This is a story of two talks, both of which are almost identical. It’s also the story of two people, both of whom are also the same person. What separates both are a couple of years, perspective gained, and perspective lost.
I first heard Dr. Don M. Huber, Emeritus Professor of Plant Pathology at Purdue University, speak in Eastern Ontario in February of 2011. The next talk was his presentation at the AcresUSA Conference in Springfield, IL in December of 2013. Apart from the addition of a few slides depicting select events of the past few years, the content was much the same. The people in this story are both me: the person I was, and the person I am now.
Then and Now
In early 2011 I was a big proponent of organic agriculture, a staunch opponent of GMOs, and Monsanto was enemy #1. Huber’s description of studies showing the deleterious effects of glyphosate on plant health confirmed my suspicions about RoundUp and herbicides in general. His speculation about a “new pathogen” and its devastating effects on plant and animal health, although frustratingly vague on specifics, fit right into my paradigm concerning the evils of GMOs. I couldn’t wait to see the details of “work on a variety of aspects” that he promised would be published “in about a month.”
I followed the story for another couple of months, still waiting for more data to be published, then he pretty much dropped off my radar. Leading up to his Acres presentation, I heard that he was still on the lecture circuit, and still saying pretty much the same things he had been saying in 2011. In the meantime, however, I had discovered a community of independent scientists on Twitter who had taught me a lot about the process of scientific research and who had very patiently and logically dispelled many of my misconceptions regarding GMOs. I walked into his presentation in December with a skeptical attitude, prepared to look deeper, and ready to ask questions.
What I saw and heard shocked me. I don’t intend to go into a detailed analysis of Huber’s claims here, though I will provide links – I want to talk about how he tells his story, and the impact it has.
The Scientific
Many of the studies (including a number of his own) that he cites on nutrient-disease and herbicide-nutrient-disease interactions have been published in peer-reviewed journals and have some merit. (For more detailed discussion see here and here.) However, these studies don’t tell the whole story, and they aren’t put into context – there are many other studies with conflicting results, and Huber gives no indication of whether or not herbicides other than glyphosate have similar effects, and to what extent. I’ll never be a fan of herbicides (my support for organic agriculture has never waned), but it would be nice to have more context before condemning one particular product over all others.
The Unscientific
Worse yet, Huber intersperses, correlates, and extrapolates this valid data with information that has very little, if any, scientific value. He begins by noting that correlation does not equal causation, but then he’s off to the races with a blinding series of correlations, peppered with references to the results of a few real studies, to the point where most listeners lose track of the initial caveat. For instance, he’ll show the results of a study, then, as a supposed illustration, he’ll display aerial photos taken of neighboring cornfields during the 2012 drought. Claiming that one field is non-GMO and other is GMO, he’ll point to the superior appearance of the first, ignoring the fact any number of other factors could account for the difference between two fields on two separate farms, despite their geographic proximity.
Huber also isn’t above using discredited science and non-science to bolster his claims and incite fear. The Seralini rat experiments and Carman/Vlieger pig study figure prominently in his presentation. So, too, does the “shocking corn comparison” that supposedly demonstrated high levels of formaldehyde and practically non-existent levels of nutrients in GMO corn. During his Acres presentation, he presented these results and stated “there is zero tolerance for formaldehyde in food products.” A minute later he referred to the high formaldehyde levels and commented, “and people are eating these corn flakes.” Amid gasps from the audience, my hand shot up and I asked, “if there’s zero tolerance, how is it getting into our food?” “Well, I don’t know that it is,” he admitted, before trailing off with a “but….” My next question was if the study had ever been replicated, and if so, had the results ever been published. “No” he stated, “it’s only been a year, and you people [referring to the anti-GMO audience] are the only ones who want to know.” It didn’t seem right to me at the time, but it wasn’t until recently that I learned just how wrong he was.
The Non-Science
The highlight of Huber’s presentations is his description of a new menace that is supposedly having devastating effects on plant, animal, and human health, causing, among other things, reproductive failure. But even after a number of years, he can’t describe whether it’s a virus, a fungus, or a prion; if it has DNA or not – he’s now taken to calling it an “entity.” Needless to say, there’s a great deal of skepticism in the scientific community. The claims he makes for this “entity” are simply not supported by our current understanding of the way the world works. And although I’m usually the first to point out that science and our comprehension of the world is constantly evolving, I’m forced to admit that in this case the explanation is vastly more likely to be a number of mundane causes, rather than one “smoking gun” that will turn the world upside-down.
