Over at the Ethicurean, Bonnie posted an interview with Claire Hope Cummings, that I think bears examination. Cummings is the author of the book Uncertain Peril: Genetic Engineering and the Future of Seeds, and goes on to make several ghastly claims. Not only factual errors, but really fallacious reasoning as well. I left a lengthy comment over there, but I will reproduce it here with some of the text of the interview.

Genetically modifying a plant severs its relationship to its evolutionary course, and inserts into it, by force - using a gene gun or bacteria - some human idea of what the plant should do. The technology is limited both by its violent nature and our imagination. We’re rearranging the molecular structure of these plants because we think we know how this plant should be used. Why, instead of breeding plants with traditional methods and relying on the plant’s own carefully created system for say, drought resistance, would you use a much more expensive, unpredictable process like genetic engineering?

The argument that genetic engineering is wrong because it involves “force” (or guns) while plant breeding does not is not only based on false information but also a fallacious argument about how to gauge morality. First, plant breeding involves “force” just as much as genetic engineering - plants are forced to cross with each other by breeders. They are forced to cross with other varieties that flower at different times and would otherwise not do so, or with other species in the same genus, or even across genuses. The numbers of chromosomes are increased, and molecular markers are used to make sure that certain genes end up in the progeny of each cross - There is no less “force” involved.

The fallacious moral argument is twofold. First, plants are not sentient beings, and it makes no sense to talk about the plants being “forced” to do anything - in language that would be more suited to describing child labor. Second, the fact that a gene gun is used in some instances to introduce the transgenes doesn’t make that act take on some sort of immoral flavor - loud bangs to not an immoral act make. The same goes for bacteria - the idea that whenever you involve bacteria in something means it must be wrong would make yogurt manufacturers guilty of something horrifically wrong.

Plant Breeding steers plants away from their “evolutionary course” all the same - so I think this author could stand to educate herself about the relevant biology. The most human-modified parts of our crops are the most useful to us - large leaves, tubers, fruit, etc. Crops didn’t fall out of the sky - we’ve been manipulating their genetics indirectly (today, far more precisely) for millenia. The idea that evolution produces delicious, nutritious, and productive foods for us on it’s own is an idea equivalent to creationist beliefs - not only wrong in its understanding of evolution, but wrong in the origin of these important plants.

Why do it? It seems that the author is suggesting that scientists working in universities around the country are stupid. Don’t they realize that if you let the plant alone it will do everything you need it to do on its own? Why spend all that money? Because you can only achieve a particular genetic improvement if the trait you are looking for exists in the gene pool. Drought tolerance can indeed be found in wild relatives (some force required) and some varieties in gene banks. But all crop species? The reason why transgenic approaches are favored in many cases is that the trait does not exist in any known accessions or compatible wild species.

The author is too simplistic by reducing it all to the money factor. There are biological reasons why transgenics are being used in many of these cases. The commodity crops were the first to be engineered because they promised the highest immediate returns - so there is some truth to what she said about the economics of commodity crops.

For example, Monsanto owns so much of the world’s cotton seed supply now that cotton farmers cannot get conventional [non-GM] seed. It is simply not offered.

That is not true in the least - otherwise there would be no such thing as organic cotton. The idea that conventional seeds are unavailable shows that the author has never picked up a seed catalog and looked. Here’s the first hit I got on Google: http://www.deltaandpine.com/ They sell non-engineered cotton.

The point of GMOs is control over seeds for profit.

Yes, the whole point of:

• Golden Rice for increased beta-carotene and
• Tomatoes for higher folate content and
• Carrots (and other crops) with higher calcium bioavailability and
• Maize with higher iron bioavailability and
• Submergence tolerant rice and
• Virus-resistant papaya

- were all developed or are being developed by university researchers because they want to control the world’s seeds for profit. Sure. /sarcasm

Seed companies are looking to make a bunch of money - that is beyond doubt. The author makes the argument here that the seed companies just want to control the world’s seeds. Right, but wrong. They want to control the seed market. That means that they want to be the ones that farmers buy their seeds from rather than their competitors. The first GE crops were engineered with traits that the farmers were interested in, which goes against the argument that this is being forced on them. But when the patents run out on the particular seeds involved - they can be saved and grown by anyone. They’re not ‘controlled’ anymore.

