Friday, October 17, 2014

Hypocrisy- The Soft Underbelly of Labeling Laws

Here's how you know that GMO labeling laws are just wrong-- protectionist exemptions.  In short, labeling promoters will tell you it is a necessary right to know, that GMO-based ingredients are untested, unsafe, and need labels so that they can be avoided.

Unless they are products they care about, or influence their state's economy.  Somehow those are perfectly fine.

Vermont is a wonderful example.  The recently-passed laws require foods derived from transgenic means to bear a label indicating their presence.  Labeling proponents say that foods using recombinant DNA intermediates are dangerous, untested, and should be banned!

EXCEPT... if they are used in foods Vermont makes!  




Examination of the public draft reveals the hypocrisy.  It is written so that it exempts cheese from being labeled.  The enzyme chymosin, the main entity of rennet (the concoction that causes milk to curdle) is almost exclusively derived from a transgenic (GMO) intermediate.  It used to be derived from calf stomachs, but having it produced by a transgenic microbe makes a more pure product that costs a lot less. Bottom line, cheese making almost always requires a genetically modified organism to produce an enzyme used in production.

Wait! Isn't that untested, dangerous, and with no long term studies? 

Here's how they get around the new law.  Claim that the enzyme is a "processing aid".

Under Definitions:

1.16 “Processing aid,” as defined in 9 V.S.A. § 3042, means:
(a) a substance that is added to a food during the processing of the food but
that is removed in some manner from the food before the food is packaged in its
finished form;
(b) a substance that is added to a food during processing, is converted into
constituents normally present in the food, and does not significantly increase the
amount of the constituents naturally found in the food; or
(c) a substance that is added to a food for its technical or functional effect in
the processing but is present in the finished food at levels that do not have any
technical or functional effect in that finished food.

And found under Exemptions:

3.3 Processing Aids
Processed foods that would be required to be labeled under section 2 of this rule solely
because the food includes one or more processing aids or enzymes produced with
genetic engineering.


Is Genetic Engineering Exempt Under These Definitions?

According to all definitions, the EPSPS enzyme in glyphosate-resistant crops is truly a "processing aid".


  • It is required to make the food item and is removed before the food is in its finished form. 
  • It converts products to constituents normally present in the food and does not significantly increase the amount of the constituents naturally found in the food
  • It is an enzyme, like the exempt recombinant chymosin, that has a functional effect on processing substrates that do not have any functional or technical effect on finished food. 

The bottom line is that if Vermont wants to have any credibility in its argument for labeling it must also include labeling cheese made with recombinant enzymes.  If the claim is that there's a right to know, then why deny consumers that right?  They should know what's in their food, right?   

Of course, it is perfectly acceptable to limit that right to know, when it is inconvenient to your industries. 

Sunday, October 12, 2014

The Other Side of Robyn O'Brien's Glowing Huber Review

Dr. Don M. Huber was hit by a car on October 8, which prompted Robyn O'Brien to write a glowing assessment of his mission and claims in her Healthy Bites page at Prevention.  The title is Dr. Huber's Brave Crusade Against Biotech.  I thought it would be appropriate to share a scientist's perspective, and show his angry crusade against science, reason and a certain public scientist that made him accountable for his claims.

Of course, I do wish Dr. Huber well and hope for a speedy and complete recovery. The burdens of injury in the elderly can be a challenge to the injured as well as to the family, so I hope he is well soon and without long-term consequences.  This is a difference of ideas.  Relative to science, it is critical that we find the truth about his mysterious pathogen.  If it is true, the first Edible Arrangement on his porch will be from me, and I will happily assist in further study in any way possible, as I have offered already.  If it is not true, and he has been using this ruse to frighten concerned audiences for a decade-- then I want him to admit that.  Whatever the outcome, science inevitably will shine its light on the truth, and I'm thrilled with either outcome.

O'Brien's report is consistent with my understanding of Dr. Huber through 1990 or so.  He is a father and grandfather many times over.  He maintained the title "Colonel" for 40-some years.  He was a recognized plant pathologist and an expert in his area with international reputation.  I know many people that were his students, co-authors and colleagues. They think he's lost his marbles now, and are sad to see it happen.

