
Data says GMO corn increases crop yields and provides health benefits - felixcatus
https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2018/02/19/gmo-corns-yield-human-health-benefits-vindicated-21-years-studies/
======
woodruffw
For an organization whose motto is "Science not ideology," they sure have a
lot of ideological backers[1]:

The Templeton Foundation has a record of supporting research on theistic
evolution and conservative British politics.[2]

The Searle Foundation is the largest funding source for the American
Enterprise Institute.[3]

The Center for Food Integrity is an industry group[4] that grew out of the
Grow America Project, a lobbying vessel.[5]

I am not categorically anti-GMO. But I doubt the intentions of this source.

[1]: [https://geneticliteracyproject.org/mission-financials-
govern...](https://geneticliteracyproject.org/mission-financials-
governorship/)

[2]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Templeton_Foundation#Core...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Templeton_Foundation#Core_funding_areas)

[3]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Searle_Freedom_Trust#Grantees](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Searle_Freedom_Trust#Grantees)

[4]:
[https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Center_for_Food_Integr...](https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Center_for_Food_Integrity)

[5]:
[https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Grow_America_Project](https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Grow_America_Project)

~~~
slededit
I can't quite put my finger on when - but sometime about 5 years ago we
stopped arguing the merits and started allowing guilt by association as a
valid argument.

~~~
woodruffw
There's no "guilt" here -- I'm just pointing out that accepting the premise
(that organizations like these are funding and publishing _honest_ research)
will lead you to conclude what they want, not necessarily what our _actual_
best science tells us.

The ills propagated by companies like Monsanto and DuPont are well documented
and, in light of them, it's perfectly reasonable to question the motives of
their lobbying groups.

~~~
slededit
Its the very definition of an Ad Hominem fallacy:

"When the source is viewed negatively because of its association with another
person or group who is already viewed negatively."

[https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFalla...](https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/10/Ad-
Hominem-Guilt-by-Association)

At no point did you address any of the actual claims in the article.

~~~
woodruffw
You can read what I think about ad hominems here:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14121456](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14121456)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13964490](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13964490)

Here's the short and sweet version: it's not _fallacious_ to consider the
character of actors if past experience indicates profound
dishonesty/irrationality on their part. I think Big Ag's lobbying arm
satisfies that condition.

Unless you're actually claiming that this site represents our best science
(and not a bunch of think-tank-funded, cherry-picked studies), you're missing
the point: all of the links above are good evidence that we should take this
source with a grain of salt. They're _not_ an outright dismissal; only more
information.

~~~
slededit
Except you haven't linked any evidence that the specific authors have
conducted bad science in the past, merely that they have accepted money from
people you don't like.

~~~
woodruffw
You're right: I've committed the grave sin of counting on it being common
knowledge that (for example) Monsanto ghostwrites papers claiming that Roundup
is safe[1], and that groups like the AEI have tried to bribe scientists into
critiquing global authorities on climate change[2].

Give me a break. HN is an educated audience, and just about everybody in North
America who reads the news knows at least _something_ about
Monsanto/DuPont/Exxon/whoever manipulating the scientific process.

[1]:
[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-09/monsanto-...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-09/monsanto-
was-its-own-ghostwriter-for-some-safety-reviews)

[2]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enterprise_Institute#...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enterprise_Institute#Global_warming)

~~~
cholantesh
Nah, you commited the grave sin of not considering that any of this isn't
theatre for an ambulance chasing legal firm. That's actually covered in the
article, and since you've been following this, you should be able to see the
emails are pretty tepid stuff if read soberly.

------
ZeroGravitas
Is there a FSF equivalent for GMO?

Like code, I'm sure there's potential benefits to GMO. Like code, I'm sure
that letting opaque corporations monopolise production with their patented
technology will lead to lots of bad behaviour that's anti-consumer and
potentially catastrophic.