Here’s an interesting question, (which I would like to pose to my readers) if companies like Monsanto and Pioneer make a large part of their money off of selling farm inputs such as pesticides, why are these two companies working on genetically engineered traits that will undercut and eliminate the sales of their own chemicals? If you understand the economics of this field, you’ll get it.

There have been several books that have come out recently about genetic engineering. Claire Hope Cummings’ doesn’t look like it will be a very informed one.

(One thing I did not say in my comment at the Ethicurean is how the argument that the seeds are being forced on farmers is also suggesting that they are either stupid or unwilling to grow them otherwise. GE crops have one of the highest adoption rates for any crop improvement - higher than hybrid corn which is often considered one of the greatest agricultural innovations. That’s simply too many farmers to call stupid or helpless.)

Spread this Inoculation:

11 Comments to "Cummings uninformed about biology"

• On 07/04/2008 at 14:27 nosmokes said:

  I sduggest you do a bit of research on Monsanto and GMOs. Golden Rice, one of the GMO wonders you cite is nothing more than a PR attempt by the AgBiotech industry. to get enough beta carotene out of Golden Rice to make the nutritional impact of a carrot
  one would hafta consume more than 2K of the transgenic rice. Far better that the money go into sanitation and clean water instead of more corporate accounts don’t you think?

• On 07/04/2008 at 17:12 Karl J. Mogel said:

  Golden Rice is not an industry project, it is a publicly-funded and run project to bring needed pro-vitamin A to people in developing countries (particularly children) at no cost to them. The seeds would be made available and there will be no restrictions on saving the seeds. No biotech companies are making money off of Golden Rice.

  I encourage you to check out the golden rice project homepage at http://www.goldenrice.org where they debunk many of the myths about golden rice. I’ve heard both the claim that the amount of vitamin A in golden rice is insignificant and also that there’s so much of it that it would poison people. Both are completely false.

  The recommended daily allowance (RDA) of vitamin A for 1-3 year-old children is 300 µg (half the RDA is enough to maintain vitamin A at a normal, healthy level). Based on a retinol equivalency ratio for β-carotene of 12:1, half the RDA would be provided in 72 g of the new-generation Golden Rice. This is perfectly compatible with rice consumption levels in target countries, which lie at 100-200 g of rice per child per day.

  Over at the Ag Biodiviersity Weblog, one of the people involved in the project stepped in to clear up the misconceptions surrounding it.

  Is 70g of rice per day an awful lot in countries where people eat between 200-400 g per day? That’s what the new version of Golden Rice can do. Please, get an update on your facts.
  BW, Jorge

  Jeremy corrected himself in a following post, although still remained skeptical that it was a good idea. BUT, his skepticism was rooted in other arguments, because the scientific ones were false. That is perfectly fine - let the political and social arguments be political and social and not taint the scientific ones.

  Here’s an interesting question, how do false bits of information like this spread even though they could easily be looked up? I’d like to suggest that they are being tied to other beliefs that people are not as willing to reconsider. Notice how you mentioned that this is all a corporate PR attempt. There are a lot of critics of ag biotech that are framing this as a corporation vs public interest debate, when in this case no company is profiting. Ag biotech critics generally refuse to consider the many publicly-funded transgenic projects, some of which I listed off the top of my head above. My suggestion is that the inaccurate description of genetic engineering as just a private enterprise [rule the world scheme] feeds off of anti-corporate views and prevents people from actually considering the scientific information there is.

  Claire Hope Cummings, for example, is a lawyer. So she is viewing things in the terms that a lawyer would view them, not as a biologist. Hence, she is (as I pointed out in my post) not very knowledgeable about the biology involved, and is framing things in terms of money and corporations, which is misleading.