The Prevention article only exists because Huber makes claims, without data or evidence, that confirm O'Brien's non-scientific synthesis. Plant pathologists, like any plant biologists, are unknowns to the public, and only those (well, the one) that throw their support behind the anti-GMO movement are welcomed into their big goofy tent of misinformation.

Her article on Prevention's website is a technical train wreck. She/Huber don't have a clue how glyphosate works (that it inhibits the activity of the enzyme 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS) and is well understood).  It is not functioning by chelating divalent cations like manganese, magnesium, etc as she/he claim, at least in no major way.  The math just does not work, I could easily explain it all here, but that's science, and silly to use to counter non-scientific claims. Basically, the scientific rigor of her piece leaves lots to be desired.

Nonetheless, a picture of Huber is painted as a tireless retired academic treading against a current of angry paid-off critics and paid dupes of the agrochemical industry, and she does so with her usual effective writing and careful words that manufacture perception of risk where little, if any, exists.


Where it Starts: November 12, 2013

Dr. Huber was invited to give a talk in Gainesville, FL where I live, and I could not wait to go.  I went with another professor who specializes in organic and sustainable crop production. We're friends and lots of her local clientele would be there.  Huber gave his talk.  I recorded it on a pocket digital recorder and it was video recorded by the organization hosting him.  I took 22 pages of notes, feverishly.  Science was deceptively shown and carefully contexted to scare the bejeebus out of those in attendance.

And it worked.  The audience emitted audible gasps when he showed grotesque images of aborted calves.  The audience winched when he showed Seralini's lumpy rats.  He gave a compelling and credible presentation from a platform of a Ph.D. scientist-- and it made me furious because science was being used to satisfy an agenda, not to teach or inform.  My blood boiled.


Huber Exposed

The whole story is here.  Briefly, when the presentation ended the organizer from Florida Organic Growers and Consumers recognized me in the audience and made a comment about how I'd disagree with everything Huber said, but could ask a question.

I didn't ask a question.  I offered my assistance.  Huber claims to have cultured this mystery thingy (he used to call it a micro-fungus, then it was a new pathogen, now it is a prion or "biomatrix") so I asked politely if he'd be willing to share it with the broad scientific community.  My lab sequences DNA all the time, and we could sequence and assemble the fundamental genetic code from his mystery pathogen in a few weeks.  I offered to pay for it personally, make all data public, and do everything in an open access format- where he would receive all the credit (as revealed on the recordings- below he'll insinuate that I demanded his organism so I could in essence steal credit from out from under him).

For the next 9 minutes and 7 seconds rambled about how the self-replicating organism has no DNA (contrary to what he says in Genetic Roulette's updated version where he says, "The DNA is being sequenced" @~32  min), that his Chinese collaborators are doing it, and then telling me "why don't you just culture it yourself?"  I also asked him about specialized containment for safety and he said that there was none.

Bottom line-- Busted.   After this point, in all of his subsequent presentations, his organism would have no DNA.



About 31 minutes into the updated version of "Genetic Roulette" Huber and Jeffrey Smith discuss the "New Organism" that exhibits "filamentous growth in pure culture".  Shortly after this time he even says that DNA has been isolated and is being analyzed, yet when asked to help sequence it-- it has no DNA!




Huber Tries to Inspire Administrative Action Against Me

Being publicly called out in front of his credulous supporters didn't sit well with Dr. Huber.  A five-page letter showed up in the office of those that I report to, and ends up with our Senior Vice President.  I was called to his office.


Page 1 of 5.  Pages of false information that can be verified as false against the recordings.  Unfortunately nobody knows where the video disappeared to.  Still, audio was sufficient to verify my position and demonstrate Huber's malicious intent to harm a public scientist. 



The first line reads:

This is his opening salvo.  The only ethics being breached here are a letter fully of legally-actionable lies that were intended to harm my career.  If questioning extreme scientific claims and offering assistance is an "ethics concern and unprofessional conduct" then Huber knows less about science than I give him credit for. 



