darknrgy's blog

Does Monsanto's RoundUp Cause Kidney Failure?

I’ve spoken up in the past in support of GMOs. Full disclosure: My interest is in Genetic Engineering as a technology, being quite marvelous and useful. What Monsanto, Cargill, et al. do in their business practices is a separate discussion that I don’t intend to address here. Everyone is welcome to share their opinions. That being said, I admit to a bias: I genuinely believe Genetic Engineering is a powerful and safe tool, when used responsibly, and I hope to see it continue to solve global problems. As a science it is ethically neutral, but I readily accept that how we use it should continue to generate controversy. 

Today’s discussion is about a new study that suggests that glyphosate (Monsanto’s RoundUp product) may be linked to kidney failure. The authors describe a potential mechanism and provide epidemiological evidence linking the use of glyphosate to kidney failure in a few key locations. Glyphosate is tightly coupled with the GMO controversy because Monsanto genetically engineers food-crops to be resistant to glyphosate so it can be used as an herbicide. Monsanto sells both glyphosphate and the GMO crops, generating an inherent conflict of interest. But this combination also astronomically improves the yield and energy usage in agriculture, worldwide. 

The mechanism of damage itself is quite complicated. In the targeted areas, there are several compounding factors that all conspire to create an unsafe water supply rather than glyphosate itself directly causing kidney failure. 

As it turns out, glyphosate was originally patented (according to this study) as a “chelating” agent in addition to its biological properties. What this means is that it binds to metal and minerals, effectively enabling it to dissolve away these elements and wash them away. “Glyphosate was initially used as a descaling agent to clean out calcium and other mineral deposits in pipes and boilers of residential and commercial hot water systems”. Yikes. 

Glyphosate’s properties of chelation affect how it travels through the environment in many ways. After it has been sprayed on crops it can potentially avoid degradation for longer than intended as it begins to bind with metals. The areas that are seeing these new high kidney failure rates also all have extraordinarily hard water, containing calcium and heavy metals, such as cadmium and arsenic. The study claims that this is not by itself a problem because of our bodies’ own capacity to filter these out. However, when combined with glyphosate, there exists a proposed mechanism that, over time, concentrates a “Glyphosate-metal Complex” in the water supply. This is the culprit in kidney failure. 

That, of course, is paraphrasing and I might have made technical mistakes. This is all well above my understanding of chemistry, but the takeaway is that glyphosate has the potential to increase exposure to heavy metals in areas with existing adverse water supply conditions. This is bad. Socioeconomics also play a role here as the most vulnerable are farmers, who in these poor areas are manually spraying glyphosate with little to no personal protection. In addition, the water supply itself is often not treated. 

 

Take a look at the illustration; there is a full water supply cycle described that requires high exposure by farmers, pathways through the water system, and the resulting increase in concentration by the general public. 

Now, for some takeaways. First, glyphosate is the most commonly used herbicide in the world. As such, it has been rigorously studied for it’s safety and is generally considered to be the safest option for the large scale industrial agriculture complex required to feed the planet. This new information, however, appears to be revealing a weak spot and I think it deserves closer inspection. In the United States, we are probably not vulnerable to this problem because of how our water supply system works and our awareness of the potential dangers of chemicals sprayed on crops. Farmers have automated spraying and presumably use personal protection when handling the stuff. We also wash our fruits and vegetables before eating. 

It is also worth noting that all herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers are chemicals. Even organic farmers spray this stuff. Whether naturally occurring or man-made, all of these agents are chemically active and should be studied. Some may find this ironic, but I actually feel safer eating GMO foods sprayed with glyphosate specifically because of how rigorously these things are studied. The people that worry about this stuff are the ones that go to Whole Foods and shovel pseudoscientific, non-FDA approved chemicals in their faces. That’s what *I* think is ironic. 

If this link to kidney failure is true, glyphosate is potentially hazardous. The technical part of the study was way (way way) over my head, but I accept their premise. It should be studied in more depth. I tried to give this a fair shake because I want to be fair and honest in my analysis of the safety of GMOs. If I’m going bother writing big effort posts trying to persuade people, I want to make sure I believe it. At current and in my own opinion, this danger is not enough to warrant panic in the first world. I hope the study inspires others to get to the bottom of the issue and do the right thing in these problem areas. 

