GM rice benefits poor farmers

A recent study published in the journal Science, seems to show GM rice is a benefit to poor farmers, the BBC reports:

Chinese farmers using rice engineered to resist insect pests made huge savings on insecticides, compared with their neighbours who had planted ordinary hybrid strains.

This had nothing to do with any specialist guidance the farmers received, because they were left to manage their crops as they saw fit.

As well as cutting costs, the researchers say, the farmers benefited from better health.

Pesticides in China are cheap and widely used, but poison an estimated 50,000 farmers a year, up to 500 fatally.

The researchers looked at farms in eight villages in three categories: full adopters, partial adopters and non-adopters. Farmers carried out their normal practice of applying insecticide only when they thought it necessary. The researchers found that unmodified rice required eight to ten times as much insecticide as modified rice and cost farmers an extra 200 Yuan ($25) a hectare. Yields were 9% higher with the Bt-based strain. No full adopters were adversely affected by pesticide during the course of the trial; 11% of non-adopters were.

Seems like a win all round – less environmentally harmful pesticide run-off, higher yields so less land farmed for the same output, and safer for poor farmers. Who could object? Predictably, Greenpeace retains its religious objections:

the Science study provided further evidence of the failure to control GM rice trials in China.

(Snip)

We should not be risking long-term health and environmental impacts, as well as international consumer rejection of Chinese rice when we don't need [genetic engineering] in the first place.

The “international consumer rejection” of GM foods is fueled by disinformation from Greenpeace, rather than any actual problems with GM food, and only an organization like Greenpeace would describe this study a “failure”. Rich Greenpeace supporters in western counties may feel they don’t “need” GM foods, but clearly these GM strains have the potential to be an environmental good. Studies like this, if replicated, should be welcomed by true environmentalists. Greenpeace, as usual, seem more interested in posturing.

Comments

[Rockhound]

Ah, yes. The "Frankenfoods" argument. Heaven forfend that we should use technology that will disproportionately help the poor, when that technology sounds so darn scary. Why, we're playing god! Sigh. Of course we want to make sure that these foods are environmentally safe, but pesticides and herbicides, not to mention fertilizers, cause considerable environmental degradation. If we can decrease application of these to farmland, we'll all benefit. Not to mention the lack of acute toxicity associated with GM crops...

[Blue State]

For a skeptic you're remarkably unquestioning of the claims of benefits of copyrighted seedstock. Just what the third world needs, a bowlful of IP-protected, single-source rice.

[Skeptico]

First, I said "Studies like this, if replicated, should be welcomed". I'm cautiously optimistic: why wouldn’t you welcome these benefits if they can be demonstrated and replicated? A skeptic learns how to evaluate evidence. Someone who just says no to everything is a cynic.

Second, perhaps the third world could use rice that uses less land, costs the farmer less and doesn’t kill 500 people (in China alone) each year. If you’re not a Chinese farmer perhaps that’s not important to you.

Third, you need to question your own motivation. Your “copyrighted”, “IP-protected” and “single-source” comments betray your real reasoning. If you have any actual arguments against these particular GM foods, please present them.

[Danny]

Indeed, it seems Blue State is motivated by politics, not science, about hating (fearing?) GMOs. Green Peace's disinformation campaign is impeding real science, and their possible technological fruits. They're just a front for the ultra extremist neo-luddites.

[Blue State]

I'll repeat; IP-protected food and controlled-source seedstock are important issues for poor Chinese farmers. Not an insoluble problem, but a problem nonetheless. These seedstocks have not been developed to solve poverty or reduce hunger, they've been developed to make a commercial return; the advantages for poor farmers are widely promoted, but this is not a charity benefit.

Additionally, if GM crops require fewer pesticides it's not by magic. The pests don't stay away by themselves. The crops are engineered to have pesticidal properties intrinsically. If that doesn't raise a question or two about health and safety in your mind, you're a true beleiver, not a skeptic.

Another concern is how GM organisms, as the first known examples of species created by Intelligent Design will interact with existing species and organisms in the environment. Could the GM properties interbreed with other strains unintentionally? Could there be a case of a GM organism being so successful that it makes lesser variants extinct? Could the GM properties cause extinctions of unintended insects or other animals as a consequence? And can we control this successfully? Can we regulate how GM species should be introduced?

So that's three problems, none of which may be insoluble; we're still at the early days of this science, but I don't think it's unreasonable, questionably-motivated, nor "ultra-extremist neo luddite" to insist that those making extraordinary claims provide extraordinary proof. That's not impeding science - that is science.