In the letter Huber meshes some factual statements and flat out lies.  He starts out correctly pointing out that I contacted Florida A&M University where he was giving a talk the previous day.  I provided my input on his controversial claims.  This is a copy of the email that I sent to FAMU Small Farms coordinator Yolanda Thomas, who apparently forwarded it to Huber.  Fine with me, glad to see what side of the science she's on too.




This is my email to the FAMU person hosting his visit, appearing here as it appeared 
in Huber's letter as 'Exhibit 1'



Threats and Malice? No, That's What We Call "Science"

My note to FAMU, followed by my offer to help him sequence his new self-replicating cultured organism that has no genetic information and is killing plants, cattle and humans didn't sit well with Huber.  Personally, I think I was always rather soft, and that is verified by the recordings.  However, he communicates to my superiors that my words were intimidation and threats.




I can read that email a thousand times along with my blog. Not sure how it could be considered threatening. But the victim must continue to paint himself as the victim, or Robyn maybe doesn't want to write, the speaking invites end, and he looks like some kind of nutty old dude making up stories of GMO unicorns.


Of course, after his  talk I was the one that sought him out and shook his limp little paw as he was hustled out of the room telling me, "Go isolate it yourself" over and over again.  No malice intended, never-- but I am calling for honesty and proper use of science, which a promulgator of scary science fiction might find a threat to their claims.

His letter then reports to my bosses a note from this blog. My lab had a submitted article that was declined for the fourth time, and I noted that in my blog on a rather rejection-heavy Sunday.  He informed my superiors that I was "journal shopping" and impugned my scholarly credibility.  Of course, he failed to mention that the paper was an edgy concept incorporating diverse areas of analytical chemistry, genomics and plant breeding that did not fit well in any one journal.  Rejection was not the experiments or conclusions-- it was not a good fit for the best journals of our discipline.  We sent it to Current Biology, PLoS Biology, and other solid journals before it found a home in a very good journal, BMC Genomics.  The paper has been widely noted as fresh and innovative (E. Triplett, pers.comm.).


The Fun Just Keeps On Coming



Discussed in the next paragraph. 
 I don't know what his misunderstanding of photo or blog time stamps is.
In computers, Dr. Huber, we can ask them to post things at later dates. 


If my kind offer was construed as a demand, then he really is off his rocker.  He goes from talk to talk, claiming this dangerous and deadly pathogen and the critical need to stop use of GM crops and glyphosate.  I simply asked him if I could help solve the problem.  When you tell the emperor that he has no lab coat, the emperor's memory gets a little foggy. Luckily we have audio and plenty of witnesses (who were moved by his performance, but later were blown away when I showed them the Huber letter-- they saw what a malicious smear he intended).

I never "demanded" anything.  I never said "prove it as a fraud" or anything of the sort, never would. That's not scientific.  If his mystery organism is real, then I hope to contribute to a solution and illuminating the critical problem so that we can stop the use of products that harm plants, livestock and humans.  However, until that point, we have only the words of a single retired professor that spews ancient claims with no evidence-- and conjures libelous hellfire to his critics. 

No published competence?  I asked if he'd share a sample of a culture for an open-source, public sequencing project, a place where I maybe have a little competence. I was one of the pilots of what turned out to be one of the first open access, public sequencing efforts. 


Wow.  Arrogance and ignorance. Glass houses.


Again, it is now him as a victim.  He was caught in his own apparent deception. Usually his audiences are pie-eyed minions that buy into his unpublished garbage, dotted with concerned people genuinely seeking information about biotechnology.  He's not used to someone qualified offering to lend assistance to help him with his science (in genome sequencing and assembly where HE lacks competence), he looked bad in front of his audience, and so he must lash out.  I have never  engaged in name-calling, abusive language, or a harsh disposition. I have maintained a critical skepticism of his evidence-less claims, and only got prickly once he started gunning for me


It Continues


The guy scaring audiences about a mystery organism wants me to get counseling. Remember, this went to my superiors. Who is demeaning and abusive here?


The next paragraph goes on about how I demand the pathogen be turned over to me so that I can publish it and get my name on a paper.  I said, with no question, "Dr. Huber, you get all of the credit" and it is on the audio.  Someday I will make that public too (it was fun listening to the audience turn on him and plead with him to share the pathogen cultures with the wider scientific community). 