~~~
a_bonobo
Patents for plants expire relatively fast, then the problem is to keep up seed
production - code can be copied forever, seeds have to be 'made'. Costly
especially if your plants' yield depends on hybrid vigor, which is lost in
subsequent generations, in that case you have to recross the two parental
lines to make more seeds.

Having said that, there is the Open Source Seed Initiative:
[https://osseeds.org/](https://osseeds.org/) (you still have to _buy_ the
seeds since there is a cost associated with production and shipping)

There are also special licenses for some GM plants, for example, if you're a
seed company from a poor country you can get the license for golden rice
(extra Vitamin A) for free, not the seeds themselves, you have to make those.

~~~
AHatLikeThat
You still have to buy the seeds; however, once you do they belong to you to
plant, create your own stockpile, share with others, crossbreed or use
selective methods to create a better strain for your specific
environment/needs...

The threat of GMO is not in direct health effects, it's in corporate control
of the food chain.

~~~
daveFNbuck
Isn't that threat independent of how the seeds are developed? Corporations
have controlled the food chain in the US for a lot longer than GM techniques
have been around.

~~~
TallGuyShort
There's a lot more centralization of ownership in farming than there used to
be - and the way in which you obtain your seed is one of the biggest examples
of that.

~~~
daveFNbuck
What does that have to do with GM? Doesn't this business model for seeds
predate GM crops?

~~~
TallGuyShort
No the business model is very different now in some key ways. First, I'm not
aware of any seed manufacturers having any motivation or ability to prevent
the genetics in your seed from spreading before. They didn't license what you
could and couldn't do with descendants of your crop. They were suppliers of
materials (seeds), not licensors of the genetic code they contain. It's quite
analagous to buying and owning a BSD CD with freedom to do what you want with
minor conditions vs buying a license to possess a music CD and listen to the
music under certain conditions. Second, the higher barrier to entry and how
recently GM became a factor (and how significant the advantages are,
especially the short-term ones) has essentially allowed a monopoly to form,
and there's even less competition than there used to be.

~~~
daveFNbuck
Do you see GM crops as a short-term or a long-term problem then? As technology
improves and the barrier to entry decreases, that should also help with the
ownership/leasing issue.

~~~
TallGuyShort
I don't see GM crops themselves as a problem at all. I think they come with
some potential downsides that deserve some special consideration we haven't
had to do before. Maybe the monopolization will decrease eventually, maybe
Monsanto will be able to push out potential competition before it becomes
viable. We'll see. But generally speaking this issue of licensing genetics is
new territory. What if they spread organically? What if we become too
dependent on too few crops - all our eggs in one basket that might have long-
term effects we don't know about yet. I'm just pointing that the open-source
analogy was actually pretty good - open-source has benefits but you have to
make sure it gets funded to compete. The money has to come from somewhere, and
you need to make sure it's not so low-quality that it starts causing it's own
problems.

~~~
daveFNbuck
Aren't the licensed crops generally designed to not spread organically?

We're already dependent on too few crops. Genetic modification gives us more
ways to increase diversity and preserve crops that would otherwise fall out of
use.

~~~
TallGuyShort
I've definitely seen cases where someone was accused of distributing seeds to
a nearby farm but claimed they hadn't. I'm inclined to believe that's at least
possible. To quote the mathematician from Jurassic Park, "life will find a
way" \- he's not wrong.

------
phkahler
It really irritates me when "GMO" is categorically touted as beneficial or
harmful. Each modification has to be evaluated individually, there is no
blanket assessment for GMO in general.

~~~
jacquesm
This is a Syngenta/Monsanto sponsored website, it would be very surprising if
they had anything critical to say about GMO.

~~~
CreRecombinase
Do you have a source for that?

~~~
jacquesm
Already linked elsewhere in the thread:

[https://www.motherjones.com/food/2012/02/atrazine-
syngengta-...](https://www.motherjones.com/food/2012/02/atrazine-syngengta-
tyrone-hayes-jon-entine/)

Domain Name: GENETICLITERACYPROJECT.ORG

Registry Registrant ID: C100814327-LROR

Registrant Name: Jon Entine

Registrant Organization: ESG MediaMetrics

Registrant Street: 6255 So. Clippinger Dr.