To make matters worse, Huber has refused to share his data, the organism, or his methods for culturing the organism with the broader scientific community. He has published nothing about it that could be subject to peer review, and he’s not allowing other scientists access to the information they need to prove or disprove his hypothesis. If this pathogen is responsible for all the terrible things he’s linking it to, why wouldn’t he want as many scientists as possible working to understand it? Having already read about the situation, I approached Huber following his talk to ask him this question. At first, Huber replied that he had been unable to interest anyone in the US on working on it – “they were prohibited” or “they turned us down.” Then he shifted tactics and said that he had been betrayed by a collaborator who went on to say that it was “all a hoax”, so he had moved all the research overseas. There were a “number of people working on it, all over the world, ” he said, “they just can’t be visible.” When I asked if others might be help (knowing that they had offered), he replied “that situation turned on us” referring to a story of how the USDA had offered to sequence it, then allowed the sample to languish in their labs until it was too old. There was zero acknowledgement of the offer made by Kevin Folta only weeks earlier.
The Fear-Mongering
What bothered me most of all was the audience’s reaction. By the end of his talk, describing his fears for the health of the next generation, Huber had choked up and was almost crying. Many in the audience reacted the same way – scared silly, weeping in fear for the future. Huber is soft-spoken, grandfatherly – he exudes humility and engenders respect. He’s undoubtedly done some good, valuable work in his career. But don’t be mistaken – whatever has lead him here, his current path is deceptive, misleading, and irresponsible. Unless and until he can stick to the science and offer solid evidence for his extreme claims, he must be called to account for the way he is scaring people, and his tour of terror must end.
kevinfolta
January 10, 2014
Thank you so much for posting this and for your questions to Huber. The tide is turning on him. In the last two months I’ve received a lot of grief from his defenders. I’m really glad you are approaching this critically. Great job.
LikeLiked by 1 person
songberryfarm
January 13, 2014
Thanks, Kevin. People reading this who will be going to see Dr. Huber speak would be well-advised to check out the questions for him that you’ve posted on your own blog here: http://kfolta.blogspot.ca/2014/01/your-questions-for-huber.html
LikeLike
Brian
January 10, 2014
Nice work, Rob. Good to hear another perspective on Huber especially from someone with your background.
LikeLike
Loren
January 10, 2014
‘If this pathogen is responsible for all the terrible things he’s linking it to, why wouldn’t he want as many scientists as possible working to understand it?’
Because this is about obstruction, not learning and understanding. Why didn’t Seralini use the right kind of rats for his study? Because a frightening study that’s incomplete makes for a better narrative than one that is complete, valid, and possibly comes to the conclusion that Round Up and EPSPS are safe. If Huber moves forward, especially with help from folks like Kevin, he might find that there’s nothing there.
LikeLike
Jamaica Rose
August 27, 2014
You say Seralini did not use the right rats, but he did indeed used the very same strain of rats that Monsanto did when they did their 90 “safety” tests to show their GMO crops are safe. Seralini replicated their studies, using the same type of rats, using the same protocols. Only he carried out the study for 2 years instead of just 90 days. The rats had many health problems eating the genetically-modified feed, starting at about 4 months.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Cami Ryan
January 10, 2014
Brilliant. Well-written and insightful. As always.
LikeLike
Robert Wager
January 10, 2014
Thank you for this.
LikeLike
Jay Hulbert
January 10, 2014
Thanks for asking great questions and digging in to the next level! Great article.
LikeLike
Janice Person aka JPlovesCOTTON
January 10, 2014
Rob, it is easy to get taken in by someone with a compelling story, but glad you realize that after review it just doesn’t hold water.
LikeLike
Rob Jones
January 11, 2014
As always Rob you are very articulate and putting forth your thoughts. I’ve been very reluctant to throw in on this subject because I think it’s a very tiresome conversation and not many people are going to be swayed one way or the other. I have yet to see a GE product offering a benefit to the consumer, not just a convenience for the farmer, that can’t be done just as easily by conventional seed and healthy soil.
The problem I see with posts like this are that the detractors of Dr Huber use them to totally negate everything he’s ever done. When you listened to Dr Hubers first talk at Acres in December, what percent of that talk do you believe was credible and what percent was totally without merit? Let’s not be sidetracked by this crazy “mystery bug” thing and lose sight of the fact that there are more negative side effects to this technology than the industry is willing to admit. Yes “it does matter”! Good job provoking serious thought.
