Mary Magnan on the NEJM Fail — the Benbrook & Landrigan Non-Disclosures


Dear Reader, if you are a subscriber to The New England Journal of Medicine then I hope you will take the time to carefully read the preceding guest post by Dr. Mary Magnan. I anticipate that you will come to the same conclusion I did – that NEJM must, at the very least, publish a correction to the Benbrook & Landrigan article. And on the NEJM website the article should be prepended with a full disclosure of the blatant conflicts of interest that were not disclosed by the authors. I also hope that subscribers to NEJM will take the trouble to explain their strong feelings to the editors.

In the media there is clearly a “double standard” applied to discussions on genetic engineering – particularly in agriculture. The tacit assumption of the reporting journalist or editor is that the person taking the anti-GMO position is the innocent “good guy environmentalist”, who is just trying to inform the public of the dangers of this technology. Conversely, the person who discusses GMO risk v. benefits is presumed to be beholden to corporate interests. The code word “Monsanto” is usually considered sufficient to terminate rational discussion.

This specific case of the NEJM publication is an example of an article carefully crafted to appear to be a scientific reference for contrary-to-fact claims that herbicide-resistant crops are increasing the negative impact of pesticides. The trick the authors use is to tabulate only the time series total mass of the herbicide glyphosate. Not discussed are the important benefits of glyphosate – that in recommended application regimes glyphosate is one of the least toxic herbicides, that glyphosate is replacing significantly more toxic chemicals, resulting in much-increased conversion of acreage to environmentally beneficial “no-till farming”.

So the conclusions of the Benbrook & Landrigan article are exactly backwards from the perspective of a scientist objectively evaluating the before-after the introduction of the glyphosate-resistance trait.

What would motivate Benbrook & Landrigan to publish such nonsense? Well, particularly in the case of Benbrook – that is his job – to provide the “scientific references” to counter the conclusions of all the worlds major scientific institutions that GMO crops are as safe as non-GMO alternatives, and good for the environment and good for the farmers.

I appreciate Dr. Magnan’s significant effort invested to carefully document what Benbrook & Landrigan should have disclosed to NEJM. My reading of the evidence is that NEJM would have declined to publish this piece.

For an overview of the evidence on pesticides before/after GMO introduction, please Dr. Steve Savage: When Increased Pesticide Use Is A Good Thing which concludes with this:

To reiterate, pesticide use or its increase are not automatically undesirable things.  It depends on what is the alternative and what is the nature of the particular pesticide in question.  Plant biotechnology is just one important tool in the bigger tool box of agriculture.  Sometimes it allows farmers to use a more attractive pesticide option (Bt Sweet Corn would the be best example of this).  Sometimes it helps them with the adoption of sustainable practices that depend on relatively low risk herbicides.  For farmers, biotechnology and pesticides are not an either/or.  They are often partners.

Dr. Savage has published many articles on the complex subject of agricultural pests, IPM (Integrated Pest Management) and pesticides. Another useful perspective is The Muddled Debate About Pesticide Use And GM Crops:

Bottom line, a biotechnology trait may decrease or increases the need for a pesticide.  There will also be many cases where the biotech trait has nothing to do with pesticide use.  There is no necessary good or bad linkage between these two categories of agricultural technology – both can serve to make crop production better.  Both are options that should be available to those who farm.

Do wild animals avoid GMO corn? Join the experiment!

This is exciting – a group of serious scientists have launched a crowd-sourced experiment to test the hypothesis that wild animals such as squirrels and deer prefer non-GMO corn, and avoid GMO corn. It's exciting because you can participate – it's easy.

Anecdotal reports suggest that animals avoid eating genetically engineered or GMO corn when given a choice, while others suggest that animals have no preference. With the right materials, this is an easy experiment to do, but there are no peer-reviewed, published scientific studies to answer this question – yet.

In this experiment, we will send ears of GMO and non-GMO corn to volunteers. Adults and children, individuals and classrooms can be part of the first Citizen Science experiment to test claims about GMOs. Everyone’s results will be combined in a peer-reviewed scientific journal article

I just listened to the Talking Biotech podcast #20 on the corn experiment. Kevin Folta and – Karl Haro von Mogel do a deep dive into the design of the experiment. If you donate $25 or more at you will receive your own kit. And you can put your school on the waiting list for a free experiment.