GM claims need to be treated skeptically, no matter how much you'd like to beleive in them.

[Skeptico]

Blue State:

I'll repeat; IP-protected food and controlled-source seedstock are important issues for poor Chinese farmers. Not an insoluble problem, but a problem nonetheless.

Yes but are you going to tell us what they are? With evidence, of course.

These seedstocks have not been developed to solve poverty or reduce hunger, they've been developed to make a commercial return; the advantages for poor farmers are widely promoted, but this is not a charity benefit.

So what? What does it matter what the purpose was for developing them? This is just a “poisoning of the well” ad Hominem.

Additionally, if GM crops require fewer pesticides it's not by magic. The pests don't stay away by themselves. The crops are engineered to have pesticidal properties intrinsically.

Do you have any evidence that this causes problems? The study states that the pesticides cause paralysis in the digestive system of insects but not vertebrates. This is the Bt. Strain that has been widely used with no health problems I am aware of. So do you have any evidence that these are dangerous?

If that doesn't raise a question or two about health and safety in your mind, you're a true beleiver, not a skeptic.

You are the one making claims without evidence. That makes you the religious believer, not me.

Another concern is how GM organisms, as the first known examples of species created by Intelligent Design will interact with existing species and organisms in the environment. Could the GM properties interbreed with other strains unintentionally? Could there be a case of a GM organism being so successful that it makes lesser variants extinct? Could the GM properties cause extinctions of unintended insects or other animals as a consequence? And can we control this successfully? Can we regulate how GM species should be introduced?

Do you have any evidence that this has happened in a way that is likely to make lesser variants extinct or cause any other problems? You are aware that virtually all farmed crops are a result of genetic engineering? Most of these wouldn’t survive in the wild without careful tending by farmers. You need to demonstrate a danger, not just attempt to create fear.

So that's three problems, none of which may be insoluble; we're still at the early days of this science, but I don't think it's unreasonable, questionably-motivated, nor "ultra-extremist neo luddite" to insist that those making extraordinary claims provide extraordinary proof. That's not impeding science - that is science.

You are the one making the claims, and so you are the one who needs to provide the extraordinary evidence.

GM claims need to be treated skeptically, no matter how much you'd like to beleive in them.

I could say exactly the same about your fear-mongering tactics.

[Blue State]

A problem with IP-protected seedstock is that you have to comply with the owners rules every time you plant them, which generally means paying for them again. You pay for the benefits of their work and research in creating the GM organisms, which is only fair. But that differs from traditional agricultural models, where you simply kept some of the harvest as seeds for the next crop.

And I'm not making claims about the toxicity or other negative effects of intrinsically pesticidal GM foods. I'm asking questions. These aren't difficult question to think of: it's clear that the pesticidal compounds have not gone away, rather that GM has changed the delivery mechanism. It's right to ask that the inventors provide proof that there are no unintended ill-effects, and to not be willing to just credulously take it on the inventor's say-so.

And let's be clear on one thing. It is GM technology that is new, and it is GM science that is making extraordinary claims. Genetic engineering is a new science; gene-splicing dates back only 25 years at most. The claims may may well be true, this is clearly an area of enormous potential. But skepticism is an entirely appropriate response. To argue that it those who question new claims that need to provide evidence disproving the claims is getting the burden of proof backwards.

[Skeptico]

Blue State:

A problem with IP-protected seedstock is that you have to comply with the owners rules every time you plant them, which generally means paying for them again. You pay for the benefits of their work and research in creating the GM organisms, which is only fair. But that differs from traditional agricultural models, where you simply kept some of the harvest as seeds for the next crop.

First, the article reported unmodified rice required eight to ten times as much insecticide as modified rice and cost farmers an extra $25 a hectare. Also yields were 9% higher with the GM rice. So it seems the GM rice will save the farmers money.

Of course, if it didn’t save the farmers money, they would just go back to the non-GM rice, wouldn’t they? It strikes me this is one of the more bogus arguments against GM crops. Farmers aren’t stupid. They’ll only use GM crops if they are of benefit to them.

And I'm not making claims about the toxicity or other negative effects of intrinsically pesticidal GM foods. I'm asking questions. These aren't difficult question to think of: it's clear that the pesticidal compounds have not gone away, rather that GM has changed the delivery mechanism. It's right to ask that the inventors provide proof that there are no unintended ill-effects, and to not be willing to just credulously take it on the inventor's say-so.

