Science and common man-Vested interest vs truthful facts vs human health

The world has not come to a consensus regarding the risks or advantages inherent in adopting genetically modified food crops. What is tragic is that there is a clear cut division between pro and anti GMO people whether consumers, scientists or policy makers on the safety of GMO foods. America is in the forefront in allowing unrestricted use of GMO technology and practically every food product in the market there is either based on GMO derived raw material or GMO ingredients. Their stand is that there is no substantial difference between natural and GMO derived foods and therefore no separate approval is necessary for using them as ingredients or as foods for consumption. Many other countries take a different stand and there is either a total ban or limited clearance for some of the GMO foods created by MNC giants like Monsanto through gene manipulation technologies. It is the unfortunate that the consumer is caught between the proverbial "deep sea and the devil", not knowing what is the truth?

There are three issues that confront policy makers before considering giving clearance to GM crops and a balanced decision is possible only when all facts and real truth are placed before them. Science is a truth chasing activity and scientists cannot be expected to say any thing but truth. Unfortunately it has been proved time and again that some scientists are "purchasable" at right prices! That is why there is a wide chasm in opinions within the scientific community itself. First consumer would like to know whether GM foods are safe to consume on a long term basis and whether the exiting knowledge is sufficient to make him accept these foods for himself as well as his family including kids. Second issue is whether there is really any advantage to the farmer in terms of economic gains so that the technology can be adopted in the field level. Finally the third stake holder viz the regulatory authorities need to know what advantages or dangers the country will have by switching over to GMO crops without any restriction or control, long term as well as short term duration.

What is the ground reality to day? First there is no unanimity among scientists that GM foods are as safe as they are made out to be and practically no human studies on a long term basis have ever been undertaken as of to day. What consequence consumption of diets predominated by GM foods will have for future generations is also a grey area. The contention that Americans have been eating GM foods since long is an argument that is not objective enough to pass a judgement on this issue. Second the claim of increased yield has not been conclusively demonstrated universally in any meaningful way though in some crops it might be true. Here again to claim that the net yield for the farmer would more because of reduced losses due to insects and other vectors probably will not be sufficient to convince any body. Third, the prevalent seed regeneration practices  which has been the traditional way of perpetuating agriculture in countries like India need to be replaced with a monopolistic seed supply system, makes the farmer captive slaves of international business corporates and this makes the farmers extremely vulnerable to price manipulations and expose him to a "siege" environment which is not a desirable change. 

Recently there was a massive meta analysis of data available in the public domain on GM crops and according to this study GM crops are good for developing countries, not for developed ones! Read the excerpts from this report below:

"The "pro" side in the debate over the benefit of genetically modified foods got a big boost from science this month, with an international study funded by the German Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) and the European Union's Seventh Framework Program FOODSECURE concluding that GM crops are good for the economy and reduce the amount of pesticides used in agriculture.  The German study is the largest review ever conducted on the effect of GM crops on farming. It is a meta-analysis, meaning a rigorous study of the numbers inside past studies on the topic. The review included studies of GM crops conducted from 1995 to March 2014 that were published in English. Published Nov. 3 in PLOS ONE, the peer-reviewed, open-access publication for the Public Library of Science, the meta-analysis found that GM crops are a "promising technology." According to the authors, GM crops have reduced chemical pesticide use by 37 percent, increased crop yields by 22 percent and increased farmer profits by 68 percent. Yield gains and pesticide reductions are larger for insect-resistant crops than for herbicide-tolerant crops, they reported. And in a conclusion that contradicts those who've argued GM crops are not right for the developing world, the authors found that yield and profit gains are higher in developing countries than in developed countries. Authors Matin Qaim and Wilhelm Klumper, both of Germany's Gottingen University, said they hope their research will help build public trust for GM technology. In a world that will be challenged to increased food production to meet future population growth, the study found GM crop yields can be increased by 14 percentage points more in the developing world than in the developed world. Pests and weeds are a bigger problem in developing nations, another reason GM technology brings bigger benefits there. Commercial GM crops include those that are modified to increase resistance to pests, to glyphosates or to herbicides used for weed control. The German study found that herbicide-tolerant crops have lower production costs, while insect-resistant ones do not. In that case, the need for less pesticide is offset by the higher seed prices, the study showed. 