LikeLike
pdiff
January 11, 2014
Rob Jones: You are ignoring the fact that farmers are the consumers for seed companies. Not every ag innovation needs to have direct application to the end consumer. GPS and computer assisted farm implements, for example are expensive innovations with little end consumer benefits, but very useful for many farmers.
Even with little direct implication, as an end consumer, I’ll take less insecticide use with Bt crops over conventual use.
As for Huber, I have never seen anyone question his earlier work based on his current claims.
LikeLiked by 1 person
songberryfarm
January 13, 2014
Hi Rob, thanks for your comment and questions. Dr. Huber did manage to stick to the science during his first presentation, and if you follow some of the links above (under “The Scientific”) you’ll see a lot more detail on the merits of the studies he cited during that talk. Personally, I’d like to see more work done on nutrient-disease interactions, and I know that there are other scientists addressing this topic.
I probably wouldn’t have bothered writing this post if the reaction to his talk hadn’t been so extreme. What’s your estimate of the difference in the size of the crowd between that first talk of his at Acres and the second, longer one that I’ve discussed here? Twice, three times as many for the second? If people had left nodding their heads thoughtfully, if even one other person had asked a question that challenged his interpretation, I would be a whole lot less alarmed.
In my opinion, blaming Huber’s detractors for casting doubt on his previous work is rather misguided. He made the choice to “get sidetracked by this crazy ‘mystery bug’ thing” and he’s continuing the make the choice to scare everyone silly about it.
He can also make the choice to stop, and to try to salvage what’s left of his scientific reputation, any time he likes. I’ll be among the first to welcome him back.
LikeLike
Rob Jones
January 13, 2014
Rob, the reason I get on the detractors of Dr. Huber is because of the many farmers who listen to them as their only source on the subject. I am an active Farm Bureau member and have many friends from over the years who are Farm Bureau members and from the discussions I’ve had with them they believe GE technology will increase yield, decrease chemical use, and the few that have heard of Dr. Huber don’t believe he has any credibility. This isn’t because they are stupid or extremist, just that they are very trusting folk. I’m fairly confident that if you went down to San Antonio today to #AFBF14 and took a poll, most would say that GE increases yield, and Don Huber is irrelevant. Granted it’s not up to Monsanto to inform about the downside since it is their job to sell a product, I just get frustrated because the rest of the story is not spoken of much in this group. I guess that’s why I remain a member so I can talk about it.
LikeLike
loreneaton
January 14, 2014
Is there really a technology or growing method out there that has ZERO downside? I doubt it. But that includes going back to the way things were before.
And bear one thing in mind, the first wave of GM products were never designed to increase yield. These are traits to reduce inputs and the toxicity of products previously used. And I think less toxic pesticide runoff IS a consumer benefit, even though it is not very obvious. And for those studies that say that non GM varieties yield better than, say RR soy…does that include substituting another form of weed control for the Round Up?
LikeLike
Rob Jones
January 14, 2014
Loren, if I may call you that, we agree that there is no method or technology without some downside, the goal is to minimize the downside is much as we can. We also seems to agree that the first wave of GE products did not increase yield even though seed reps continue to claim they do.
Now what about the new wave of GE products coming to market? If your twitter feed is like mine, there are numerous posts about the USDA approving multiple stacked seed for 3 herbicides. And why 3 herbicides? Because of the grossly over-used “supposedly beniegn” herbicide Roundup. Weeds are becoming such a problem now that people are using roundup to burn down weeds before harvesting their crops and as a result of that, the USDA has recently raised allowable levels of glyphosate on just about every crop you can imagine.
Now getting back to Dr Huber. He would prefer you not use Roundup but if you do he has things that you can be doing to protect yourself from the increasing downside of its over use.
The way I see it, once a person jumps on the chemical treadmill, the downside will continue to increase until soil health is taken seriously and not just given lip service.
LikeLike
DrRexDexter
January 14, 2014
Well, said, Mr Jones.
LikeLike
Steve Savage
January 13, 2014
The Don Huber thing is sad. I don’t know what happened to him and to his scientific standards, but he has become a disgrace to our profession of plant pathology. Your critique is good, but those who want to believe this sort of thing will remain mislead
LikeLike
R Andrew Ohge
January 14, 2014
Thanks for savaging the first man with the courage to tell the truth. Monsanto only has Cigarette Science-heck, it’s FORTY YEARS behind the cutting edge of Biotech-and you talk like them AND their Apologists and Shills have ANY standards, let alone “scientific” one.
Personally, I’ll be chortling when the Elite use them as the scapegoats for the coming economic implosion that heralds their final grab for complete control. I’m sure Grant has gotten used to thinking of himself as part of the one percent.