Here we have the fallacy that GM crops are not tested. In fact, GM crops are tested far more than non-GM crops. Bt crops have been tested and have been used in large quantity without any problems I’m aware of. How much testing do you want before you’ll accept there are no dangers? Greenpeace don’t care – you can test it successfully for ever as far as they are concerned, they’ll still be against it. How about you – what has to happen for you before you accept it?

OTOH, pesticides on non-GM crops kill 500 people a year in China alone.

To argue that it those who question new claims that need to provide evidence disproving the claims is getting the burden of proof backwards.

Except that GM crops have been proven safe over many years. It’s impossible to prove a universal negative, so it’s now becoming time for the anti-GM crowd to provide evidence, and not just try to scare people.

[Blue State]

Sure GM crops are tested. And rightly so. This is the value of applying principles of skepticism to those making extraordinary claims. There would be a lot less testing if regulators were credulous, and willing to accept the claims of miraculous benefits at face value.

How much testing is enough? It's a balance. GM inventors don't need to prove their products are perfect or completely without risk. They need to demonstrate that the value proposition is net beneficial; i.e. that the benefits (better targeted pesticide delivery, improved yields, vitamin-enhancing, designer colors & flavors, whatever they may invent) is greate than the risks (controlled seedstock, health, biological, and environmental risks if any) and they need to work out how these crops can be introduced within a regulated environment.

Drug manufacturers work within a similar guidelines. Drugs are not risk-free; even known adverse side effects may be tolerable if the affliction the drug treats is worse than the side effect caused. In this respect, GM crop manufacturers have a higher hurdle to face, as GM crops go directly into the food supply of the general population. You won't have a choice about consumption, and it may be very difficult to avoid them if later you find problems.

I don't pretend to be a policy expert in this area, but I do recognize there are valid questions and scientific methods that need to be followed. In what I would have thought were the best traditions of skepticism.

Which is why I'm surprised that my skeptical approach is treated in a hostile manner. My motives have been questioned, and it's even been asserted that not being a Chinese farmer, I don't care how many of them die. On the contrary, the headline assertion the GM crops are to the benefit of poor Chinese farmers raises my skepticism slightly - the GM companies are not charitable organizations, and the value of this kind of trial is undoubtedly partly in public relations back in the first-world countries. Moreover, the argument that some people will never believe anyway, so there is little value in continuing to try to test GM crops, is an exact parallel of Loyd Auerbach's recent argument that since skeptics will never believe psychics, there's no point testing psychics either.

You've made the assertion that you're not aware of any problems with GM crops, which is can be understood as a statement that you're not aware rather than that there are no problems; indeed, some problems have been found in some studies, in particular GM organisms escaping into the wild despite controls, and unexpected drops in non-targeted insect populations. These may be minor issues that don't negate the value of GM crops, but they bear exploration. So let's allow the testing, the science, and the official skepticism to run it's course, and not resort to the kind of aggressive stifling of skeptical thought and debate that we've seen here.

[skeptigal]

I learned today that in Indiana there is now a Superweed which has
spread across the state. This is due to the GM soybean crop growing in around a quarter of the available land, which is sprayed one to four times a season with Roundup. Superweed has _already_ developed immunity (note how recent in history we were blessed with Roundup!) I got this info on FSTV, channel 9415, Dish Network, via a former professor there at the University from which Amy Goodman was broadcasting 'Democracy Now'. Why again are we bothering? I firmly believe the old ways are best, when used with discretion. We have access to all the methods from around the world, so we can mix and match to best advantage, i.e: vermicomposting, using chickens and ducks to manage slugs & manure flies, composting manure & cropwaste, minimal-tilling to preserve worms, avoidance of pesticides in order to encourage natural predatory insects, eschewing monocrops so as to prevent diseases...

[Skeptico]

Blue State:

Sure GM crops are tested. And rightly so. This is the value of applying principles of skepticism to those making extraordinary claims. There would be a lot less testing if regulators were credulous, and willing to accept the claims of miraculous benefits at face value.

Since I wasn’t suggesting there should be a lot less testing, your point is moot.

I don't pretend to be a policy expert in this area, but I do recognize there are valid questions and scientific methods that need to be followed. In what I would have thought were the best traditions of skepticism.

Which is why I'm surprised that my skeptical approach is treated in a hostile manner.

Really? Well perhaps it was because of this hostile response from you:

For a skeptic you're remarkably unquestioning of the claims of benefits of copyrighted seedstock. Just what the third world needs, a bowlful of IP-protected, single-source rice.