I think he get's it a little wrong again. I never made a demand, and the "blog slogan" (emphasis Huber's) actually is a quote from Norman Borlaug, a guy not really known for expectations of servitude and others for his glory.



And to put a lid on it... The only counseling I received was 
rolled eyeballs and assurances of support. 


In Summary

 I have always been clear about my feelings toward Dr. Huber. I recognize his accomplishments.  To me his decorated past makes his current claims even more curious.  I've never been out to damage him personally, as he is doing a fine job of that himself.

As a participant in the self-correcting discipline of science, I am obligated to both skeptically criticize claims, especially those made without evidence.  I should intervene in public education, especially where the public is led astray by twisted science and again, claims without evidence.  I should offer to use my capacities to help build evidence on his behalf if his claims do have merit and simply need additional expertise that I possess.

However, his note to my superiors crosses a line.  What you see here are excepts from a letter he sent that are filled with (using his words toward him) false accusations in a malicious attempt to damage my person and discredit my science.  Huber's no victim, he's on the attack. He's trying to damage my credibility and career.

I never wanted to write this note or reveal the letter's content. O'Brien's characterization paints a false picture of a kind scientist trying to fight the machine.  Ironically, Huber is a major cog in a broken machine that spits out bad science and misleading information, paralyzing adoring audiences with fear, and confusing public discourse in biotechnology.  And if any scientist of credibility gets in the way-- he won't address them directly.  Instead, he sends a lie-laded communication to higher-ups, seeking someone to hush the scientist, find formal reprimand or even get them fired. That says a lot right there. If you can't address the science, take down the scientist.

It was almost a year ago that I offered to sequence Huber's mysterious self-replicating culturable pathogen that lacks genetic material.  One year later, this breakthrough science, that could be wrapped up in weeks, remains a reality only to Huber and his legions of credulous true believers.

My hope is that he is well after his accident, that he recovers fully, and with his recovery finds an awakening to either provide proof of his claim via publication, or come clean and say he was just making the whole thing up.  Let's put this issue to bed.  

His followers will still love and cherish him, they'll make up claims of Monsanto's Blackwater special-ops hitting him with the car and then waterboarding him into recanting.  He'll get a free pass from his followers, take back some reputation, and get some respect from his critics- including me. 

Until then, we're still waiting.  It was important to show he is not a kind-hearted grandfatherly victim fighting for the little guy-- not in the anti-biotech arena.  Quite to the opposite, he is a credentialed scientist twisting science and creating myth to frighten people. He also showed here that he is willing to fabricate information to harm the careers of public scientists that simply request that he provide evidence for his claims.

























Tuesday, October 7, 2014

Starbucks- Can't Say it Better


I wanted to write a blog about the boycott of Starbucks until they start using organic milk.  However, tweeter Sarah Schultz nails it perfectly. 


"Nuff said.

Sunday, October 5, 2014

Their Highest Form of Scholarly Criticism

Last week a report from Dr. Alison Van Eenennaam and A.E. Young hit the mainstream press.  It is a dense analysis of many facets of animal growth and health over the last several decades.  During this time farmers switched from non-GM to almost 100% GM feed. If there was something truly dangerous about the food products, as critics assert, it may become evident in these data, acquired from hundreds of billions of animals.

No differences were detected, consistent with the scientific consensus that food derived from transgenic crops is no more risky than conventionally bred crops.

Of course, such news does not resonate well with anti-GMO activists.  To provide a counter argument describing the strengths and limitations of Van Eenennaam and Martin's conclusions they, well, didn't have much. In lieu of a scholarly analysis of methods and interpretations, they reach deep into their intellectual outhouse and offer toilet paper and photoshop.

In a discussion of scientific data, this is the best that GMO Free USA can do.
It speaks loudly to how they communicate their science-- they have none.


This is an important point if you are thinking about voting on new costly labeling legislation that will harm farmers, restrict consumer choice and limit innovation that could help the environment and the developing world.  What information will you base your vote on?  Scholarly data published in a peer-reviewed journal, or a childish retort formed from the dingleberries of anti-GMO activism scrolled on Charmin ? 

