Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0393.177 2012-2014 This report is to accompany the testimony of Debra Welch, volunteer with TIME TO SHOW, GMO! citizen action, public awareness campaign. Nov. 5, 2013 Bill 113 contact: timetoshowgmo @gmail.com O l!7 3C 1 n7 —S Comm. No. 3 13• Ref. To: or Ref. Date OV 0 5 2013 Summary of Biofortified's website- scientific research made available to the public, by TIME TO SHOW, GMO! page 1 Compiled November 1 , 2013 by TIME TO SHOW, GMO! volunteer Biofortified is one of the main references for on-line GMO research. It is a referral site offered by CTAHR, the government's agricultural extension service. According to our investigation, this site lists 600 studies, and makes reference to over 1 ,700. The 600 studies are titles only, with no link to abstracts or research. The 1 ,700 have no link to titles, abstracts, or research. Across the top bar of the Biofortified website is a caption "GENERA". Click there, then "Studies for GENERA", and lastly "Studies with Independent Funding". This provides a listing of 126 research titles. Not all titles listed provide links. Not all links can be opened. 18 titles lead to research that can be freely accessed. 39 titles can be accessed for a fee, generally of $40 each. The remaining 69 list titles only. There are 23 animal studies independently funded. 13 give the length of time of the study. 3 months is the longest animal feed test conducted . 6 animal studies are available to read for free Summary of Biofortified's website-scientific research made available to the public, by TIME TO SHOW, GMO! page 2 This listing shows the status of the 126 studies offered by Biofortified and what you will find if you try to access the information on-line. Animal Study, Abstract Has a Time Given, and Free Research (5) #7 - 28 days, rats #14 - 8 week, maize to chickens #83 - 33 day, corn to cows #111 - 3 month, sheep fed Bt cotton plants #118 - 31 days, maize to pigs Animal Study, No Time Given. research (1) #17 - lengthy paper, need to read, couldn't find time, corn to pigs Animal Study. Abstract Has a time Given, but Need to Pay to Read Research (8) #1 - 3 month study, papaya #5 - 87 days, Bt corn to mice #6 - 87 days, Bt soybeans to mice #92 - 90 day, Bt on put flora of rats #95 - 90 day, Bt on rats #102 - 90 day, rice on rats #106 - 3 month papaya study on rats #116 - 31 day, corn fed to pigs Animal Study. No Time in Abstract. and Need to pay to Read Research (7) #3 - rapeseed to pigs #12 - human potato eating experiment #15 - sweet pepper & tomato to rats and mice #18 - maize to calves #88 - wheat to microbe, chart suggests a 6 weed, study #112 - cottonseed in dairy cow ration #123 - affect on bees Animal Study. No Time Given. No Research Link Given (2) #9 - corn to poultry, pig, ruminant #10 - sugar beets & maize to ruminants and pigs ************************************************************************************************** No Animal Testing, Time Given, Free Research (2). #86 - 12 year, apples #110 - 2 year - 81 commercial cotton fields, evaluate pesticide use and yield No Animal Testing, Time Given. Have to Pay for Research (3) #93 - 2 year, canola production #103 - 8 year, corn, soil analysis #113 - 120 day, test Bt on soil ecosystme Summary of Biofortified's website-scientific research made available to the public, by TIME TO SHOW, GMO! page 3 No Animal Testing, Have to Pay. No Time in Abstract (16) #2 - rice #4 - wheat #8 - corn #11 - rice #16 - soybeans #52 - rice #81 - apple #82 - corn #87 - corn #96 - effect of manure from cows fed GM corn #97 - rice #99 - cotton, peanut, soy cultivation effect on stink bug population #114 - Effect of Bt cotton on soil ecosystem #120 - Bt crops effect on soil microbiology #122 - maize, impact on human health, allergen testing #124 - comparability of imazapyr-resistant arabidopsis No Animal Testing. no link to Research (3) #89 - planting wheat, effect on non-target insects, 2 year study #105 - Bt corn affect on anthropids, 2 year #119 - rice growing effect on non-target organisms No Animal Testing, , ree Study. No time given in Abstract (7) #13 - potato #84 - wheat, read this, too lengthy of paper, maybe a 162 days study #101 - powdery mildey-resistant wheat effect on insect herbivores #117 - effects on moth #104 - microbe study, would be good to read #125 - spider study, too long to read and find length of study #126 - Evidence of edduced arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal colonization Literature & Economic Review. Free research ($) #91 - on safety assessment #94 - Affect on Bees #115 - saying 90 day research is adequate Literature & Economic Review. Have to Buy research (5) #98 - Economic, ecological, food safety & social consequences #100 - 15 year, high-dose refuge resistance of Bt crops use #107 - 6 years Bt corn in spain #109 - Bt cotton an maize affect on invertebrates #121 - consensus on accepted evaluation of environmental harm No Abstract Link or research link Given, or error message (63) #19 - #51, #53 - #80, #85, #90, #108 This article is posted on the Biofortified web-site. When CTAHR was asked by letter to " identify the scientific research papers that prove to your satisfaction the safety of 1 ) genetic engineering and 2) the chemicals that are used along with that form of agriculture", the first link offered was to the Biofortified website. The second link offered was to this article which can be found on the Biofortified website. Please read this article and put yourself in my shoes, a citizen who has asked the university extension agent for research, and was presented this article. In it I am told that as an activist, I am deplorable, that I have an agenda and no capacity to discuss hard science and evidence, that I am not interested in the environment but rather am motivated to cause harm to seed companies and the farmers that support them. I am labeled a her - that I fall within a set of people who are devious and ignorant. Then I am told by the author that he wants to give me a big hug out of the pity he feels towards me. Is this article an appropriate response from the university's agricultural extension service to a citizen asking to be presented with a scientific research paper? Dr. Folta is the Chairman of one of the nation's preeminent plant science departments, that is what he says. So I would say yes, any article by him is appropriate to send. But when the CTAHR representative was asked if this article represents his feelings and understandings, that representative said yes, and in my mind that makes sending this article to me grossly inappropriate and calls into question the legitamacy of the Biofortified site. Why I'm Going To Hawaii: Simply to Share Science by Kevin Folta on 27 July 2013 A � ' yy It is the best of times. Science has improved our communications, medicine, transportation, and security. It has taught us about the large and the small and taught us about the fundamental building