  The point is, these political tie-ins are compelling people to promote scientifically false information, because they would like the political ideas to be true. It is very similar to how creationists mislead about scientific information because they don’t want their religious beliefs to be overturned by them. That says nothing about the validity of anti-corporate sentiments (I refuse to shop at Wal-Mart, for example), but it is a dangerous way to determine what is true scientifically.

  Sanitation and clean water are both very worthwhile goals, including building the local economy. None of these things have to be in conflict!

• On 07/05/2008 at 16:01 Matilda said:

  couldnt you get vitamin A by planting other crops in a step away from monocultures,
  couldnt this issue be solved by more biodiversity?

  just interested in why you think this would be the most positive route.

• On 07/05/2008 at 20:26 Karl J. Mogel said:

  I’m not sure about it being the most positive route. I think we need to pursue multiple strategies simultaneously, so as to not put our eggs in one basket. Convincing people to eat foods foreign to them could run into cultural barriers so other crops such as palm, sweet potatoes, carrots, may not reach everyone. Conversely, golden rice may not reach everyone either, because people may be resistant to eating orange colored rice when they are used to white rice. (The same issue has come up for an iron-rich red colored rice)

  Ultimately, more diverse crops are the goal, because if children are missing Vitamin A, people could be missing (or could soon be missing) other important nutrients. But there’s an economic barrier that keeps many poor people in those countries from being able to afford those other crops, whereas

  What I have noticed is that some of the people calling for more diverse approaches are simultaneously calling for eliminating one approach - that is golden rice. This doesn’t make sense if more diverse approaches are desired. What it seems to me is that golden rice is being argued against (and apparently by the reports of Cummings’ book, it is being called a mere PR move - a humanitarian hoax) because it involves genetic engineering.

  The whole discussion at the Ag biodiversity weblog started when Jeremy was promoting “Golden Maize,” a project to bring beta-carotene to developing countries, particularly in Africa. This project is being run by Ed Buckler, a scientist I know at Cornell (who incidentally has listened to my show), who I interviewed in Episode 77 of my show - you can listen to the interview to hear more about it. Anyway, I pointed out how a single-nutrient approach that was achieved through regular plant breeding was being favored, whereas a single-nutrient approach involving genetic engineering was being criticized.

  What I am noticing more and more is that certain arguments are being used as arguments for convenience against genetic engineering alone. It’s like when politicians trot out the old States-Rights vs Federal-Rights debate. At one moment, a political party in the national minority says “This issue should be decided by the states!” and when they gain national majority they call it a Federal issue.

  I’m glad you asked me the question because when defending projects that involve genetic engineering, it can sound like someone (like myself) is an all-biotech-or-stay-home person, when my primary objection is that people are making these decisions based not on scientific reasons, but instead on other reasons that are being hidden behind scientific-sounding arguments.

  I plan to write much more on this topic, and I hope you’ll stick around. Actually, I just came across some fantastic news about the Bio-Cassava project, run by a scientist I had on my show previously. They’re using genetic engineering and plant breeding to vastly improve the nutritional value of cassava, an important African crop. I’m going to see about a followup!

• On 07/05/2008 at 20:58 Matilda said:

  thank you for your response, one more little question

  “there’s an economic barrier that keeps many poor people in those countries from being able to afford those other crops”

  is that in production or original cost of seed? not to sound completely uninformed, but why should seeds be so expensive if the plant grows them?

• On 07/05/2008 at 21:15 Karl J. Mogel said:

  Well, not everyone is a farmer, or knows how to grow them. Certainly, educational programs designed to introduce other plants to these people will help with getting those crops out there, just like educational programs would be necessary for golden rice. But, most farmers in these countries know how to grow rice, and they would be able to grow it according to their traditional methods, (saving seed and replating each year) and the other non-farmers would be able to buy it just as easily as they buy rice at present. People who aren’t farmers, perhaps factory workers, civil servants, laborers, etc, would the market for these other crops allow them to be able to afford them? Should they wait until the economy is better to get their daily nutritional needs? My worry about other crops is that it won’t reach everyone. Golden rice may not reach everyone either, which is why multiple avenues are needed.