And of course, they make the declaration that "There is no scientific consensus on the safety of GMOs".  They can say it over and over again, but it does not make it true. 

It is also interesting that anti-GM types will decry the validity of conclusions based on 100 billion farm animals eating 100% GM feed, yet they'll fight to the death defending ten rats that developed tumors at rates statistically indiscernible from controls (which were conveniently omitted from some figures).

Classic desperation. When you can't argue with evidence, roll out the 2-ply, again placing photoshop above scholarly scientific discourse.






Thursday, October 2, 2014

Ebola Vaccine. Can We Define Who Gets it Last?

I'm not a reactionary, but I do think there's a good philosophical watershed here.  Across America in the last decade, it has been fashionable for the healthy and privileged amongst us to to forego vaccination.  Celebrity experts and fraudulent scientists have frightened upper-middle-class America to the point where they reject the science of vaccination.

The effects are clear.  Children go un-vaccinated, and the same pockets become cesspools of preventable disease.  Measles, whooping cough-- the list grows and reflects a level of science denial that harms children and cultures the diseases to that they can change to work around conventional and effective preventative measures.

It is a foolish and selfish opinion that has the potential to harm children, the elderly and the immuocompromised.

Let's talk Ebola.  It is an infectious virus that has graduated from "widepread" to "epidemic".  It is no longer a regional disease, and with global movement of people the disease is sure to spread by accident or design.

But being viral, a simple inoculation with the coat protein is likely to limit primary infection and certainly curb long-term effects and hasten recovery. A vaccination is available, and I'm sure there is substantial product in production.

Now if Ebola became a common disease, and the vaccine was limited, how would we decide who gets it?  Who is the priority? 


If Ebola became rampant, and the vaccine was limiting, 
shouldn't we move those that claim vaccines don't work,
 and refuse vaccines, to the end of the line? 

So who is the priority?  I'd say let's inoculate the scientists first.  Why?  Because I'm a scientist and hate hemorrhaging from my body-air interfaces.

If it really came down to it, I'd forego treatment so that the young, the elderly and the immuno-compromised could get it first.  I'm healthy and strong and I'd likely survive.  But I'll be damned if Jenny McCarthy or any of the other scumbags that stood in the way of vaccinations reaching the needy got it ahead of me. No way.

The funny part is, the same people that deny the science will shove their way to the front of the line where it is them or their kids on the line.

If  someone denies the science of vaccination, I would like to see them load all of their unvaccinated offspring into the Whole Foods shopping cart and step briskly to the end of the line.  That's right-- if they don't want vaccination, and are willing to risk the lives of others, they shouldn't be a priority when their crisis can be solved with a vaccine.

I'm hoping that somewhere someone will offer a website to de-prioritize themselves or their families from receiving limited vaccines, in the event this disease becomes a household name. It is gut-check time.  If you fought against vaccines, can you please publicly state that you won't receive them now?

You can start by signing on to the comment section of this reasonably unread an irrelevant blog.  I'll be happy to forward your information to relevant authorities, and make sure that if there's science and a cure to be had, it does not go to someone that made others suffer.

Wednesday, October 1, 2014

100 Billion Animals Over 15 Years

As someone that has followed recombinant DNA technology for almost four decades, I can remember the awakening of the technology.  As it moved toward implementation, I remember what activists said.  I remember dire predictions of doom and gloom, of horrors and suffering.  Most predicted that every animal consuming GM feed would be dead within days, maybe a year if they were lucky... including humans.

Here we are 18 years later, and none of those predictions came true. None.

Of course, papers like the famous Seralini Lumpy Rat Extravaganza argued that consumption of transgenic crops, or the herbicide used on them, caused massive and grotesque tumors (that the controls got too- but the authors conveniently forgot to show).

For over twelve years retired plant pathologist Don Huber has traveled the globe, warning of a GMO-based pathogen that is killing humans and animals that consume the feed.

Based on their dire predictions, it is a wonder any of us are still alive.  Especially the animals.  Cattle, pigs, chickens-- all they get is GM foods, >95%.