So, when you continue to watch farmer’s profits dry up, when mutant weeds, insects, and microorganisms overcome the efforts of all to defeat them, you’ll have yet another cheesy sounding bit of Corporate arrogance to explain it.
Someone would wish ill of you all, but you’ve embarked on a course that will cause YOU more harm than any that I could wish…and when it DOES come down, I’ll be laughing at you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mary Baker
January 20, 2014
What language are you speaking?
LikeLike
R Andrew Ohge
January 20, 2014
The issues continue to emerge, as this recent article shows. I wonder what the Corporate Farmers of Argentina think of their BFF Monsanto, now:
READ: http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2014/15254-gm-corn-invasion-in-soybean-fields-raises-farm-costs-in-brazil
he meltdown of GM farming in Brazil continues, with a plague of Bt toxin-resistant caterpillars giving way to an invasion of Roundup Ready corn acting like a weed in soybean fields
As usual, farmers are paying the price. They are being forced to buy additional herbicides to kill the weedy Roundup-tolerant corn or even to return to hand-hoeing.
—
Corn invasion in soybean plantations raises farm costs
By Mariana Caetano
Valor International, 9 Jan 2014
http://www.valor.com.br/international/news/3390626/corn-invasion-soybean-plantations-raises-farm-costs
The troubles faced by Mato Grosso farmers in the current summer crop 2013/2014 started with an outbreak of Helicoverpa earworm, but haven’t stopped yet. Now something unusual is causing them another concern: An invasion of corn into soybean plantations in the state. The so-called guaxo corn — guaxo is a term used for plants that germinate without being cultivated — is considered a weed and has directly affected production costs and putting pressure on farmers’ margins.
The problem, says Nery Ribas, technical manager of Aprosoja/MT, association that represents soy and corn producers in the Mato Grosso state, the largest soybean producer of Brazil, is that most of this corn, which grows spontaneously, is of the Roundup Ready type, the genetically modified Monsanto seed that is resistant to the glyphosate herbicide. “When the farmer applies glyphosate in the crop, it kills weeds, but it does not eliminate the soybean or guaxo corn, since both are RR,” he explains. The presence of guaxo RR corn was already seen amid soybeans since the latest harvest, but gathered strength in this crop.
And how has corn ended up mixing with soybeans? The most probable hypothesis is linked to the winter corn crop: During this second corn crop, grains that are dropped off during harvesting, between May and September, remain in the soil and eventually germinate with soybeans, favored by rains in the beginning of the summer crop.
The use of old harvesters can also contribute to the appearance of guaxo corn, says Milton Rego, vice president of Anfavea, auto industry’s trade group. “A new harvester must provide less than 0.5% of mechanical loss, while in [a machine] with 12 years of use, for example, that loss increases to up to 8%. Out of this percentage, it’s assumed that at least 4% of grains germinate,” Mr. Rego says.
Removal of guaxo corn is needed because the plant competes with soybean for water, light, and nutrients. Initial data from a survey by Embrapa Soja point that two to four corn plants by square meter of soybean plantation may reduce by up to 50% the soybean productivity.
There is even a commercial barrier: If grains stay until the harvest, corn will mix with soybeans in the bags, leading trading companies to apply discounts on the amounts paid to farmers, Mr. Ribas, of Aprosoja, says. To weed out the invader, the most effective solution is to invest in the application of a graminicide, a type of pesticide able to eliminate narrow-leaf plants, such as corn, genetically modified or conventional.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rick
January 14, 2014
I don’t know that it is being harsh or an exceptional expectation to hold Dr. Huber to standards that we would require of any person making the claims he does. Because Dr. Huber has a well-earned reputation and distinguished career, my bias would be to pay attention and give his research weight. If what he is claiming could be substantiated, I would welcome his evidence and would agree that we need to act upon it. But at some point even he needs to present the evidence, particularly since many of the claims contradict much of established scientific understandings and seem unlikely in light of continued increases in productivity we see in agriculture. If it is the certain agricultural emergency or developing emergency he claims, then even he should be eager to get this information out to the broader scientific community to confirm his findings as well as to enlist the best minds in addressing it. Dr. Huber is no more exempt from providing the evidence than anybody else.
Even if Dr. Huber believes it, I am skeptical of the conspiracy of silence , i.e. that he and associates feel threatened, and I am not inclined to give him a mulligan because of that. Like the 9/11 conspiracy theories, there would have to be too many people involved that would have to be bought off or intimidated into silence, and too many who would have so much to gain by exposing the conspiracy, to believe that there is a methodical intimidation and silencing of scientists.