The fact that this study had the blessings of European Union and the German government makes it a compelling report worth reading by every dispassionate denizen, curious about the subject of GM foods without being a party to the controversy. Whether this report satisfies the criteria enunciated by this Blogger above is subject o debate but one thing is certain that such periodic reports are no substitute to a world wide inter disciplinary scientific study involving some typical, more regularly consumed GM foods, without any controversy or difference of opinion, to conclusively establish whether GM foods are absolutely safe or  at least as safe as their natural counterparts or not. Till such time we have to live with such gimmicks going under the banner of scientific study!

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

CORRUPTION IN SCIENCE-WHOM TO BLAME?

There are many virtues one expects from men and women aspiring to be leaders of scientific pursuits and the most critical one is integrity. Of course there are other qualities like knowledge, experience, good track record and leadership quality to inspire colleagues. It is known that many scientific and technical institutions in India are headed by "round holes in the square pegs" and these undeserving persons get to the top through political patronage with their Godfathers at Delhi standing behind them for necessary protection if they are caught at some time or the other! Scientists are supposed to pursue truth through their research and the very same people becoming corrupt in thoughts and action is a sad commentary on Indian science!

Close on the heels of some enlightened and eminent persons questioning the real worth of the faculty at IITs under the HRD Ministry and the quality of students gaining admission, comes the news about the damning of the Directors of two IITs in the country which caused some consternation among all sections of Indian society. It appears that these two Directors were indicted by the highest crime investigating agency in the country and despite this they continue to be supported by the government allowing them to function unhindered with no punishment of any nature. Millions of law abiding Indians, having faith in the constitution and believing in the philosophy that "retribution must follow wrong doers" are appalled by the indifference or support or condoning the wrong doings, by higher ups with clout and power base. As for the scientists who are found guilty of wrong doing, if they have even an iota of conscience and shame they should have put in their papers long ago. Unfortunately these values are no more important in to day's India with politicians and bureaucrats setting the example for violating all decent norms of life. Look at the corruption, financial scams, looting of public funds, criminal activities and other undesirable doings across the country with no political party above this shameful practices and naturally no Delhi-based or controlled administrator can be expected to be immune to this "gravy train"!

One is reminded of another Director in an established CSIR Laboratory specialized in food research who was recently "allowed" to go "Scot free" in spite of solid evidence of nepotism, corruption, financial misappropriation and literally "killing" the organization through brutal suppression of decent scientists, not towing his line! It is not that GOI did not know about his wrong doings because almost all investigating arms of the government had damned him for his dereliction of duty and unethical management of this great scientific institution for almost 17 years! His strength was his political muscle with almost all parties though what cost he had paid for their patronage is not known still. How such a person was allowed to go on "voluntary" retirement without even an admonition, is known only to the Director General of CSIR, Minister for Science and Technology and the Prime Minister who chairs the Governing Council of CSIR. Is it not callousness, indifference and insensitivity on the part of the GOI to allow this person to go without any accountability? Not only that CSIR was "magnanimous" in rewarding this person with "Distinguished Scientist" though no one knows what distinction he was able to bring to food science during his pedestrian career.

Can good Science survive in this country with a government bent on supporting mediocrity and corruption ridden scientists? There are hundreds of good honest scientists in the country with high technical and achievement credentials who are never allowed to come up due to this unfortunate phenomenon requiring people to be sycophants and "feet touching" champions if to be in power in government institutions. It is time that the main stream scientists rise against this deplorable situation and make research and technical institutions more democratic and upright. Leaders must be chosen based on acceptance by the scientific staff who are more tuned to the needs of the organization rather than through a charade involving pliable selectors with doubtful credentials. May be there is a need for the rise of an "Anna Hazare" from the scientific group to raise sane voice against corruption in science. Why not a special "scientists malpractice" punishing system where those caught practicing plagiarism, becoming corrupt and mismanaging science can be brought to book and deter others from indulging in such wrong doings? Of course this is possible only if sufficient honest scientist-cum administrators are still left in the country for doing this thankless job!

