Bill Nye recently did a Q&A with reddit and made some claims about GMOs as part of his promotion of his new book, Undeniable: Evolution and the Science of Creation. Given that he’s a science communicator with large influence on the public, we should take a close look at what he has to say. Knigel Holmes collected some key quotes:
Genetically engineering food is controversial, as it should be. If you’re asking me, we should stop introducing genes from one species into another, while at the same time taking full advantage of our ability to understand the genome of any organism—plant, animal, or fungus — in order to produce the healthiest, most sustainable food system possible. Here’s why: Although we can know exactly what happens to any organism we modify, we just can’t quite know what will happen to other species in that modified organism’s ecosystem. For me this is a big deal, though some other investigators don’t seem to find it as troubling. What I mean is we can determine with great confidence what will happen to the modified organism, i.e. the corncob, the soybean, the canola bean, the papaya, and the tomato. But, we just cannot be certain what effect a GMO will have on the ecosystem.
Read for original article: Book Review: Bill Nye’s GMO claims in ‘Undeniable: Evolution and the Science of Creation’
Note: Keith Kloor writing in Discover has some additional quotes from Nye and offers his perspective on Nye’s odd comments at: Bill Nye Explains Why he is a GMO Skeptic
A mechanism!! My kingdom for a mechanism, Mr. Nye.
Recombination. Syngamy. Growth. Selection. Adaptation.
Is an allele more than an allele if it is a foreign allele? No.
Mr. Eaton, what is the exact problem with gene spread and adaptation that surely you must be meaning? All this is the normal case, sir.
It’s disheartening to see a great science communicator of our time turn so blindly from science. He doesn’t deny scientific consensus when it comes to global warming or evolution, but apparently, when it comes to GMOs it’s okay to ignore the mountains of evidence showing that they aren’t a problem.
Whoa here! Your statement is unfair because he added a wise concern: community change. I too am pro-GMO, seeing NO INHERENT problem with transpositions, but I have long had the concern about the selectivity changes that are inevitable with phenotypic difference. That is to say because we do not know of difficulties, we should not assume there are none.
Whether “once is enough” as some do-not-rock-the-boaters believe or we should press for better is about vision and courage, not science. Nye’s concern for communities is warranted.
Nye’s comments make me wonder if he’s aware of the risk assessments conducted for GM crops. USDA is required to conduct an analysis of how its decision to deregulate will affect the human environment under NEPA. Countries around the world conduct similar assessments when they review a new GM crop. These assessments are conducted with public input and if Nye has a concern he should share it with those agencies. I would also expect that someone like him could easily get an audience with USDA to learn more about the science.
The bitter over the top anti-Nye attitude here is just silly. One would think reason itself was under attack from this hyperbole. NO credible evidence pro or con gene spread’s outcomes exists for more than seasonal trials–look it up and talk me down if that which you say exists actually negates Nye’s points.
Wonder if Bill ever read this from the National Academy of Sciences;
“There is no evidence that unique hazards exist either in the use of rDNA techniques or in the movement of genes between unrelated organisms.”
I guess not, pity
His reasoning is astonishing flawed on this subject. I don’t know what to make of it, given his background.
Do consumers have a right to know if a food products contains one or more GMO ingredients?
Bit off-topic, but… my personal view: sure. Which is not the same as demonizing by mandatory labels which introduce the presumption that being GMO is a bad thing: detailing the production process in detail in the small print on the packet, or even as publicly accessible information on the producer’s website would be fine by me.
Producers which go out of the way to (more expensively) produce an explicit GMO-free product are typically keen to volunteer that information prominently on their packaging, so assuming that there might be some GMO ingredient in products without such a voluntary label is probably not a bad starting point for those who care. You’d pay for it, though, and there’s ludicrously good data indicating that it won’t have any effect — I’d use the saved pennies to buy something of better quality rather than GMO-free, and be more intrigued by how much of what herbicides are sprayed on organic veg, than whether there are GMO ingredients. But that’s just me.
Sure they do. Just as they have the right to know whether their vegetables & grains was harvested via John Deere Tractors versus Caterpillar ones, or where their meat was butchered using Black & Decker, or Skilcraft power tools…
He’s anti-science and a science denier.
Why do proponents always ignore the real threat from GMO foods?…. the increased levels of herbicides (ie-Roundup contains glyphosate & 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid).. which accumulate in organs. Also, the science that says these chemicals are ok is fundamentally flawed. I was reading on the EPA and USDA websites today about what and how they test to determine safety of these chemicals in our food. They do test 4 different commercial chemical variations of glyphosate individually (if I understand it correctly, for a test period of 3 months), but not the formulations that they are actually used in when they are applied to crops… in other words, they do not really know what the long-term health effects are of residual amounts of these chemicals in our foods.
Debating the risk of using gene splicing techniques aside – (though often times, it is not just the one target gene that is transferred, but rather dozens or hundreds of genes can be transferred as a block… and who really knows what long-term effects might emerge from that if they aren’t looking for them)…
Putting that aside as a separate argument… the fact that 90% of our corn, soy, wheat and sugar produced in the US is a ‘Round-Up Ready’ seed that is heavily treated with glyphosate and 2,4-D all through it’s life cycle, and up to day of harvest… that means a lot more of those chemical residues are in our food… even organic foods become contaminated from spray drift, soil and groundwater saturation etc.
Hey! – aren’t we supposed to have a choice here?
All of this BS about the merits or dangers of GMO crops is missing the point if it ignores all of the added toxic chemicals they require to grow them… or the health effects on humans, animals, pollinating insects, etc. GMO proponents are only making half an argument, at best. If the pro-GMO crowd think those chemicals are safe to eat… go ahead, pour some RoundUp on your Corn Flakes.. or better yet, some DDT – Monsanto paid scientists to prove that was safe to eat too! Just don’t force the rest of us to.