LikeLike
R Andrew Ohge
January 14, 2014
It’s not a “Conspiracy of Silence”, it’s a Conspiracy of keeping the Opposing Science Silenced.” Most of us that have followed all this for any length of time have seen it in action. Those who deny it has, have generally been the pro-[current incarnation-not the actual Science of Biotech]Biotech.
LikeLike
Rick Leonard
January 15, 2014
You lost me with “oppsing science”. Yes there are disagreements, conflicting evidence, and sometimes differing interpretations even when the validity of evidence is agreed upon in any field. But knowlege and paradigms evolve as new evidence arises even when there are high stakes involved when the evidence is compelling. If you are claiming that there are shadowy figures that contact researchers and threaten them and their families, I am quite willing to believe that if you can show me actual evidence of that. To be honest, I am quite skeptical given the size of the coverup would have to be and the incentives to journalists and others to blow the lid off. If you are equating critiques with harrassment, then I am sorry but I fail to see why Serlini or Carmen are immune, although I agree the tone can sometimes be harsh, mocking and dismissive, and take on personal discrediting. .
There are a number of valid reasons why Ibcan be skeptical of Carmen and Seralinis that do not require some conspiratoral explanation that i am somehow controlled by Monsanto. When Carmens hogs suffered death loss of over ten %, I don’t think it is unreasonable of me to be skeptical when normal death loss is close to a third of that even though she represented that as normal. It simply introduces a lot of potential for errors in data or in interpretation. That is not a personal attack on Carmen’s intellect, or ethics, is is just my assessment of the quality of the results. When a research project demonstrates that exposing human cells to glysophate kills or damages those cells, i dont doubt it. But I suspect that if you exposed those same cells to chlorine, or snapple ice tea or Ben and Jerry’s ice cream, and in some cases distilled water, you get the same results. Why don’t I have the same right to be skeptical of Jeffrey Smith for citing that as evidence when he doesn’t call for closing swimming pools.
I am ranting, but I assure you that if Huber can substantiate his claims, I’ll change my outlook accordingly and hail him as a hero. I still stand by the belief that good science meets certain standards, and that Huber is not immune.
I am not interested in winning a debate with you. Look, please understand I have no personal career or financial self interest in whether farmers utilise biotech traits or not. I have read virtually every thing from gmo watch to earth open source. I have come to the conclusion that there are riska but the apopoleptic fears are vastly overblown, and the most of the representations of how this technology causes harm or enslaves farmers is simply inconsistent with my personal knowlege. Sure there are risks and drawbacks, but they are mostly in the application of the technology, not the technology itself. I am somewhat critical of whether herbicide tolerance is ultimately a beneficial use of the technology, although it was very beneficial in the beginning, but I believe that the application to the papaya ringspot problem and the citrus greening problem are excelent uses. If biotech helps us achieve advances in nitrogen use efficiency, that would be a tremendous benefit.
I would be very receptive, given Mr. Huber’s reputation, to the evidence he might present.
LikeLike
Brooke Heppinstall Kroenung
April 18, 2014
Thanks for trying to lead people back into a sane discussion of the issues. I get lambasted every time I try to inject reason into this area. Thankfully, it’s spring and I can take refuge among my seedlings and compost!
LikeLike
Lewis
August 3, 2015
Hi Rob,
I’ve been hearing a lot that farmers are “forced” to use GMO seed (such as Bt varieties). How true is this statement? Others say that farmers who use GMO seed love it, which i can understand because herbicide-tolerant ones are supposed to be simple to grow, but I realize i’m assuming things. What have you found out? An article on this would be amazing.
LikeLike
rob
August 24, 2015
Hi Lewis,
Thanks for the comment, and for also getting in touch on Twitter. For others reading this comment, I referred Lewis to this blog post which explains things quite well: http://thefoodiefarmer.blogspot.ca/2013/12/the-myth-about-seed-choice.html
I’d only add that I have heard concerns from some farmers that they find that the latest advances in non-GMO traits like yield are only being incorporated into GMO varieties. This isn’t a conspiracy – seed companies have always tended to incorporate their best genetics into their best-selling varieties, and right now, their best-selling varieties are GMO.
Thankfully, there still are seed companies dedicated to developing non-GMO varieties, and there are even organic breeding programs popping up here and there: https://www.realagriculture.com/2015/08/developed-to-compete-organic-breeding-shows-value-in-understanding-selection-environment/
Thanks again for joining in the conversation!
LikeLike