Donate, contribute a bit of your time and you can be part of a real science project. You will learn how an experiment like this has to be designed so that the results will survive peer-review. And if the hypothesis is supported by the data I think the resulting peer-reviewed paper might make the cover of Science! All the supporters will be listed as contributors in the paper.


Blackmail by Quacks


Trevor Butterworth examines how Vani Hari (aka Food Babe) blackmails companies like the maker of Budweiser in an excellent essay: Quackmail: Why You Shouldn’t Fall For The Internet’s Newest Fool, The Food Babe.

Fortunately, there are real experts on the Internet, and they are not pulling any punches. The Food Babe “is the Jenny McCarthy of the food industry,” writes “beer snob” and cancer surgeon David Gorski on Science-Based Medicine. “Of course,” he adds, “I don’t mean that as a compliment.”

As Gorski notes, Hari’s strategy is to “name a bunch of chemicals and count on the chemical illiteracy of your audience to result in fear at hearing their very names.” Anti-freeze in beer? Propylene glycol has many uses, but the reason it’s used in de-icing solutions is that it lowers the freezing temperature of water. That’s it.

Here’s the thing: you may chuckle about how stupid the Food Babe attack on Budweiser is. But what about the global citrus industry? There are real people growing your orange juice in Florida or Queensland. These are real people who are rapidly loosing their battle with citrus greening. This is a perfect example of the value of having genetic engineering in the plant science toolbox – whether it’s papaya, cassava or citrus – it’s plain stupid to rule out using the safest, and fastest method for developing a resistant strain of the crop. GE saved the Hawaiian papaya. Today the #FoodFear activists would probably succeed to kill the papaya crop.

The problem is that the Big Organic interests have figured out that they can cripple producers by making consumers afraid of any plant whose DNA was precisely designed by modern biotech. That makes the orange growers afraid to use the best tool to protect their orchards (it’s hard to sell orange juice that moms think will poison their children – moms know that because the Googled “GMO”).

From The Fight to Save Our Oranges: Additional solutions are being sought on many levels, says Folta, from straight up nutrient management to changing the way citrus is grown entirely. For example, new genetics are helping breed trees that don’t get the disease or show symptoms at all. In “transgenic citrus,” trees have a gene added to confer resistance or tolerance to the disease. In fact, there is a gene from spinach that seems to help the tree grow fine with infection. 

“The genes from spinach should not have any effect on the normal growth of the citrus plants. The genes are just providing resistance/tolerance against citrus greening, so the trees can survive and be healthy. The field trials we have in place will confirm this,” says Dr. Erik Mirkov, a Professor with Texas A&M AgriLife Research, and a faculty member in the Department of Plant Pathology and Microbiology in Weslaco, Texas at the Texas A&M AgriLife Research and Extension Center. Mirkov discovered and developed the spinach gene therapy in his lab.

There are other genes that have been installed to help the trees grow or fight infection as well. But opponents of GMOs may not like these options…

“The use of genetics and biotechnology in modern breeding methods is becoming more prevalent in the food supply. It will be our job to keep looking for ways to provide consumers with education and assurances that the technology results in foods that are no different from those produced by other breeding methods,” says Mirkov.
Folta adds, “These genetic solutions are all very promising, but there are some big hurdles to overcome in terms of consumer acceptance and massive deregulation. There is a big effort already to question the safety and efficacy of these products even though no fruit have ever been consumed, and they simply contain a gene product that is eaten in any spinach salad,” says Folta.

Blackmail by #FoodFear: Imagine that you are an orange grower. You’ve abandoned your first-infected orchards; you’ve burned the more recently affected trees. New trees are very costly to replace the sick trees “and take four to five years to become productive, but those trees are not fully productive for a few more years after that.” The Food Babe has already been on TV frightening people away from Franken-Oranges. What do you do? Quit farming and go on food stamps?

If you are a Ugandan cassava farmer you can’t fall back on food stamps. But your cassava crop is being decimated by the Cassava Mosaic virus and Cassava Brown Streak virus. There is a resistant transgenic cassava available. Sadly Greenpeace and the other anti-GMO activists have been very effectively promoting food-fear – even spreading false video interviews with farmers who are growing the first GM cassava.

#FoodFear blackmail works only because you dear consumer allow it to work. Think about that, please.

