NOTE: Here is another incisive comment by "rightbiotech" from under the Guardian's poll on the question: "Are you convinced that GM food is both safe and beneficial?" This comment has some added interest because the writer says they have been a "GM scientist" for 30 years.
The poll is now closed, by the way, and the final vote was 72:28, i.e. nearly 3 to 1, against being convinced about the safety etc. of GM crops. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/poll/2013/jan/03/is-gm-food-safe-and-beneficial
---
---
COMMENTS
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/poll/2013/jan/03/is-gm-food-safe-and-beneficial?commentpage=4
05 January 2013 9:29 PM
rightbiotech:
There has been some discussion here that the science is settled and that scientists are uniform in their beliefs that ALL GM plants used or planned to be used in agriculture are safe, and that there is sufficient promise if not realisation of benefit to justify public acceptance.
Those conclusions would be the product of bad science if any science at all had gone into making them. There are scientists unprepared to issue blanket statements of safety (or cause of particular harms) and recognise that there is evidence of adverse effects. I am one of them.
I have been a "GM scientist" for 30 years. I intend to be an active "GM scientist" for at least 15 more. In my lab or with collaborators I've made GM plants, just like 'Drgenemaker' [another commenter] says he has, and I’ve made literally billions of different GM microbes of many different species.
I work on a case by case basis rather than try to argue that if I'm convinced that one GM product is safe then all are safe. This is also the way all our food safety regulators work in countries that regulate GM in food.
Most scientists will only engage in this controversy if they have a very powerful reason: 1) it matters to the continuation of their own research and success; 2) they have vested interests in the products; 3) they take public service seriously (and accept the consequences). Hence, many scientists that are privately skeptical stay out of this debate because entering it may in their minds cause damage to their reputations or threats to their jobs. While 'Drgenemaker' may be afraid of those who disagree with him:
"I am not giving my name as a lot of you people seem to be seriously deluded."
likewise other scientists don't give their names because of the defamatory and destructive behaviour of those defending their patch through these means, rather than with evidence.
@Anax
“Yes, I am convinced. Three trillion meals with GM food eaten. No deaths.”
This quote and similar made by or supported by several posters (e.g., 'JonnyForeigner' and 'Drgenemaker') is in my view another example of rhetoric in the guise of science rationality. The vast majority of GM crop (corn, soybean, cotton, canola) production even by industry reckoning (that is, the ISAAA) is used for animal feed, not directly in food, or biofuel. Significant quantities of boutique crops such as GM papaya in Hawaii are just that, so far anomalies to the main production. Moreover, crops such as GM corn have only reached high levels of GM production in this Century, leaving us with at most a decade of exposure.
Good scientists would produce methodology for the statement that significant amounts of a particular GM plant have been eaten by people. They would have indicated how much was in each meal (or in the average meal), how consistently, and other relevant facts, such as if there were a mixture of GM plants, traits or events. They would provide demographic information. They would have a control group. Responsible scientists would do this before they drew conclusions or attempted to use these kinds of statements to engineer agreement from the public. For years I’ve been searching for any of this kind of data. I don’t believe that it exists and hence these statements appear to be founded on ignorance or an uncritical mind.
I return to a point I made earlier. The regulation of these products has not produced confidence in them. While GM scientists become bitter over public reaction, we too miss the solution: find agreement on how to settle the issues, both scientific (as in safety, efficacy) and socio-economic (including cultural choices). How do we want to live? What part does agriculture play in this? Knowing that, we can ask: what agriculture do we want? Answer those questions first. Then find out how to achieve our goals.
Most "problems" (in agriculture and food security) are not a lack of technology, but created by social choices. Unfortunately, when someone sells us a technology that addresses the symptoms of the problem, they create even more problems in turn and attempt to addict society to yet another of their technological solutions. So far, agricultural GM looks like one of these false solutions.