs and that all the dangers that have been pooh-poohed by GMO advocates are turning out to be real. And now, thanks to two ground-breaking announcements that have come just in the last week or two, it’s possible to build a coherent argument that the GMO advocates won’t be able to answer. The first is the decision by a WHO panel of experts that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic”. The second, and to my mind the more important, is the Endocrine Society’s statement that glyphosate is an endocrine-disrupting chemical, capable of causing far-reaching and long-lasting damage to hormones essential for health. These findings should be spread as far and as wide as possible, especially in areas where labeling laws and other restrictions on GMOs/pesticides are being proposed and have not yet been defeated. The argument goes along these lines:
- The plants used in many GMO foods are RoundUp-resistant, and therefore have been sprayed with, and absorbed, glyphosate, a herbicide in the next-to-worst category of toxic substances by EPA standards.
- Yet GMO advocates tell us that scientists (with few or no exceptions) agree that this process is perfectly safe. But that’s no longer true—if it ever was.
- The Endocrine Society, a hundred-year-old organization of scientists with 17,000 members, has just issued a statement naming glyphosate as an endocrine-disrupting chemical—that is, a substance that can cause far-reaching and permanent damage to the production of hormones vital for human health.
- Consequently, government has both a duty and a responsibility to provide consumers with the power to decide whether or not they will buy food that might do them serious harm.
UPDATE (04/16/15)
Will this argument
work? Since posting this I've been testing it on the Biofortified blog, one of the top pro-GMO blogs--the post in question is "Should science be a democracy?" So far there's been no attempt to answer it. Maybe they can’t answer it. Maybe they daren’t
admit, even to themselves, that they’re losing the “We’re the pro-science side”
argument. Follow it, it's fun.
Just a minor clarification. You said "...a herbicide in the next-to-worst category of toxic substances by EPA standards." The EPA rates toxicity by category using I through IV, with cat. I being the most toxic, and cat. IV the least. Glyphosate is either cat. III or IV, depending on what source you look at. Most of the cat. III sources use eye irritation as the basis for that listing.
ReplyDeleteHow do you know that everyone elses comments are going through? Can you see how many comments are held in moderation? I've had numerous comments in the past 2 months sit in moderation (and a few disappear, I think) because I've been too lazy to log in (or have forgotten my user credentials). Jumping straight to conspiratorial thinking is most unbecoming.
ReplyDeleteYou're right. That was a misunderstanding. I shall delete it from my post.
DeleteCross posting from the biofortified discussion. Will be interesting to see which comment beats moderation first...
DeleteAs far as I can see the Endocrine society, in a far larger paper, mention glyphosate twice, once in a table, once in text. The text reads.
"Herbicides in widespread use such as atrazine, 2,4-D, and glyphosate, are considered EDCs, and the fungicide vinclozolin is a known EDC."
Thus there is no conclusive evidence presented, and indeed no conclusive statement that glyphosate or glyphosate based herbicides are EDCs, they are considered such (thus uncertainty is ascribed to the assessment) whereas vonclozolin is known to be an EDC (which demonstrates a degree of certainty)
Several articles can convince when they contain actual, y’know, science looking at the claim. The “statement” by the Endocrine society boils down to a single row in a table, and a single sentence, neither of which are supported by any citations. Consider your straw thoroughly grasped at.
http://www.endocrine.org/~/media/endosociety/Files/Advocacy%20and%20Outreach/Important%20Documents/Introduction%20to%20Endocrine%20Disrupting%20Chemicals.pdf
is I believe the statement you're bringing up.
The tactic is flawed. If you want glyphosate banned or labeled, argue for that. Let's say that RR crops failed due to enormous widespread weed resistance next year, so suddenly nobody is spraying glyphosate on GE crops. Your argument just fell apart for using glyphosate as a reason to label GE anything.
ReplyDeletePro science means you look at all the data. You don't give special weight to studies supporting your point of view. You critically examine studies that even support your point of view. There is no lack of study on glyphosate. There is no new information. The biotech advocates are still fare more pro-science side. The best argument to put anti-biotech into the pro-science bandwagon is the non-monotonic endocrine disrupting potential. But even then, there is not great evidence. The "no safe dose" argument isn't catching on. If it were, we could say "no safe dose exists for soybeans, flax seeds, rice, apples and carrots or bourbon."
I for one won't be giving up bourbon because there's "no safe dose."
I hope you see what I'm saying. If you can villainize synthetic endocrine disruptors by casting doubt due to "no safe dose," than you can do the same for the other ubiquitous natural sources. I don't think that the public will find the argument convincing if put in context, but more importantly scientists won't. As long as we have sound scientific basis for policy for labeling, the proposed argument will fall flat.
The argument won't work because the logic is flawed. Science is no democracy, so scientific decisions on food safety labeling is also not a democracy.
Furthermore, I don't see the latest headlines regarding glyphosate doing much more than getting activists all riled up. There is no new information. The IARC made some categorizations that are being pretty badly criticised. The same data the ALL OF THE OTHER health organizations made their decision on are unchanged. The WHO / IARC isn't influential enough to make everybody else decide they were wrong. The IARC used their methodology that puts blinders on to information that other organizations don't ignore.
Mike, science is constantly changing, so today's minority is tomorrow's majority. When you say there is no new information you simply mean you haven't read any recent articles. Here's a few for you, all related to glyphosate and EDCs. When you've read them and found a way to explain why it's okay to ignore them, we'll really have something to talk about.
DeleteI meant that the IARC declaration provided no new data. It was not based on any information that all the other organizations have seen. There us not a new finding that changed aomebofys mind. They just looked at a more limited amount of information and came up with a different conclusion.
Delete