New York Times: Your reporting fed McCarthyite attacks on Kevin Folta


Jean Goodwin is an expert in rhetoric at Iowa State. Dr. Goodwin specializes in achieving useful communication among parties who deeply disagree.

My primary research/teaching focus is in argumentation studies; I study how citizens who deeply disagree can nevertheless manage to coordinate a worthwhile exchange of reasons. In the past few years, I’ve begun looking at the special problems experts face when they attempt to contribute the public sphere–a project with several threads under the general heading, Between Scientists and Citizens. While my social science colleagues can provide valuable perspectives on how scientists can communicate more effectively, as a humanities scholar I am focused on the values issues–why scientists should communicate, what they should hope to accomplish by doing so, what roles they can appropriately play in civic deliberations. Case studies of such issues of science communication ethics are available on the website of our NSF-funded project, Cases for Teaching Responsible Communication of Science.

If that sounds like good preparation to analyze what the New York Times did to Kevin Folta, then you would be right. If you explore Jean’s blog Between Scientists and Citizens you will get some comfort that you are around serious people. I look to see who else the writer links, finding another world-class science communicator, Roger Pielke Jr. And Andy Revkin. So I was frankly excited after I began reading her short essay on the Folta case:

So, follow below the fold to find my defense of these three claims:

  1. Folta is an outstanding science communicator.
  2. He is being targeted by McCarthy-style attacks.
  3. The New York Times and the Chronicle of Higher Education failed to resist the McCarthyism.

1. Folta = Science Communication

Many have been calling for bench scientists to invest more time engaging the public. Having seen Folta present and having looked over some of his outreach efforts, it’s my view that he is a model science communicator and that any scientist wanting to jump into public communication should learn from him.* I may write another blog post about it, but to put it briefly, Folta shares his passion for his research and makes clear his respect for each and every member of his audience.§¶

*One thing they should learn right off is to be ultra-scrupulous in declaring all sources of funding–Folta has admitted sloppiness in this, and he is paying the penalty.

§ Folta loves his listeners; that sounds sappy, but it isn’t. Listen to the talk he gave at my university, paying attention his interactions with those skeptical of GMOs. Be aware, it’s over two hours long–because he was willing to stay there and respond, respectfully, to every single question and challenge. Or take a look at one story of what talking with Folta feels like from the audience point of view.

¶ Folta loves his listeners, with one exception: he clearly loathes those who he perceives to be a core group of science-distorting anti-GMO fanatics. This also is a mistake that he is paying for: he should love them, too; or at least, speak as if they did not exist.

My score on Jean’s defense of point #1 is “about perfect”. We could add a link to Talking Biotech podcast where it is so easy to access current talks and interviews that help the listener appreciate who Kevin Folta really is (try to match up the real Kevin Folta with the NY Times portrayal). If you are new to this topic you should definitely browse through Dr. Folta’s writings at Illumination blog. Especially read the comments, paying attention to the hostile questions and Dr. Folta’s remarkable patience in answering. If you find any evidence that you are reading a “shill for Big Seed” please let me know in the Comments.

Next comes the discussion of 2. McCarthyism and 3. Failures in the reporting, closing with this:

So in sum: The New York Times and the Chronicle did a poor job on this story, helping perpetuate McCarthyite attacks on a scientist who–unlike most–has bothered to reach out to the public. For shame!

Get on over there to Between Scientists and Citizens – where you can ask your questions or agree/disagree passionately in the comments.


“I’ve been FOIA ed”: Alison Van Eenennaam on being in crosshairs of anti-GMO activists

Alison Van Eenennaam, Ph.D. is an animal geneticist and Cooperative Extension specialist in the Department of Animal Science at the University of California, Davis.

Dr. Alison Van Eenennaam has been targeted by USRTK and their Big Organic backers. Please read her post in full. Her “offense” which put her in the crosshairs of the organic interests is that she has “engaged in public discussion about GMOs”. That must be stopped. Only the Whole Foods message is to be heard.

Following are some of her observations drawn from experience engaging with Dr. Kevin Folta.

FOIA attacks get personal

In the meantime, I have watched with increasing distress at the way that Dr. Kevin Folta, of the University of Florida, also a FOIA request target, has been portrayed subsequent to the public release of his FOIAed emails. Why distress? Because I know Kevin and I know how deeply he cares about science. I have had dinner at his house, and we recently did an early morning fitness “bootcamp” when he was in Davis. I consider him a friend, and his job is not that different than mine—we are both science communicators who talk about breeding; he talks about plants, I talk about animals.