blocks of life's information- the genes that define human form and function. As a scientist I still get goosebumps when I read about a new disease therapy, a new finding in how plants respond to pests, or an improved way to see exo-planets. I feel overwhelmingly privileged that my parents exposed me to science early and cultivated my interests. I'm grateful for the ability to attend college, grateful for my mentors throughout graduate school, and grateful for my colleagues, postdocs and students in my lab today. It is a great time to be a scientist. But the road to a career in science is rigorous and oftentimes unattractive. Low pay, insane hours, experiments that fail, all in preparation for complete career uncertainly at the end of your training. Those that weather this trail show unbridled commitment to the discipline, and more times than not, they are not interested in sharing their work beyond the peer-reviewed journals and scientific conferences. The discipline does not select for enthusiastic public communicators. Maybe I'm a little different. Science is so important and exciting that I have to share it. I want you to know about it. I want you to understand it. Over the years I've talked to hundreds of public audiences, from 1st graders to retirees, about issues like water conservation, crop domestication and growing plants in artificial light environments in space. That's fun. But there are issues that are perceived to be controversial in the public that are not a controversy among scientists. Here I insert myself as a steward of science and someone that tries to connect and communicate with traditionally non- scientific audiences. I've spoken publicly on the value of vaccination, the evidence that man is changing climate, the evidence for evolution rather than creation, and the importance of biotechnology and utility of transgenic (GMO) crops. All of these issues bring me into forums where opinion sometimes differs from the scientific consensus. My job is to bring the finest evidence, communicate the science and maybe edge others toward that scientific consensus. At the very least a dissenting listener my learn to de-prioritize certain unsupported opinions or accepted myths. Small victories. While monitoring the news about pesticides and GMOs in Hawaii I've witnessed a familiar pattern. A handful of activists seek to affect seed companies. Period. How do they do that? They generate fear and generate suspicion and infect the public with it. They generate fear and suspicion by embracing low-quality activist science and hearsay. They exploit graphic images and tout fake report' that are obtained from the internet. Sometimes they flat out lie. They appeal to emotion, they use children. They tell well-meaning academic and government scientists that they are not scientists at all, but instead are paid stooges on a corporate payroll. =it of this is deplorable. Most of all, it is an increasing common retreat for those with 3n agenda and no capacity to discuss hard science and evidence. While all of this is bad, what mobilizes me is when the rules and regulations of science are bastardized and distorted to push an activist agenda. The rigorous discipline of hypothesis-driven science that has solved so many problems, is twisted to promote political ideals. Unacceptable. In the age of the internet the kernels of misrepresented or distorted science rapidly become a malignancy. They filter into all facets of a population, promulgated by fear and promoted by the devious and the ignorant. Malevolent activists use fear to manipulate those that have not yet developed a critical understanding of these issues. The goal is to harm seed companies. Deep inside it is not a `right to know', it is not an interest in environment. It is to cause harm to seed companies and the farmers that support them. Fear works. It works because we are dealing with food, something essential for our survival with deep social and cultural significance. It also works because the science is not simple. Development of transgenic plants and assessment of safety and efficacy is a complicated process. Together the scientific complexities and the primal fear conspire to produce a perfect forum for frightening the credulous or the scientifically unsophisticated. This is where I step in. I don t warn to confront them, i want to comfort mem. i want to take the whole anti-GMO movement and give it a hug, and assure it that everything is okay. I don't fc 'I anger; I feel sad pity. I'm sad that they are so steeped in a fabricated, misguided hate for corporate science that they can't share in biotech's successes or potential. I know this science, I've studied this science for 25 years, and I understand the strengths and limitations of the technology. The people most likely against biotech are people like me in so many other ways. We vote the same, are concerned about the environment, worry about the weakest among us, and allegedly value education. We differ on this one issue. Talk to me. Let me answer your questions & address your fears. Education has a sparkling habit of making fear go away. I'm not telling anyone what to think, but I do tell people how to think. It is about having the tools and perspective to think about an issue in a fresh, evidence- based, emotionless way. It is about learning who the real experts are and then having the courage to try to understand them. It is not about abandoning skepticism. Instead it is also turning skepticism inward to assess self deception, and accepting what we find. I'm here in Kauai as a resource. I'm receiving no financial compensation for five days of my time. I'm here because I'm a teacher that sees science being convoluted and exploited in a selfish activist push to tarnish the sound extensions of recombinant DNA technology. My hope is to be a resource for those that have not made up their minds, to softly influence their perspective, direct them to good information and provide a contact for future interaction. A well placed seed can grow into something wonderful. 1 1 r'4 H , w f m Frank & Folta As the Chairman of one of the nation's preeminent plant science departments I represent faculty that work in all areas of crop biology. I have a substantial breadth of experience from lab to field. From those that work with DNA at the bench, to those that study organic production, to those that seek to heal citrus disease, to those that grow plants on the International Space Station, I am honored to work among such great scientists with broad impacts. I come here with an understanding of the challenges of food production. GMO technology is at least part of the solution to make better products for the consumer, the farmer and the environment. To really make it work for us we have to understand it, appropriately criticize it, and think forward to how it can serve us best. We have to do this making personal and policy decisions based on science rather than fear and emotion.