I look forward to reading ‘Tomorrow’s Table,’ which advocates a joint use of RESPONSIBLY MANAGED GM crops and organic farming, for maximum yield with minimum impact… I don’t necessarily think it has to be all one way or the other. But the way that GM technology has been handled to date has been, imo, wildly irresponsible… and that’s squarely on Monsanto. I think we’re suckers if we don’t notice and comment on that.

Sorry to go on; it’s late, and there’s some paperwork I’m trying to avoid…

Thanks for the comment. I’m very concerned about ethics as well. I would say we are a long way from knowing that the recent GMO corn study has surfaced an ethical problem. The Bt corn in the study has probably saved many lives by reducing aflatoxin and fumonisin in the food supply. That study does not even begin to “prove” any negative effects. I just had lunch yesterday with the world expert on the extent to which Greenpeace and the EU in general are responsible for blocking all sorts of technology for poor African farmers (not just GMO). To me that is a much bigger ethics issue

James,
I don’t really think it is a red herring. The French study is also about food safety

Jess,
Before I really weigh in on that study I’m going to talk to several actual toxicologists. The interpretation of high-rate feeding studies is always tricky. I would actually like to see raw data or at least understand the statistics used.

Derek,
Very interesting comment. I guess I see this not as an argument between environmentalists and the bad guys (in their) book and more as a debate about what environmentalism is. I think there is a branch of it that tends towards anti-human. That is why I was glad to see a recent release from Greenpeace saying they might need to re-think their position on things like Golden Rice

I like your Italian Mother analogy

Thanks for the heads-up on mycotoxins! I would like to see another post with more info on the strategies employed by modern(rich) vs. old(poor) peoples for dealing with these problems from a food storage and agro. Perspective, if you had the time.

I would offer up the idea that the confusion over the ‘logic’ of environmental movement campaigning is misplaced …it is not a rational ‘left-brain’ cool analysis of available evidence the way we scientists would like. I think that it is more a ‘first-principles’ position which is then rationalized onto everything else.

That first-principle is that man makes up ideas and then forces his view of reality onto the world; instead of man letting his view of the world conform to ‘nature’ and hence living in ‘harmony’ with it.

The reason why environmentalists seem to be at such loggerheads with just about everything is that the predominant world view (religious, while at the same time not dependant on any one religion) is that man is special and in particular his brain and hence ideas allow for the ‘re-making’ of the world around him. For this reason environmentalists are always mad, or lashing out at seemingly bizarre and small things, or their anger is misplaced (such as in this study).

To them a piece of concrete is a ‘blasphemy’ against nature, as nature makes perfectly good stone, so why do we not use that, changing the way we build rather than changing the ‘nature’ of rock to simplify building.

I think that when seen by this light the answer to your question is ‘the source’, but it is much deeper then ‘Corporate vs. Mother Nature’.

The ‘Friend or Foe’ header is maybe a little too black/white …I like to think of her more like a big fat Italian Mother harsh and demanding with a wooden spoon at the ready any time anyone does something stupid, but also full of acquired knowledge willing to share it if only we would stop running around trying to steal a fist full of sugar or warm cookie all the time.

I agree with the previous commenter. Shocking that the mycotoxin issue goes unreported, but only peripherally related to the concerns raised by the Monsanto corn issue. And while I think people do need to understand the basic concepts of relative risk, part of the problem is that when it appears that corporations, the government, or any other entity are being secretive about the relevant information, it makes it very difficult to make personal decisions based on risk-tolerance.