(…snip…) I have observed Kevin giving biotechnology presentations on several occasions. He provides evidence-based, factual content. He reports on his own published research results (not sponsored by industry), and also reports on the scientific consensus that the genetically engineered crops currently on the market are safe to eat – a conclusion reached by every major scientific organization in the world. I have seen how he speaks with passion about science. Perhaps to his detriment, he does not censor his opinions in person or in email correspondence. He says what he thinks. He spends an inordinate amount of his free time on nights and weekends doing science communication. None of that could be considered wrongdoing. In fact it’s just the opposite: he’s responsibly communicating the up-to-date science, as he is mandated to do as a scientist at a public university.

(…snip…) Today, the scope of the requests has moved well beyond GMO Answers and Proposition 37. The real target seems to be prominent scientists affiliated with land-grant universities across the United States engaged in public discussion about GMOs. That description fits me; I have been involved in public communication around this topic, and many other related controversial topics. You do not need to look too far to find controversial topics in animal agriculture. I have spoken about cloning, genomic selection, the AquAdvantage salmon, animal biotechnologies, GMOS, coexistence of different agricultural production and marketing systems and food labeling.

These attacks are a form of “Asymmetric Warfare” against public scientists who openly discuss genetic engineering technology. I say Asymmetric because the attackers have whatever resources they may need – including funding for lawyers, public relations firms and researchers. Dr. Van Eenennaam may get some help from the UC system legal staff to ensure that the surrendered documents do not encroach on the rights of third parties. Beyond that her defense falls on her shoulders (and family). Political operative Gary Ruskin has his whole team attacking – he can just go home and forget it. Dr. Van Eenennaam doesn’t have the option to turn over her defense to a team of professionals.

If you shop at Whole Foods Markets (for example) you should think carefully whether you wish to be supporting this attack on public scientists. If you continue to shop at Whole Foods Markets, Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps, Joe Mercola etc. these attacks will never stop because those financial interests benefit from muzzling scientists who speak the forbidden. The shareholders of Whole Foods et al benefit every time the New York Times runs front page articles ridiculing scientists who explain the forbidden knowledge.

The organic/natural interests want moms to be afraid of food sold by anyone else. They have no ethics, but do have barrels of money and buildings full of lawyers.

Open letter from 21 top European plant scientists to decision makers in Europe


The de facto moratorium on transgenic plant approvals has been detrimental for applied plant science and has effectively eliminated possibilities for publicly funded scientists and small companies to address the big challenges for society. The resulting reduced competition has enhanced the dominance of the major seed and agrochemical corporations. We believe that a fundamental revision of GM regulation is needed that strictly follows principles of a science-based evaluations and approvals, based on evaluation of the trait, rather than the method by which it is achieved.

Image left is signatory Professor Stefan Jansson Umeå Plant Science Centre, Department of Plant Physiology, Umeå University, Sweden 

October 30, 2014 a group of Europe’s leading plant scientists sent a straight-talking nastygram to the EU authorities (original PDF here). I’ve reproduced the letter in the following paragraphs (signatories at the end).

We all depend on plants for providing us with food, building material, textiles, medicine and fuel. Among the greatest challenges facing mankind are the provision of healthy and nutritious food, feed and fuel to a burgeoning population using agricultural and forestry practices that are environmentally and economically sustainable. Thanks to basic research on plants, we now understand well how plants grow, how they protect themselves against disease and environmental stress, and what factors limit production in agriculture and forestry.

Europe has a strong history of plant science. Robert Hooke introduced the concept of the “cell” in the 17th century after looking at cork slivers in his microscope. Carl Linnaeus developed systematics after his studies of plants and Gregor Mendel deciphered the laws of genetics after meticulous counting of plants in his monastery garden in Brno. Plant scientists discovered chromosomes, enzymes and viruses, and Charles Darwin spent a large part of his scientific career as a plant biologist; “The origin of species” starts “When we look to the individuals of the same variety or sub- variety of our older cultivated plants and animals”. Curiosity-driven plant research has been important both to deepen our understanding of nature and take benefit of it, still we lack basic understanding of many complex phenomena in plants.