Based on predictions from activist community in the 1990's, Serlini's rat study, and Huber's mystery pathogen, these animals consuming 100% GMO diets surely would be sick or dead! 
Turns out, nothing is different. 

A new paper from Dr. Alison Van Eenennaam and colleagues includes a survey of USDA information since the 1980's.  Over this time, over 100 billion animals received careful assessment for important characteristics.  In 1996 the animals switched from non-GM feed to almost 100% GMO feed.  What horrors unfolded?

None.

Zip.

Zilch.

The animals did just fine, the same before and after GM crop introduction.  Not better, not worse, the same.  As predicted.

Of course, critics are scurrying to move goalposts and downplay the findings.  They can't approach the data with reason and evidence.  Instead, they are feverishly scouring university records to identify any distantly feasible hint of corporate collusion, fabricated relationships that they could spoon feed to hungry believers shocked by scientific data that don't support their flawed cherished pseudo-scientific conclusions.

Sure, there are limitations to the data, just like any data set.  However, they do show that 1990's predictions, Seralini and Huber are wrong.   These animals grow rapidly, change quickly, and any issues in health reflect dramatically in animal health metrics. Even small differences would be conspicuous in such a massive sample size. Yet no changes were seen, suggesting that the products were benign, as predicted.  Food. Simply food and nutrition for growing animals.

100 billion animals, 100% GM diets, no sign of any disaster.  Watch GM opponents dance in an attempt to discredit these data, while fervently standing by none of their own.


Tuesday, September 30, 2014

My New Hat

Science sure is cool.  However, when I talk about science in public places, and that science doesn't mesh with someone's beliefs, they tend to get prickly.  I'd like to think that scholarly, evidence-based discussion can bring those in disagreement to a common ground based on data and its interpretations. However, when all they have is photoshop and time on their hands- they don't talk science- they give me a funny hat.

Better yet, they juxtapose me next to woo-woo former scientist David Suzuki.  This gem was floating around the internet, thanks to the folks over at GMO Free USA. 



To opponents of transgenic technology, the words they agree with define their allegiance, not critical consideration of data, interpretations or scientific consensus.  And to call a publishing scientist "Anti-science" while calling Suzuki "Pro science" when he's the guy on record of being "ashamed by geneticists"... 

Plus they gave me a demotion to "Interim Chairman".  Geez.  Plus they fail to realize that a guy that even is an interim chairman among high-caliber scientists in crop science might know a little more about crop biotech than a guy that published fruit fly genetics papers on  in the 1970s. No hard disrespect to Suzuki-- he wrote my favorite Genetics textbook in the 80's and clearly had a distinguished career. But his contemporary understanding of biotech crops is all ideology and not science-based. Sometimes scientists just go batty when they get old and irrelevant.

And what do the comments say?  Well there are over 700 Facebook 'shares' of this image, so lots of my stupid mug getting around.  Here are just a few comments:




And the bummer is that I'm blocked from GMO-USA, so I can't even respond.  Of course, nobody realizes that my lab's research is not funded by Monsanto, never was. In fact over the last five years our University received $21,000 total grant support to one faculty member.  That is distributed over three research projects!  Clueless.

It reminds us that they speak without evidence and are willing to fabricate information to appease each other and their common beliefs. 



Plus I like this one!

I don't remember when the government told us that Agent Orange was safe.  Maybe right after they told us not to drink coke and eat pop rocks at the same time.


And what's up with Suzuki?  They best video is here. Shows his surfacy treatment of the subject.

 http://en.video.canoe.tv/video/suzuki's-clueless/2695393091001

Watch at 4 minutes and listen to him make up insane junk about strawberries, Puzstai and Mick Jagger, rambling in an argument from ignorance-- and then he gets owned.  It is fun to watch him squirm, because he's their hero. To his credit, he says he's open to be convinced-- he might just see how taking such stances harm his reputation.

Let's see what happens.

The bottom line is I must be doing something right.  When the GMO USA folks take the time to smear a public scientist for talking about science, you know they are on the ropes, and fight their battle using photoshop over facts.