Note that both sides of the GMO debate are playing tricks and that it is
usually good to research the source a bit before becoming an unwitting
footsoldier in either army.

------
jacquesm
This is probably good for some balance:

[https://www.motherjones.com/food/2012/02/atrazine-
syngengta-...](https://www.motherjones.com/food/2012/02/atrazine-syngengta-
tyrone-hayes-jon-entine/)

~~~
bmaupin
This too (John Entine is the executive director for the GLP):

[https://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/jon-entine-the-chemical-
indu...](https://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/jon-entine-the-chemical-industrys-
master-messenger/)

~~~
jacquesm
What is interesting is that they're not even trying to hide their involvement
anymore. At some point in time these companies must have realized that it
doesn't even matter whether or not their involvement is made public or not
because the only thing that matters is the volume at which they are blaring
out their messages.

Also interesting is the frequency witch which this site gets posted on HN.

~~~
cholantesh
Yeah, except no one bats an eye when anti-GMO editorials get linked, or when
said editorials quote legal firms involved in class actions against the GM
giants. Or when anti-GMO lobbying groups are cited for 'balance' as in the
previous comment.

------
dvh
The problem is every time a bee fly on or off your field you are committing
copyright infringement.

~~~
a_bonobo
That is, frankly, bullshit.

For a rebuttal of that myth see npr:
[https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/to...](https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-
five-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted)

This dates back to a time where a farmer planted 95% GM canola on his field
without a license, and when Monsanto told him that he had no right to do so he
said it all blew onto his field.

~~~
phkahler
That doesn't change the fact that they tried to sue him. And to correct the
parent post, it's patent infringement not copyright violation.

------
skywhopper
I don't follow the GMO debate closely, so I can't really say anything
interesting about the data presented here, but it's interesting to me that
these sorts of articles never talk about the larger systemic risks which I
personally find to be by far the more salient argument.

Sure GMO products are probably safe to eat, and it's pretty obviously in
farmers' immediate economic interest to use them. But what about the risks of
agricultural monoculture? How diverse is the GMO and non-GMO corn that's grown
around the world, and what are the trends in that diversity? What about trends
in diversity of staple crops in general? How fast can the GMO industry react
when a new blight or weed or bug comes along that's immune to the built-in
resistance?

Finally, this article is published on a site that's devoted to promoting GMO
foods. So, take its claims with a grain of salt. They may be entirely right,
but an advocacy site is not going to post an article that questions the
premise of its very existence. So from the point of view of trying to learn
about the subject, this is probably a really poor place to start.

~~~
sampo
> But what about the risks of agricultural monoculture?But what about the
> risks of agricultural monoculture?

Most of agriculture, GMO and non-GMO alike, is monoculture. It was monoculture
long before GMOs were even invented.

------
Asdfbla
Maybe linking to the study itself instead of a pro-GMO lobbying site or at
least to some popular science news without an agenda would be the safer
choice.

------
maxxxxx
You just have to look at the domain name and you already know that this is
backed by someone with a clear agenda and probably paid by lobbyists. I don't
know why they all have to name their domains in the same style. Must be SEO I
guess.

------
super-serial
The Union of Concerned Scientists says the exact opposite. One is funded by
industry, the other from individual contributions. I know which one I think is
right.

[https://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-
food...](https://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-
system/genetic-engineering/failure-to-yield.html#.Wow_h71MGEc)

~~~
baud147258
Being funded by the public doesn't mean the studies won't be biased. Just as
the study proposed might have been biased, since it's financed by GMO
producers, your study could be biased because of an agenda of the members
doing the study or pressure from the bigger funders or commercial interests.

As an aside, it does not mean that the study you linked is wrong, I'm trying
to say that everyone can be subject to bias.

------
ebbv
This is like saying “100 years of data confirms coal provides lots of power
cheaply!”

Yeah, we know. That was never the issue and it’s a red herring from the real
issues. For GMOs there’s multiple issues with the licensing programs and how
it affects farmers. But more importantly to me is the potential side effects
in terms of these new strains going wild or interbreeding or being a
monoculture that is potentially extremely succeptible to future problems and
in the long run makes our food supply weaker instead of stronger. (See banana
fungus problems, which is not due to GMO but due to the banana supply being a
monoculture.)

Also saying broadly “GMOs are safe to eat!” seems as naive to me as broadly
saying “GMOs are not safe to eat.” It totally depends on what is being
modified and how.