27 of the “30 most cited authors in plant science” in Europe ( hold at present a position at a publicly funded research organization in Europe, and 21 out of the 27 have signed this letter. We work on various aspects of plant science, for example systematics, physiology, biochemistry, molecular biology, genetics, ecophysiology, ecology, pathology, biodiversity and effects of climate change. It is possible to perform good curiosity-driven plant science in Europe and we acknowledge our support from various funding bodies, in many respects plant science in Europe is doing well.

However, well is not good enough. Plant science has arguably contributed more to the reduction of human suffering than biomedical research, yet compared with the latter it is hugely underfunded worldwide. Norman Borlaug’s dwarf and rust-resistant varieties of wheat saved many millions from hunger. Basic science performed in Europe is also an efficient way of supporting applied research in poorer countries. We are concerned that Europe will have serious problems in reaching its ambitions of Horizon 2020: to “tackle societal challenges” and “to ensure Europe produces world- class science, removes barriers to innovation and makes it easier for the public and private sectors to work together in delivering innovation” and see three outstanding issues for decision makers to address.

First, to provide solutions to the societal challenges outlined in Horizon 2020 funding for fundamental and applied plant science should be maintained or, if possible, be increased. Most importantly, serious challenges are not adequately addressed, such as developing plants resilient to climate change, preventing loss of crop biodiversity, and creating an agriculture that avoids unsustainable demands for water, energy, fertilizers and pesticides. These tasks must be addressed in forthcoming Horizon 2020 calls.


Secondly, plant scientists must be able to perform field experiments. Many of us work with genetically modified plants as research tools, for example to understand how native plants and crops protect themselves against pests and will react to climate change. However, in most European countries permits to perform field experiments with transgenic plants are blocked, not on scientific but on political grounds. In countries that do permit field experiments, these are often systematically vandalized, causing huge scientific and financial losses. Some of us have even been threatened and had private property vandalized. This is a serious threat to science, to publicly funded research, and to European society itself. European authorities must ensure that approved and safe field experiments with transgenic plants are made possible. Vandals must be prosecuted and held accountable for scientific and financial damage.

Thirdly, Europe must allow prompt authorization of genetically modified plant varieties that have been found safe by the competent authority following a thorough science-based risk evaluation. This is essential to meet the Horizon 2020 goal of removing barriers to innovation and making it easier for the public and private sectors to work together in delivering innovation. The de facto moratorium on transgenic plant approvals has been detrimental for applied plant science and has effectively eliminated possibilities for publicly funded scientists and small companies to address the big challenges for society. The resulting reduced competition has enhanced the dominance of the major seed and agrochemical corporations. We believe that a fundamental revision of GM regulation is needed that strictly follows principles of a science-based evaluations and approvals, based on evaluation of the trait, rather than the method by which it is achieved.

Our scientific credibility comes from our work on basic plant science. Some of us also apply our knowledge to improving plants for the human society, but the reason that we make this statement is not commercial interests or hope of attracting more funding for our own research. Instead, we are seriously concerned that lack of adequate funding and safe infrastructures will relegate European basic and applied plant science to a second tier status. If plant scientists cannot apply their knowledge for the benefit of society, Europe will be unable to lead in global efforts to build a sustainable agricultural system and plant-based bio-economy. The most pressing global problems – how do deal with environmental change and secure food supply for all – arguably will only be solved with a massively increased worldwide investment in plant research.

Ian T. Baldwin, Director, Max Planck Institute for Chemical Ecology, Jena, Germany
Member of the US National Academy of Sciences
Member of the German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina Member of the Berlin Brandenburgische Academy of Sciences

David C. Baulcombe, Regius Professor of Botany and Royal Society Research Professor, Plant Sciences, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom
Member of Academia Europaea
Foreign Associate Member of the US National Academy of Sciences

Foreign Associate Member of the National Academy of Sciences India Fellow of the Royal Society
Member of EMBO
Recipient of Wolf Prize for Agriculture

Recipient of Balzan Prize (Epigenetics)
Recipient of Lasker Prize for Basic Biomedical Science Recipient of Gruber Prize for Genetics

Nina Buchmann, Professor of Grassland Sciences, Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule (ETH) Zürich, Switzerland
Founding member of the Young Academy of Sciences
Former member of the German Advisory Council for the Government on Global Change (WBGU)