  As a side note, golden maize has some resistance in Africa, from the Africans it is supposed to help. Their cultural beliefs include the idea that white corn is for people, and yellow corn is for animals. I read a study where they were trying to see if they could get people to choose a whole sack of golden maize over a small bag of white maize, even after eating it, and not everyone would ‘bite.’ (But some did! It’s promising.) If simply a change in color is hard for some people to swallow, imagine incorporating a strange looking and tasting plant into the diet.

  It took Europeans forever to accept the potato - they thought it would cause leprosy. It wasn’t until rulers ordered them to grow them that the benefits of that cold-weather crop were realized. (And England and Russia may have never risen to power - check out Guns Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond for a fascinating look at how a few crop plants could mean the birth or death of nations)
  In contrast, efforts to introduce rice high in iron have not only been successful in terms of adoption, but also in alleviating anemia for a lot of people. That suggests to me that golden rice could work, too.

• On 07/07/2008 at 1:09 The Inoculated Mind » Blog Archive » Contrast these two debates said:

  [...] an interview with anti-GE activist and lawyer, Claire Hope Cummings. I immediately responded by pointing out that the interview was riddled with factual errors and one glaring logical fallacy employing a form of linguistic bias. How did this one turn [...]

• On 07/08/2008 at 15:30 Jeremy said:

  Careful Karl. In your enthusiasm you may be overstepping the mark. Ordered to grow potatoes? I don’t think so. The old Parmentier story is that he persuaded the King to place guards around the potato field, and to leave their posts at night. Obviously the locals were keen to “liberate” such valuable crops.

  And for an interesting lesson in getting people to consider a new version of a familiar food, it is worth looking at the way the VITAA project, coordinated by CIP, managed to persuade some African people that orange-fleshed sweet potatoes were preferable.

  In general, though, I think we’re in agreement.

• On 07/08/2008 at 16:46 Karl J. Mogel said:

  Thanks for stopping by, Jeremy (I fixed your comment). I remember hearing/reading the ordered-to-grow-potatoes story years ago, and you are right in suggesting that I should check these things out more carefully before printing them. So I just did a check at the Cambridge World History of Food page on Potatoes, and I found this:

  Such advantages were not lost on such European leaders as Frederick the Great, who, in 1774, commanded that potatoes be grown as a hedge against famine. Very soon afterward, however, potatoes proved to be not so safe in time of war. The War of the Bavarian Succession (1778 to 1779), nicknamed the Kartoffelkrieg (”potato war”), found soldiers living off the land, digging potatoes from the fields as they ravaged the countryside. The war ceased once the tuber supply had been exhausted (Nef 1950).

  And:

  From the middle eighteenth through nineteenth centuries, potatoes finally spread across central and eastern Europe into Russia. At the end of the seventeenth century, Tsar Peter the Great had sent a sack of potatoes home, where their production and consumption were promoted first by the Free Economic Society and, a century later, by government land grants. But “Old Believers” continued to reject potatoes as “Devil’s apples” or “forbidden fruit of Eden,” so that as late as 1840, potatoes were still resisted. When, in that year, the government ordered peasants to grow potatoes on common land, they responded with “potato riots” that continued through 1843, when the coercive policy ceased. But, in the next half-century, the potato’s obvious superiority to most grain crops and other tubers encouraged its wider growth, first as a garden vegetable and then, as it became a dietary staple, as a field crop (Toomre 1992).

  There’s a lot more in there about other factors such as wars, famine, people who happened to try potatoes out and the plants worked out for them, so it is a bit more complex than simple orders. Nevertheless, there were several instances where rulers commanded their people to grow the tubers, fighting superstitious beliefs. Such policies are surely not a model for acceptance; education, assistance, and integration of novel foods into existing diets is a much more ethical (and probably more effective) route.

• On 07/22/2008 at 19:38 Anastasia said:

  Thanks for the mention of improved iron bio availability in maize. That’s my baby!

• On 07/22/2008 at 21:51 Educating the public | Genetic Maize - Navigating the maze of GMOs said:

  [...] at Inoculated Mind has been working to debunk some biotech myths being spread by Claire Hope Cummings, author of [...]