~~~
kickout
Although i disagree with your undertone (GMOs are unsafe), i think you bring
up valid points--Wide range in what is being modified, and how, makes all the
difference in the world

~~~
Klathmon
See I didn't get that from their comment (that GMOs are unsafe), I understood
it as the user is worried about unknown unknowns with it.

Even the best things in life have downsides, and GMOs are no exception. I
think there is a literal solution to world hunger here, but it needs to be
done carefully and with a lot of oversight.

The last thing I want is DRM in my potatoes...

~~~
kickout
Correct. At the scale of the _world_ and feeding it, there will be drawbacks
to whatever solutions. I agree there needs to be oversight and proper
regulations. But GMOs, to me, unfairly suffer compared to every other
technology. Nobody was calling for bans on cell phones in the early 2000s
because they might cause brain cancer (and are an environmental disaster).
Silicon valley type tech seems to get the benefit of the doubt, while
agriculture innovation is still fighting perception with already accepted
truths (GMOs are safe)

~~~
jacquesm
> Nobody was calling for bans on cell phones in the early 2000s because they
> might cause brain cancer

Actually, plenty of people were and even now there are studies being done in
order to 'prove the negative'.

------
dna_polymerase
Regarding GMO and health benefits it may be interesting for others to read
about Golden Rice [0]. Especially interesting is this line: "In June 2016, 107
Nobel laureates signed a letter urging Greenpeace and its supporters to
abandon their campaign against GMOs, and against Golden Rice in particular."

Greenpeace has much publicity and their uneducated views are sadly picked up
by media without further investigation. As the post linked here shows, GMOs
are not the evil thing people usually connect it with, and people developing
them don't seem to want to kill/poison/whatever the world.

[0]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice)

------
kickout
Just for the non-GMO/non-multinational crowd out there... there exists many
corn/soy varieties which do not have transgenes in them and have reasonable
yield performance...

And yet, the market shrugs. These GMOs are providing value and the ones
currently deregulated may been proven safe for humans (by a long shot in my
opinion). The environmental claims are more complex, but farmers were spraying
nasty, nasty stuff 50+ years ago. That does not scale well

------
NoGravitas
So, I started looking into this, just based on the very shady domain name of
the place it was published.

The [original Italian study][0] that the article is promoting is __probably
__worth paying attention to. It was published in Scientific Reports, Nature 's
open-access mega-journal. Their peer review is generally considered solid,
though they do also offer a fast-track for a fee.

The Genetic Literacy Project, though, is a fully-industry-funded public
relations mill, as discussed in [this Chicago Tribune article][1] In this
thread, jacquesm provides a link to [a Mother Jones article about the industry
connections of the sites' founder][2]. Another contributor to the site [had
his emails with Monsanto execs FOIA'ed][3].

If we take HN seriously as a news site, it might have been more appropriate to
link to the scientific paper than a PR site, especially given that the paper
is not paywalled.

[0]:
[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-21284-2](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-21284-2)

[1]: [http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-wp-blm-
monsanto-0c061...](http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-wp-blm-
monsanto-0c06199a-692b-11e5-bdb6-6861f4521205-20151002-story.html)

[2]: [https://www.motherjones.com/food/2012/02/atrazine-
syngengta-...](https://www.motherjones.com/food/2012/02/atrazine-syngengta-
tyrone-hayes-jon-entine/)

[3]: [https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2303691-kevin-
folta-...](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2303691-kevin-folta-
uoffloridadocs.html#document/p10/a237532)

------
wavefunction
I'm more concerned about the legal implications of GMO crops and the way it's
played out with massive agriculture corporations vs farmers.

I think there's also been a corresponding spike in human-consumed glyphospates
that GMO proponents conveniently overlook.

[https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-
abstract/26583...](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-
abstract/2658306)

------
jbeales
The TL;DR:

There are 2 types of GMO corn: Insect Resistant and Glyphosate Resistant,
(Glyphosate is a herbicide, so it can be sprayed on fields killing weeds but
not resistant corn).

Corn resistant to pests has less loss, therefore higher yield. Also, since
there's less insect damage, there's less chance for rot, and therefore fewer
mycotoxins, (mycotoxins = toxins that come from fungus). It also hasn't been
sprayed with as many pesticides as a non-resistant variety would be, so
there's less actual poison on the corn.

Corn with no competition from weeds has higher yield, and glyphosate makes it
really easy to kill everything else in the field.

More corn = more food = better health.

Let's pick this apart a bit!

Ignoring the lobbyist domain, since the study also appears in Nature[1], there
are some sneaky twists here:

> GMO corn crops had lower percentages of mycotoxins (-28.8 percent),
> fumonisins (-30.6 percent) and thricotecens (−36.5 percent), all of which
> can lead to economic losses and harm human and animal health

Fumonisins are a class of mycotoxins, so that 30.6% reduction is already
included in the 28.8% reduction of mycotoxins.

The word "Thricotecens" only appears in Google as part of this study, and
isn't in my computer's dictionary. Is there a scientist that can explain what
it is? Is it another sub-group of mycotoxins?

Is it a good idea to be consuming corn that grew up with glyphosate[2] in the
fields? It seems pretty poisonous, and I didn't see anything about balancing
the benefits of more corn vs. less glyphosate.

We can also talk about if having more corn in our diet is really a good idea
if we want, (spoiler: generally no, especially if you live in North America).

[1][https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-21284-2](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-21284-2)
[2][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate)