Member of the German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina Member of the Board of Trustees of the Öko-Institut e.V
Chair of the World Food System Center (WFSC) at ETH

Mark W. Chase, Keeper of the Jodrell Lab, Royal Botanical Gardens, Kew, Richmond, United Kingdom
Fellow of the Royal Society
Recipient of Veitch Memorial Medal by the Royal Horticultural Society (UK

Alisdair R. Fernie, Research group leader, Max Planck Institute for Molecular Plant Physiology, Potsdam, Germany.
Recipient of the Society of Experimental Biology medal (Plants)
Recipient of the Phytochemical Society of Europe Prize

Christine H. Foyer, Professor of Plant Sciences and Director of Africa College, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
Winthrop Professor, The University of Western Australia, Australia
Pao Yu-Kong Chair Professor, Zhejiang University, China;

Recipient of Redox Pioneer award
Recipient if the Founders Award (American Society of Plant Physiologists).

Jiri Friml, Professor, Institute of Science and Technology (IST), Austria, Klosterneuburg, Austria
Member of EMBO
Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science Recipient of Otto Hahn Medal

Recipient of VolkswagenStiftung Award

Recipient of Heinz Maier-Leibnitz Prize Recipient of Odysseus Award
Recipient of Olchemim Scientific Award Recipient of Körber European Science Award Recipient of EMBO Gold Medal

Jonathan Gershenzon, Director, Max Planck Institute for Chemical Ecology, Jena, Germany
Member, American Association for the Advancement of Sciences

Wilhelm Gruissem, Professor, Department if Plant Biology, Plant Biotechnology, Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule (ETH) Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Sciences
Fellow and Corresponding Member, American Society of Plant Biologists Recipient of the Anniversary Prize of the Fiat Panis Foundation

Recipient of the Shang Fa Yang Award of Academia Sinica Former President of the European Plant Science Organization Chair of the Global Plant Council

Dirk Inzé, Director, Plant Systems Biology, Vlaams Instituut voor Biotechnologie (VIB), Ghent University, Belgium
Member of Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Science and the Arts Member of EMBO

Recipient of the Körber Stiftung Prize
Recipient of the Francqui Prize
Recipient of the Five-yearly FWO-Excellence Prize:
Recipient of the Dr A. De Leeuw-Damry-Bourlart in Exact Sciences Prize Chairperson of the Life Sciences, Environmental Sciences and Geosciences (LEGS) Committee of Science Europe

Stefan Jansson, Professor in Plant Cell and Molecular Biology, Umeå Plant Science Centre (UPSC), Plant Physiology, Umeå University, Sweden.
Member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Recipient of Roséns Linneus Prize

Jonathan D. G. Jones, Professor, The Sainsbury Laboratory, Norwich, United Kingdom
Fellow of the Royal Society
Member of EMBO

Joachim Kopka, Research group leader. Max Planck Institute for Molecular Plant Physiology, Potsdam, Germany

Thomas Moritz, Professor, Umeå Plant Science Centre (UPSC) Forest Genetics and Plant Physiology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Sweden
Director Swedish Metabolomics Centre

Corné M. J. Pieterse, Director, Institute of Environmental Biology, Utrecht University Member of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences

Stephane Rombauts, Principal scientific staff, Plant Systems Biology, Vlaams Instituut voor Biotechnologie (VIB), Ghent University, Belgium

Ben Scheres, Professor in Plant Developmental Biology, Wagenignen University, Netherlands
Member of the Dutch Royal Acadamy of Arts and Sciences
Recipient of Siron Pelton Award USA

Recipient of SPINOZA award

Bernhard Schmid, Professor of Environmental Sciences, Institute of Evolutionary Biology and Environmental Studies, University of Zürich, Switzerland
Dean of the Faculty of Science

Mark Stitt, Prof Dr. Dr, h.c. Director, Max Planck Institute for Molecular Plant Physiology, Potsdam, Germany
Member of the German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina
Honarary Doctor of Umeå University

Recipient of the Presidents medal, Society of Experimental Biology

Yves Van de Peer, Professor in bioinformatics and genome biology, Ghent University, Belgium
Group leader, Plant Systems Biology, Vlaams Instituut voor Biotechnologie (VIB), Belgium

Professor, Genomics redsearch institute, University of Pretoria, South Africa Member of Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Science and the Arts

