(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/genetically-modified-soy_b_544575.html)In the midst of the Monsanto court case, groundbreaking GMO research was released to the press this past week. On April 20th, Jeffrey Smith of the Institute for Responsible Technology reported on the matter for the Huffington Post.
Biologist Alexy Surov had conducted a routine joint-study by the Institute of Ecology and Evolution (of the Russian Academy of Sciences) and the National Association for Gene Security exploring the impacts of diet on hamsters. Over a two year period hamster lineages were assigned to test groups fed varying amounts of Monsanto's GM soy. Although a typical study, the results were anything but. By the third generation, there was a marked difference between hamsters fed almost exclusively GM soy and those who received none. Those on the maximum GM diet had lost "the ability to have babies. . . suffered slower growth rates, and high mortality rate among the pups". Perhaps one of the most bizarre characteristics seen in maximum GM hamsters was increased incidence of hair growing in the mouth. While the occurrence may have resulted from the stress of living in a laboratory, this normally rare condition was seen in unprecedented high numbers.
Although remarkably ominous, Surov himself warns against jumping to conclusions too quickly. He attests that in addition to GM differences, the crops may also have unusually high levels of the herbicide Roundup. Further research is essential before any concrete causal relationships can be determined.
Despite the groundbreaking nature of Surov's study, he is not the first to reveal the potentially detrimental impacts of a GM diet on animals. Since their introduction in 1996, evidence against GM's has sprouted up around the world: from experiments on rats in Russia to Iowan pig and Indian buffalo farmers. A study at Baylor College of Medicine even discovered that rats living in GM corncob bedding "neither breed nor exhibit reproductive behavior". In each instance heavy GM diets were correlated with high infant mortality, damaged sperm, and frequent abortions.
However, far from utilizing these findings as a jumping-off point for further research into the potential health impacts of GMO's, these scientists face harsh criticism. In the case of Russian scientist Irina Ermakova, her results on GM soy's impacts on rats led to the trashing of her office, ridicule, and orders to cease doing any GMO research. As such, there has been little incentive to conduct further research or support within the scientific community.
Class Connections:
First and foremost, this piece screams blatant disregard for the precautionary principle. Although the European Union has decided GMO's are guilty until proven innocent, American industry has welcomed the technology with open arms. Current FDA regulations place the responsibility for ensuring GMO safety on the very companies that produce them. With profits on the line, there is little incentive to conduct research showing their product could have adverse affects. Implementing new GM technology under this regime means that long-term and widespread testing isn't conducted in the lab but rather on consumers. This means that we won't discover the true impacts GMO's can have on our health until it may be too late. Human health should be our topmost priority, not Monsanto's profits.
This recent development also plays directly into our discussion of the role of science in making environmental policy. It asks the question: is perfect knowledge necessary before action? GMO issues mirror those of mercury a couple decades ago; a marked lack of regulation despite scientific research showing its necessity. Our current GMO regulations are operating under the decisionist model of policy making: "The deliberations and judgments of the scientific or technical experts follow from the judgments of politicians" (Hulme). When studies showing the negative health impacts from GMO's are released, they are met not with additional funding and policy movement, but political backlash (due to strong farm lobbies??). Scientists like Irina Ermakova find themselves pressured away from their GMO research. Although this approach supports political agenda it forces scientific data to take a backseat.
Considering this recent development from a consumer standpoint it may become an environmental justice issue. While better labeling would allow consumers to transition towards a healthier organic and GMO-free diet, that's only true so far as it's affordable. Those without economic means may be left with few options except consuming GM food. This economic disparity disproportionately places the adverse health impacts on low-income or uneducated sects of our population. GMO's are an unseen environmental hazard that will negatively impact these communities from the inside out, from the very food they eat.
My Thoughts:
In addition to making me question what I'm eating for dinner, this article made me re-evaluate the role of science in making environmental policy. As an aspiring scientist myself, I think it is time the scientific community took a stronger stance about getting their "unfavorable" findings included in policy making. It is time for researchers to stop acting as pure scientists who just discover findings and leave it be and become active participants. Whether this should take the form of Hulme's "honest brokers" (who lay out all options) or "issue advocates" I don't know, but something's got to give. Important scientific research shouldn't be forced to take second stage. All valid findings should be given equal weight in making policy. It should not be a matter of whose research is more politically favorable but rather what is going to protect the health of our children.
Works Cited:
Hulme, M. "The Performance of Science." Why We Disagree about Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UP, 2009
No comments:
Post a Comment