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

SOLDIERS OF SCIENCE-A REPUTATION TO GUARD!

Science is considered truth based and scientific findings are always respected except in a few cases where integrity of some findings is questioned. There is a feeling that lately truth is being sacrificed for publicity and sensationalism and many 'findings' and reports splashed in news papers and other media are retracted or found not true as claimed. Only recently a serious case of scientific misdemeanor was reported in this blog itself, that too in an internationally reputed scientific journal. What action the organization under whose name the paper was published has taken is still a mystery and scientific dishonesty can only prosper if such criminal action is condoned or brushed under the carpet. Such cases do happen in other countries also and it may be difficult for the publishers to really assess the truth in spite of battery of peers assisting them.

The provocation for this blog to raise this crucial subject is the big hue and cry being orchestrated all over the world regarding salt and its harmful effect on health. This may not be due to any vested interest or deliberate distortion of truth but still a misplaced zeal for saving the mankind. While advocacy of action in certain direction may be justifiable if it does not harm the people but if at a future time such actions become regrettable, abundant caution is always the best policy. In an earlier blog the bad side of salt consumption was highlighted because majority of reports on the subject bring out the harmful effects it can have in human system. While over consumption of any thing is not good for any body, salt alone cannot be blamed for many of the ills supposed to be caused by it. Therefore, like all foods salt usage also must be moderated but unlike sugar most people do not like any product over salted, providing an in-built safety cover. What is forgotten is that all human beings are not equal and salt intake precaution is more appropriate for only those with some health problems. Sodium is an important nutrient involved in a variety of body functions and depletion of sodium can have catastrophic consequences. The latest aggressive campaign for achieving targeted reduction of use of salt by the food processing industry is reported in New York which aims to reduce average intake per day per ca pita by 40% in 10 years. UK already has a national program to force industry to reduce salt in their products so that average per ca pita consumption is brought down to 6 g a day. Unless more definitive data are obtained regarding the minimum and maximum salt levels that man needs or can tolerate, such campaigns are ill- advised and ill-conceived and the very credibility of scientists is at stake.

It is not easy to forget those days decades back when every pregnant woman was advised with conviction that weight increase during pregnancy was risky for the mother (preeclampsia) as well as the child (under weight). The result was that child mortality went up while babies born were grossly under weight jeopardizing the quality of life of hundreds of thousands of children when they grew up. Can scientists who propagated such a strategy, obviously based on their scientific studies then, compensate for the lives lost and the sufferings of people on account of such practices? Here again the lesson to be learnt is that only multi group studies keeping in view the diverse background, ethnicity, environments and genetic make up, can end up in a rational scientific conclusion and any particular finding with one population cannot be applied universally to whole of the world.

Most recently, a nutritional controversy is being raked up by the American Heart Association (AHA) which has reversed the hitherto view, widely held by the experts that consumption of too much of Omega-6 fatty acids (n-6 acids) in the diet causes inflammation leading to many diseases and the ratio of Omega-6 acids to Omega-3 acids should not be more than 4 to 1. In reality average ratio is 10:1 to 30:1, especially amongst meat eating populations. In a 180 degree turn around AHA now recommends consumption of n-6 acids to the equivalent of 5-10% of daily calories working to about 12-22 g a day for a healthy adult. Where does the truth lie? No one knows for sure!

This is not to decry science or the scientists but to focus on the uncertainties concerning health, food and nutrition faced by the common man and unless there is unanimity amongst the scientists in what they say concerning life and death issues, confidence in them by the society will be progressively diluted. This must not be allowed to happen for which responsibility lies squarely on the shoulders of the scientists.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/