Detlef Weigel, Director, Max Planck Institute for Developmental Biology, Tübingen, Germany
Foreign Member of the Royal Society
Member of the US National Academy of Sciences

Member of the German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina
Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science Corresponding Member of the Heidelberg Academy of Sciences and Humanities Recipient of State Research Prize of Baden-Württemberg
Recipient of Otto Bayer Award
Recipient of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Award 

Important transparency questions for Thacker and Seife

This is a small inquiry about “Who Benefits?”. Regarding the now-retracted PLOS blog piece “The Fight Over Transparency: Round Two“, I have been puzzling over the authors’ motivations. Who benefits from the authors’ PLOS and LA Times articles? Could it be Whole Foods Markets?

I am very keen to know where authors Thacker and Seife stand regarding mandatory GMO labeling. Why? Because their articles supported, an activist operation funded by organic industry lobby Organic Consumers Association. USRTK is in the business of

  • passing US federal mandatory GMO labeling legislation;
  • fomenting fear of foods derived from modern genertic engineering

Perhaps it is an accident that their articles were so helpful to the organic industry interests. I think we have a right to know whether the authors are neutral?

  1. What evidence can you offer for the hypothesis that you are neutral, disinterested parties?
  2. What evidence demonstrates that you agree with the global scientific consensus on the safety of current GMO crops?
  3. Why did USRTK turn over to you emails obtained under FOIA? The only reason I can imagine is that Gary Ruskin, head of USTRK believed you would generate publicity that was favorable to the organic financial interests.
  4. Can you explain why you did not contact Dr. Kevin Folta for fact-checking and comment on the since-retracted article that you were preparing to publish in PLOS?

As another example of apparent bias in favor of the organic industry — in your LA Times op-ed you wrote:

…the Union of Concerned Scientists called out a small nonprofit funded by organic food growers for sending FOIA requests to several dozen pro-GMO scientists…

It’s just plain dishonest to call US-RTK a “small nonprofit”. Could you please justify why you put your reputations on the line to make such a claim? When Gary Ruskin was running an earlier state-level campaign for mandatory GMO labeling (California Proposition 37) the financial backing was public information. Does this look like the financing of a “small nonprofit”? Note that the biggest backer for GMO labeling isn’t Big Organic, it is Big Quacka (Joe Mercola who promotes “natural products” quackery):

My question today: who are all the financial backers of the “small nonprofit” USRTK? Is it much the same special interests who backed California Proposition 37? Your followers have a right to know whether USRTK is a front for big-donor quacks like Joe Mercola ( and Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps All-One-God-Faith? I have trouble understanding your representation of USRTK as asmall nonprofit” when it is obvious that Ruskin’s 2012 Prop 37 backers will be happy to spend many multiples of the $9.2 million to win national mandatory labeling.

Conclusion: it’s obvious “Who Benefits” from the Thacker and Seife PLOS/LA Times articles. But we don’t know why you wrote these pieces. We don’t know why you were given FOIA emails. We don’t know whether you are pro- or anti-GE food crops. But, we do know that this is a perfect opportunity for the authors to practice Transparency in their own house!



Wilhelm Gruissem reviews “A Meta-Analysis of the Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops”

Abstract: What has long been suspected is true: genetically modified (GM) crops do have real benefits for the environment and for the economic well-being of farmers. A meta-analysis of peer-reviewed journal articles and other literature not published in journals reveals that the adoption of GM crops reduces pesticide input and increases crop yields and farmers’ income. The results confirm earlier and smaller studies and therefore are not unexpected. But they are particularly welcome for significantly informing the public debate on GM crops.

How reliable is the Klümper, Qaim Meta-Analysis? I may have missed the essential critique – but in the open-access literature this commentary gets it about right. Here we have a Swiss reviewer at ETH Zurich on the work of German researchers:

Why can this study be trusted? The authors focused on herbicide-tolerant and insect-resistant crops (maize, soybean, cotton) for which a large number of original peer-reviewed impact study reports were already available and that have also been discussed widely in the non-peer reviewed literature. They searched not only in the ISI Web of Knowledge and Google Scholar for their analysis but also used the EconLit and AgEcon Search databases because their contents are tailored to economic studies. The keyword search was unbiased and designed to retrieve peer-reviewed and gray literature reporting both positive and negative impacts. This approach was different from previous reviews of GM crop impact that were limited to peer-reviewed literature only and therefore may be been skewed toward positive results. It is often studies without such peer review, for example, [11], however, that influence the public debate and therefore detract from fact-based decision-making processes.