Practice safe-handling. Understand food safety. Wash your fruits and vegetables. Cook your chicken to 165F+. Be merry. Be ready to change your mind.

http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/11/2/2125

Why I voted No on CA Prop 37 - Mandatory labeling of GMO

I found myself in disagreement with many of my peers about Prop 37 and I wanted to give a more thorough background on why I opposed it. There are straightforward and compelling arguments that ask: If I don't care about the label why don't I just ignore it? Who cares, it's just a label right? It's not for me, it's information that other people want. Good point. Here are my reasons:


Main Point

There exists what I believe to be a false dichotomy between natural organisms and genetically modified organisms. Yes, there are intentional changes to the genetics but this is indistinguishable, from a standpoint of material make-up, from naturally occurring changes in DNA. Virtually all life is genetically unique and, intentional or not, changes are always occurring. Before we knew about genetics we were modifying organisms through selective breeding and I don't think it ever occurred to anyone that we should label food as such. It is physically possible to create a dangerous corn plant though selective breeding just as it is with GE (although the difference in time it would take is enormous). It is therefore my belief that we would be incorrectly acknowledging a material difference between GMO and non-GMO and reinforcing people's false beliefs about what GMO actually means. It's still an actual plant that comes from a seed that takes in sunlight, water, and nutrients and then becomes delicious food.


Safety

New GMOs actually have a fairly stringent process for testing for errant consequences. There is a large body of Science dedicated to the process and I have more confidence about the safety of GMO foods than I do from non-GMO foods. They are tested extremely thoroughly down to chemical composition, taking in regard nutrients, toxicity, allergens, and beyond. It can't even leave the lab until most of this work is done. Additionally, many of the changes introduced are designed to eliminate the need for other controls, such as pesticides, herbacides, and later, antibiotics. One of Monsanto's early GMO products was modified corn that is resistant to glyphosate (Roundup), which is a desirable weed killer because of its low human toxicity. In this way, the food actually becomes safer because other more toxic chemicals are no longer needed.


Pervasiveness

GMOs are already very pervasive in the US food supply and it nearly guaranteed that you have eaten it already and perhaps will eat it today. As GMO science progresses nearly all food will be GMOs, organically grown or not. Nearly all canola, corn, and soybean products are genetically engineered and I think everyone knows that covers just about all packaged food products. This means a vast majority of store-bought products would require this label and that number will only increase as GMOs becomes more common. In the same way no one has ever not entered a building with the foreboding California warning about carcinogenic dangers, the GMO label will quickly become another label to ignore.


Monsanto Bad

It is tempting to have a knee-jerk reaction when Monsanto funds the campaign and enters the discussion. I've seen King Corn and Food Inc. and, while I have a disdain for their business practices, I see it as a separate issue from the overall concept of food production optimization technology. The US is currently leading the world in this field and I consider it an asset. Just 50 years ago people would laugh at our indignation over the ethical and health concerns about food which is produced at incredible rates, as if by magic. 

The improvements in yields, space requirements, labor, energy, and money shouldn't be taken for granted and part of that is owed to GMOs. That is why it exists, to make food production more efficient. It makes Monsanto richer but it makes our food cheaper.


Ethics

Generally speaking it is undesirable to make nutritional changes in food through GE because it requires a more difficult line of testing if those changes are detectable. That doesn't mean that it isn't possible, however, and I project that a strapping entrepreneur is going to come along and start making the real super-foods of the 21st century. Monsanto is going for high yield over everything else but perhaps there is a yet-untapped market for foods that are genetically altered to be more nutritional. Ironically, California would probably the greatest consumer .

Perhaps you know about Golden Rice, a genetically modified rice that contains vitamin A. Developed specifically to address nutritional deficiencies in third world countries. Technology literally helping solve world hunger. Sure enough, Greenpeace comes along and opposes it. I hate Greenpeace.

I think if you buy organic foods, you should continue doing so. There are plenty of ways to rationalize it and I do not object to it. But I do ask that you acknowledge that it is a luxury, an artifact of first world living. It exists only in contrast to more efficient and advanced food production. If we can resolve the ethics of GMOs, we can leverage it to resolve the more apparent ethical and health issues in factory farming, etc. That's the irony of the situation in my opinion. That's why reinforcing this idea that GE is somehow evil with a label is a major step backwards. It makes it less likely that GMO tech will progress and solve the actual problems that we have.

I know it seems like sorcery (yes especially so to me) but it is science and it can be done safely. We have heavy-duty challenges ahead of us with resources, sustainable energy, disease, poverty, and many others. Modifying genetics can be a powerful weapon against these problems. It can also be used for evil, no doubt, but it is not inherently evil.

Antagnozing Final Comment

I don't care if it makes anyone feel better that they know their food is GMO free. There will always be a Whole Foods nearby that has all the All Natural Organic and GMO-with-a-red-X labels we could ever dream of. Personally, I'm going to continue eating food made with Bad Ass Recombinant DNA Technology at Low Prices. I am pleased that 37 did not pass. I wearily tolerate my friends' various arbitrary food concerns but I think it is mostly unreasonable. We spent 5,000 years trying to figure out how to not all be farmer peasants, and it is still the most common occupation on Earth. I'm going to resist turning back and I hope you do too.

http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/09/organic-food-not-proven-healthier-or-safer-study-finds/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice

http://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/17918/PDF

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10977#toc