Or maybe this:

If that doesn't raise a question or two about health and safety in your mind, you're a true beleiver, not a skeptic.

Or maybe it’s straw man arguments like this:

Moreover, the argument that some people will never believe anyway, so there is little value in continuing to try to test GM crops…

I never said anything like that, did I? It’s a bit much to claim you’re not against GM crops and that all you’re asking for is testing. Your attitude from your first short post was hard-line anti-GM. Although I’m glad you now say you’re not against GM per se. My point was, groups like Greenpeace are against GM no matter what any test results show. I was never pro GM no matter what.

You've made the assertion that you're not aware of any problems with GM crops, which is can be understood as a statement that you're not aware rather than that there are no problems;

I’m not aware of any major problems, and I have read widely on this subject and debated it many times before. I have also found most of the anti-GM arguments to be bogus. In other words, I have done quite a bit of work on this subject already.

indeed, some problems have been found in some studies, in particular GM organisms escaping into the wild despite controls, and unexpected drops in non-targeted insect populations. These may be minor issues that don't negate the value of GM crops, but they bear exploration. So let's allow the testing, the science, and the official skepticism to run it's course, and not resort to the kind of aggressive stifling of skeptical thought and debate that we've seen here.

Well, since I have allowed you to write whatever you like I fail to see how I am stifling anything. I just called you on logical fallacies and asked you to back up claims. If you think this is aggressive you should try debating this subject here. Anyway, I will produce some more detailed posts on GM crops in the future, to cover more of these issues in more detail.

[Skeptico]

Skeptigal:

I learned today that in Indiana there is now a Superweed which has spread across the state. This is due to the GM soybean crop growing in around a quarter of the available land, which is sprayed one to four times a season with Roundup. Superweed has _already_ developed immunity

I would need to know more before I could comment on this. However, if a weed has developed that is immune to Roundup, it could presumably still be killed by one application of another herbicide.

Why again are we bothering? I firmly believe the old ways are best, when used with discretion. We have access to all the methods from around the world, so we can mix and match to best advantage, i.e: vermicomposting, using chickens and ducks to manage slugs & manure flies, composting manure & cropwaste, minimal-tilling to preserve worms, avoidance of pesticides in order to encourage natural predatory insects, eschewing monocrops so as to prevent diseases...

A nice idea, but not a solution that will produce enough food to feed the growing population of the world.

I’ll make some future posts on GM crops, to address the issues you raise.

[Blue State]

I'm not anti-GM. I'm skeptical.

A lot of convinced people have a hard time telling the difference between opponents and skeptics.

[don't know]

I too feel that if everyone on earth started insisting on Organic foods, that could mean much lower yields and hence more harm to the environment. However some of the corporations have hidden agendas that they do not publish.

A type of rice seeds with extra-high productivity was marketed in India some time back. The seeds were genetically programmed to reproduce only for one generation so that the farmers will have to rely on the corporation for seeds each year.

This type of marketing tactics could lead to monopolies having control over an entire nation's food production. The farmers in these countries are not educated enough to understand the consequences, if there are any, and take calculated decisions.

Toxic pesticides (which was considered as wonderful a technology in those days as genetic engineering is considered now) and other non-sustainable technologies were accepted more readily by poorer countries and are still causing more environmental damage there than in say the USA.

[outeast]

Does anyone read late coments like this? Anyway, I just wanted to point out this article in the Guardian about the 'superweed' problem (which is starting to look rather real).

In one of the posts above Skeptico said:

However, if a weed has developed that is immune to Roundup, it could presumably still be killed by one application of another herbicide.

The article suggests that this is in fact not turning out to be the case:

Farmers the world over are always troubled by what they call "volunteers" - crop plants which grow from seeds spilled from the previous harvest, of which oilseed rape is probably the greatest offender. ... Farmers in Canada soon found that these volunteers were resistant to at least one herbicide, and became impossible to kill with two or three applications of different weedkillers after a succession of various GM crops were grown. ...The new plants were dubbed superweeds because they proved resistant to three herbicides while the crops they were growing among had been genetically engineered to be resistant to only one.

If the reporting in this article is accurate, it would seem that some of the fears of the anti-GM may well be justified, especially following on as it does from the earlier biodiversity impact report. With this, I'm starting to swing against GM crops. At the very least a great deal of caution needs to be exercised...

[Skeptico]

That's an interesting link - thanks for posting it.

I'll research this a bit more. I might make a post on it.