When dealing with a large dataset on GM crop literature, effect sizes and influencing factors are important considerations because they allow a quantification of the extent of GM crop impact rather than estimating only whether or not an impact was observed. Supported, as they are, by rigorous statistics, the results of the meta- analysis reported by Klümper and Qaim [10] convincingly show that average agronomic and economic benefits of GM crop production are significant and sizeable. Although the review was limited to insect-resistant and herbicide-tolerant maize, soybean, and cotton, the impacts are likely to be similar for canola and sugar beet, which are now grown on large acreages as well. There was no evidence that studies funded by industry had any influence on impact estimates. Studies reported in the peer-reviewed journals trended toward a higher yield impact of GM crops than the average resulting from the meta- analysis [10]. This is perhaps not unexpected because non-reviewed (gray) literature published by nongovern- mental organizations that was included in the meta- analysis typically has a negative bias.

Jonas Kathage reviews “A Meta-Analysis of the Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops”

The work was funded exclusively with public money, in part from the German Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) and the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2011). The authors are Wilhelm Klümper, a PhD student at the Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development at the University of Göttingen, Germany, and Matin Qaim*, a professor at the same institution and well-published researcher on the economics of GMOs.

A new meta-analysis on the farm-level impacts of GMOs – Biology Fortified, Inc. This is the breed of meta-analysis that we need – in that the authors have no conflict of interest issues of any kind [full disclosure: reviewer Jonas Kathage is a former graduate student of coauthor Matin Qaim].

As far as I can tell the authors made every reasonable effort to extract well-supported conclusions from the 147 studies. This is a big challenge — in choosing your population of studies you want to avoid cherry-picking while excluding studies that are either unreliable or do not report in ways that are consistent with the design of the meta-analysis. In the subject PLOS paper A Meta-Analysis of the Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops the authors screened 24,079 studies down to 147 that met all their criteria.


Assuming it holds up, a key result was the greater benefits experienced by developing country farmers:

Furthermore, yield gains of GM crops are 14 percentage points higher in developing countries than in developed countries. Especially smallholder farmers in the tropics and subtropics suffer from considerable pest damage that can be reduced through GM crop adoption.

Dr. Kathage agreed with the authors’ finding that industry funding did not bias the base study results towards higher yields.

Apart from the type of GM trait (IR/HT) and the type of country (developing/developed) the paper also sheds light on several other reasons why some yield results are different from others. For example, it looks at whether funding from industry is associated with higher yield estimates. It is not.

This graphic summarizes the differences between GM and non-GM crops:


Is there a superior meta-analysis that we can cite for the big picture on the results of applying GM crops?

Anti-GMO Charles Benbrook has lost his Washington State University affiliation

Some very good news today — Genetic Literacy Project has just published an in-depth profile of Benbrook – who is widely quoted as an “independent scientist” warning of the dangers of genetic engineering and GMO foods. Benbrook is widely quoted by Big Organic promoters.

Charles “Chuck” Benbrook (born 1949) is an organic proponent, researcher, industry consultant, and paid “expert witness”[1] on pesticide and GMO-related lawsuits,[2] Benbrook was formerly the research director of The Organic Center, which is funded by the organic industry and is now officially part of the Organic Trade Association. His three year affiliation with the Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources (CSANR) at Washington State University (WSU) officially ended as of May 15, 2015. He is now no longer with CSNAR.

Benbrook was also an adjunct “research professor” at WSU until spring when he was separated from his position. However, Benbrook still represents himself in articles and interviews as being a professor at WSU and linked to CSANR–neither of which is true–and is frequently misrepresented as such by interviewers and websites, including by Wikipedia. (see below, Research, for Benbrook’s apparent misrepresentations about his employment situation and in Conflict of Interest representations of the New England Journal of Medicine). 

This is a very lengthy profile of Benbrook. If you are confronted with Benbrook as a definitive biotech expert I think you can safely refer people to this page. This is what a real-world shill looks like. It would be very illuminating to have complete access to all Charles Benbrook’s financials and emails. Has he ever corresponded with any employee of Whole Foods Markets?