Fear and uncertainty in politics

The New York Times has a long and interesting article about one politicians truth seeking process, when trying to decide what to vote on the issue of a ban on genetically modified crops in Hawaii.

A Lonely Quest for Facts on Genetically Modified Crops

It is not unreasonable to have some concerns when discussing genetically modified crops, especially related to cross-pollination, patents, and the business practices of the companies providing such crops. All of these things are touched upon in the article, as the politician, Greggor Ilagan, tries to understand the issue, and the science relating to it.

Unfortunately, as Mr. Ilagan, also finds out, there is a lot of FUD (Fear-Uncertainty-Doubt) going on when it comes to G.M.O.s. None of it fact-based, but it sounds just plausible enough that people will believe it (especially when used in connection to phrases like "Frankencrops").

There have been some studies that indicates higher risks of cancer when eating G.M.O.s, but the scientists behind these studies appear to have been ideologically against G.M.O.s, and the studies have been found to flawed and has largely been retracted (including the much spoken about 2012 rat study from France). Indeed, the general consensus among scientists doing research into the subject, is that there is no difference in risks between conventional crops and modified crops - something which is hardly surprising, considering the biology behind it.

In 2010, the European Commission (hardly a strong proponent of G.M.O.s) released their research into the harms from G.M.O. In the press release it was described thus:

In order to help inform debate on genetically modified organisms, the European Commission is publishing today a compendium entitled "A decade of EU-funded GMO research". The book summarizes the results of 50 research projects addressing primarily the safety of GMOs for the environment and for animal and human health. Launched between 2001 and 2010, these projects received funding of €200 million from the EU and form part of a 25-year long research effort on GMOs.

As I said before, the EU and the European Commission can hardly be considered strong proponents of G.M.O.s. Indeed they put off allowing G.M.O.s for a long time, while researching the potential side-effects. This is part of the general principle of caution, under which the EU usually handles these things - in the EU it generally has to be demonstrated that there are no harmful side-effects, before it is allowed, while in the US, the tendency is to demand that a harmful side-effect be proven, before not allowing it.

The summarization of 25 years of research into the potential side-effects of G.M.O.s was summed up thus in the press release:

According to the projects' results, there is, as of today, no scientific evidence associating GMOs with higher risks for the environment or for food and feed safety than conventional plants and organisms.

I highly recommend downloading and reading the book (pdf).

Back to the NY Times article. Mr. Ilagan spent the time necessary, and talked to the people with the proper expertize, in order to get to understand the subject well enough to make an informed vote. He appears to have been alone, or nearly alone, in this, and instead the anti-science ignorance spread by anti-GMO advocates were allowed to carry the day. The ban was approved 6 votes to 3.

Many issues related to science are complex, and it is even harder to get to understand them when there are people actively promoting misinformation, no matter whether they are grassroots organizations or think-tanks.

When politicians face decision making relating to such an issue, they could much worse than try to follow in the footsteps of Mr. Ilagan. As the EC compendium correctly states:

Sound policy, while needing to take account of a wide range of views, must be based on sound science.

All to often, anti-science is allowed to carry the day.

A new vector against malaria: GM mosquitoes?

Scientists have managed to develop a new breed of genetically modified malaria-resistent mosquitoes, which can drive out natural malaria-carrying insects.

Now it is being debated if this new vector for getting rid of malaria should be used. While it might sound like a no-brainer, it would be the first case of large-scale releasing of GM organisms into the wild. Before that can happen, it must be ensured that the relase can't have negative consequences. As the Guardian writes

Trials in sub-Saharan Africa, where malaria claims the life of a child every 30 seconds, could be conducted within five years, but scientists will first have to prove as far as possible that the resistance genes will not trigger a more aggressive form of malaria, or spread to other insects.

While the mechanisms behind the resistance to DDT in mosquitoes is different, it's a good example of what we are up against.

The NY Times, brings a Reuters story about it, which makes clear that there is still some work left, even if there are no problems with the new breed.

Jacobs-Lorena and colleagues studied the mosquitoes as they bred in cages. The mosquitoes were allowed to feed on mice that had been infected with P. berghei, one of the parasites that causes malaria.

[...]

P. berghei is not the most serious cause of malaria -- another parasite called Plasmodium falciparum is. But the researchers said their study shows the idea of using lab-engineered mosquitoes to battle malaria is a valid one.

I hope, and expect, that this will bring us much closer to getting rid of malaria.

For people with a subscription to Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Online, the study can be found here: Transgenic malaria-resistant mosquitoes have a fitness advantage when feeding on Plasmodium-infected blood

And as a personal note to Dr. Egnor and his ilk, note how the concept of evolution and natural selection is the basis of this.

US court overturns approval of biotech crop

This is an interesting development.

Court Halt on GMO Alfalfa Shows USDA Failure - Critics

A court decision overturning US government approval for a biotech alfalfa underscores complaints made for years that the USDA is failing to adequately oversee genetically altered crops, biotech crop critics said on Tuesday.

[...]

USDA officials would not comment Tuesday, a day after US District Court Judge Charles Breyer of the Northern District of California issued an order on Monday that vacated USDA approval of Monsanto Co.'s "Roundup Ready" alfalfa.

The crop, genetically altered to withstand treatments of Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, was approved in 2005. But Judge Breyer immediately halted any more seed sales and ordered that any planting must cease after March 30 after he determined that the USDA violated the law in allowing unrestricted commercial planting of the crop.

The judge said the USDA should have prepared an environmental impact statement before deregulating the Roundup Ready alfalfa. Such a statement is designed to explore negative consequences that might result from a release.

This is a subject way out of my areas of knowledge, so I can't really make any meaningful comments on it. However, that won't stop me from making a few anyway.

Out of pure principle, the court decision seems right to me. Such a law violation should of course lead to the approval being overturned. If the company looses money on it, then they should sue the USDA for not doing their job correctly.

With regards to the criticism, the critics explains why it's a big deal to them.

In the case of biotech alfalfa, a perennial livestock feed crop, several farm, environmental and consumer activists groups said there were many potential problems, including contamination of organic and conventional alfalfa supplies with the biotech version.

Other crops, including most notably corn and rice, have already been contaminated with biotech varieties, forcing in some situations costly recalls and lost export sales.

"I challenged them over and over to give us any scientific evidence that they can control the gene flow from these crops. So far they haven't been able to do that," said Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of The Center for Food Safety, which led the lawsuit against the US Agriculture Department.

Given the fact that such contaminations have already happened (at least according to the article), it not only seems like the correct legal decision, but also the prudent decision to make.

Hopefully this case will lead the agency to do its oversight job properly in the future.

As a end note - what is it with US agencies and departments not doing their work properly? It seems to me that it has gotten a lot worse during the Bush presidency, though I'm sure that there are plenty of stories from earlier presidencies as well.