~~~
yorwba
Thricotecens is probably a misspelling of Trichothecenes, which are
mycotoxins:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichothecene](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichothecene)

~~~
jbeales
From the Wikipedia link: "Trichothecenes are a very large family of chemically
related mycotoxins produced by various species of Fusarium, Myrothecium,
Trichoderma, ..."

Wikipedia says that Fumosins also come from Fusarium, so it looks like one
particular group of mycotoxins is reduced.

Granted, Fusarium is a problem in gardens all over, (Fusarium Wilt will kill
almost any food plant), but still, if all we're doing is sort-of beating one
particular plant ailment it might be worth a cost-benefit analysis,
externalizing as little as possible.

------
forgingahead
What is the claim here? That yields increase? Ok, sure.

That it reduces specific contaminants? Maybe.

That it provides health BENEFITS? Definitely not.

That it is SAFE in the long run? Definitely not.

~~~
forgingahead
To all you chaps asking for "proof", just think about it from the
precautionary principle perspective: it's incumbent on those introducing large
change into a complex system to prove the lack of harm, instead of us proving
that there definitely will be harm.

A simple analogy:

We don't know for a fact that climate change can result in catastrophic
disaster for the earth. But from a precautionary perspective, we need to do
what we can to minimize our impact on the environment.

Similarly, the first few years of smoking a cigarette will show "no harm".
However in the long run that is not the case.

GMOs are frankly too new, and too risky a proposition to blindly accept, even
given so-called "expert" opinions. I also don't buy the sensational title,
that GMOs "provide health benefits". The article makes claim about reducing
contaminants, but it's a bridge too far to go all the way into "health
benefits" territory.

I fully expect the down-voting from the Monsanto and GMO shills, but for the
reasonable, independent readers, hopefully some of the above points make
sense.

~~~
slavik81
To be clear, you support GMOs that have only had small changes made to them,
but are opposed to those with large changes? Or are you opposed to all GMOs
regardless of how large the change is?

