“What better way to discredit your critics than to rope in 107 naive Nobel Prize winners (all without relevant expertise) to criticize your opposition?”

— Ted Greiner, anti-GMO wootard

When I need information about topics on which I’m ignorant, or mostly ignorant (which is most everything), I turn to experts. That’s certainly true of medical issues—should I be taking a statin? what should I do about a persistent cough? lightheadedness? Talk to my doctor, see what on-line medical information services like WebMD or Harvard Medical School have to say. And almost always, adopt a course of action based on the recommendations of those folks who have made my particular issue their life’s work.

Experts don’t always agree, of course. You can probably find as many on the “pro” as on the “con” side of such issues as nuclear power, annual mammograms and carbon offsets. But on many matters, the preponderance of experts on one side is so great compared to the opposing side that it would just be perverse to side with the minority point of view.

I was reminded of this with the recent news item that 110 Nobel Prize winners backed a statement claiming that “Scientific and regulatory agencies around the world have repeatedly and consistently found crops and foods improved through biotechnology [i.e. GMOs] to be as safe as, if not safer than those derived from any other method of production.”

To put this in perspective, there are nearly 300 living Nobel laureates, so when over a third of them agree about anything — these are brightest and the best, as judged by their peers — I’m impressed. It’s not a slam-dunk, nothing ever is, but, since GMOs are outside my field of expertise (I’m a civil engineer), I don’t sniff at their statement.

Which is pretty much what the anti-GMO community has done. None of them has the “relevant expertise,” according to rabid anti-GMO activist Ted Greiner. Since there is no Nobel Prize for genetic manipulation (!) and its ramifications, the next best — chemistry, physics, medicine, economics — will have to do. These are the fields in which all but one of the signatories won their prize. More to the point, these are scientists, for crissake! What distinguishes scientists from laypeople is this: they’ve been trained to evaluate evidence. This is what they’re good at, and if you’re going to be invited to make that trip to Stockholm, you’re really, really good at it. Simply put, these laureates (who claim, for instance, that GMOs have never been implicated in a single negative health outcome) are scientists who have distinguished themselves by their ability to separate likely-truth from likely-bullshit.

(Another prize-winning trait is the ability to think independently. The idea that they can be roped in, as Greiner asserts, is ludicrous to anyone who knows anything about science.)

Greenpeace (my Greenpeace, to whom I’ve donated how much over the years?!) was singled out for special treatment for its opposition to GMO “Golden Rice.” The statement said, “We urge Greenpeace and its supporters to re-examine the experience of farmers and consumers worldwide with crops and foods improved through biotechnology.”

The presence of Beta-carotene, source of vitamin A, gives Golden Rice its hue. (International Rice Research Institute, Creative Commons license)

Greenpeace’s official response was curious: “Golden Rice has failed as a solution and isn’t currently available for sale, even after more than 20 years of research.” (Actually it’s 10 years since the current strain of the rice was released for study; on average, it takes 13 years to bring a new crop to market. Don’t they want it to succeed?) Greenpeace went on, “Corporations are overhyping Golden Rice to pave the way for global approval of other more profitable genetically engineered crops.” Do you get the feeling that Greenpeace is really pissed that Monsanto and the other developers donated their patent rights for free? Yeah, all sorts of shit can go down in the future, and Monsanto (like Whole Foods, another $15 billion a year industry) may actually want to make a profit. The horror of it.

Meanwhile, kids are going blind and dying. The World Health Organization estimates 250 million people in third world countries suffer from vitamin A deficiency, which is what Golden Rice is designed to counter. 40% of kids under five suffer from the deficiency, the leading cause of childhood blindness. About half die within a year of going blind. Current efforts to provide vitamin A in capsule form aren’t working well, for a whole bunch of political, religious and economic reasons. According to goldenrice.org “…around 45% of children around the world are not reached by supplementation programs..” If Golden Rice fulfills its promise, it offers a long-term sustainable solution to vitamin A deficiency.

You don’t want to ingest GMO foods? Knock yourself out. (You’ve been eating GMO foods for a couple of decades, unless you’ve been avoiding 75% of what’s on supermarket shelves.*) You’ll pay a bit more for the “Non-GMO” labeled foods, but hey, it’s a free country…

…unlike many of the nations where Golden Rice has the potential to literally be a lifesaver, making childhood in developing places such as Bangladesh and sub-Saharan Africa a little more certain, a little less painful.

Greenpeace’s original Rainbow Warrior, when the organization was in its heyday of protesting French nuclear tests in the Pacific. (Hans van Dijk, Creative Commons license)

* Actually, everything we eat has been genetically manipulated one way or another—there are no “natural” foods anymore.

###

Barry Evans gave the best years of his life to civil engineering, and what thanks did he get? In his dotage, he travels, kayaks, meditates and writes for the Journal and the Humboldt Historian. He sucks at 8 Ball. Buy his Field Notes anthologies at any local bookstore. Please.