The Pink Ride (Guest Post by Thelma Lee)

Intro by Marzie

This blog is run by an atheist. Yeah, that's right, I'm an avowed atheist. And yet I follow the Dalai Lama on Twitter. Why? I like the guy and some of what he espouses. The fact that he's espousing compassion from a religious vantage point doesn't bother me. I believe in compassion. I believe, if not in karma, that what goes around often comes around and that it's better to be good-hearted and honest and compassionate. Because, like HHDL says, it makes me feel better and live in a better world by being part of making it better. And thus, I am willing to risk drawing further ire by not being afraid to say I'm an atheist who likes John Halcyon Styn. He may seem all new-agey with a Christian tinge and over the top, but I like what he says about love and hugs. And I love what he has to say about fear and self-loathing and what a waste it is. I like the fact that he wants to make people feel good and that he rejects hate, rigid gender identity and seemingly a lot of stuff that when you come right down to it, seems always to go back to a position of fear. Fear of the different, fear of the other, fear, fear, fear. To those fears, the fearless man with pink hair offers hugs. And thus, this atheist blogger gives you Thelma Lee's adventures in the desert, with the pink-haired grandson of a Baptist minister (who called himself near the end of his life a "Baptist Buddhist" and said that current religious definitions no longer defined him). John Halcyon Styn has taken it all one step further than that and colored it all pink to boot. He is the author of a book titled Love More, Fear Less. I haven't read the book, but it seems like a great motto to try to live by.


This is a great post to follow the lingering sadness, anger and loss from 9/11. Our world needs more John Halcyon Styns and fewer Osamas and his ilk.

---

Pink Heart Camp at Burning Man 2011 (© Thelma Lee Gross)

The Pink Ride

by Thelma Lee Gross

A few weeks ago I was reading “The Jackrabbit Speaks,” which is the Burning Man E -newsletter. This is something I only do as the event approaches, being too lazy or unfocused to do so much more in advance.  I suddenly saw the following:

“Halcyon is leading his annual PINK RIDE on Thursday at noon.
Meet @ noon at Pink Heart (9:30 & Esplanade).
Wear pink; bring your bike and an open heart.
Details, video & pics from previous rides:
http://www.hugnation.com/burningman/”

PINK?  WOW.  I love pink!  It would be so pretty…WOW, a PINK line of bicycles on the Playa, everyone in PINK.  A visual gift to Black Rock City! And I already have a PINK costume!  

I looked at a few of the photos from the previous ride, but I really didn’t investigate, not wanting to preview details of the 2011 Burning Man festival. (I deliberately didn’t look at the art projects online, for example, and was only accidentally told about the Trojan horse by a friend.)

The Burning Man Illuminated at Night (© Thelma Lee Gross)

What is Burning Man? It is an annual, weeklong event united by a sense of community, self reliance, gifting, and personal involvement in the human canvas that is Black Rock City.  The City is composed of curved, concentric streets that partially encompass the central Playa, where most of the art installations, as well as the Man, are found.  Participation is through performance as well as radical self expression via costumes or absence thereof.  Events, objects, food and drink, music and other performances, classes, clothing: all are gifted unconditionally from the wildly eclectic camps that serve as mini-communities throughout Black Rock City. The city, which this year contained over 53 thousand people, disappears without a trace within two or three weeks, fulfilling another of the central principles:  “leave no trace.” Many structures are burned, including the temple, the Man, and other wooden art installations.  Immediacy is critical; nowhere else on earth (except perhaps India) have I felt so much “in the moment.” For me, Burning Man is an opportunity to be in a continuous brightly colored, interactive dream while being allowed to remain awake.  It is literally one of the most exotic places on the planet.

The Burning Man (©Michael Holden for Burning Man 2011)

On the day of the ride Pink Heart Camp did not disappoint.  There it was, right on the esplanade along the Playa, looking so very pink!  So pretty, pink and furry!

Pink Heart Location at Burning Man 2011

(© Hug Nation)

I took photos of the other pink people and then lounged on a fluffy pink couch waiting for something to happen.  Suddenly there was a slender man, dressed in black with pink hair and sitting before us, the obvious leader. He announced that we were going to wait while a large group joined us.  Waiting….I looked at my watch thinking, “We are leaving late.”  My anxiety over scheduling seemed out of harmony in the desert but personality is a hard thing to shake.  He started to talk and I thought “Okay, he’s just stalling while we wait, okay, just let it go.  Let him talk; it’s his camp and his ride. Just relax and soon you will be on your pretty pink ride, creating a pink stripe on the desert.” 

 Which is all I wanted, wasn’t it?

He started to talk about his grandfather Caleb, a Baptist minister with endless buoyancy and love for people, who died in 2007 at age 95, and their special and loving relationship. Suddenly I realized I was in the presence of a gifted storyteller and preacher, blessed by a perception and analysis of life that was untainted by truisms, platitudes, or an obsession with God. (He does not believe in heaven.)  He began to speak about optimism and joy in life, inspired by his grandpa’s example, and the choice we all have to live in deep appreciation of each moment, one by one.  He talked about the balance life offers between the “ice cream cone in your hand and the crap on your shoes” and how dwelling on the shoes is like Shakespeare’s coward’s “a thousand deaths,” which he sees as a useless suffering over obstacles and possible outcomes, and the obsessive focus on “what ifs” instead of a commitment to the task at hand.  And he spoke of spreading joy and love to other human beings, which he does both actually and emblematically through Hug Nation, a movement he co-founded with his grandfather. 

John Halcyon Styn (© Mike Hedge)

John Halcyon Styn is forty years old.  His personal mantra is “love more, fear less; float more, steer less.” John has worked in online publishing and E-commerce as well as in public media.  He has had a varied and intense lifestyle.  Burning Man is the core of his spiritual life. From his website [pronouns changed]:

“He does not consider himself a Christian, but does consider Jesus to be one of his valued teachers.   He considers Buddha, Gandhi, Eckart Tolle, Mr. Rogers and many others to be valuable teachers, too.  He believes that a spiritual path is deeply personal. And whatever works for you is perfect. He distrusts anyone who knows ‘the true way’.”

© 

John does a weekly “Belief Buffet” broadcast before Hug Nation each week where he shares “ways that work for him”.  Over the past four years he has spoken about gender labeling (“pink toenails”  or see Bright Nepenthe's post here); relationships; the meaning of death;  the significance of money and abundance; the importance of living in the moment; and the problem of terrorism and war, among other diverse topics.  His opinions and perceptions are balanced, good natured, self-effacing, and just plain smart.  How do I know?  Because I have been watching his on line video blog since I returned from the Playa, and consider him a source of focused and positive energy that has been lacking in my life for longer than I care to admit.

Hugs (© Thelma Lee Gross)

After his talk at the camp, he hugged every single attendee with warmth, for he lives by his word. We then rode across the desert, but the aesthetics of the pink line seemed unimportant now.  Instead we were spreading compliments and smiles with other Burners as we rode.  We ended up in a huge, hand-linked, pink spiral in the middle of Central Camp where we then hugged in rampant, pink, extroverted joy.  And cosmically, if such a thing exists, suddenly there was my husband hugging me too, somehow having showed up at the moment of this supremely happy and yes, pink moment.

I came for the color and I stayed for the message. 

---

Text and selected images (as noted) copyright, Thelma Lee Gross.

All other content is © Bright Nepenthe, 2011 unless otherwise noted.

Playing the Culture Card, Live Markets and the Politics of Food

As I've alluded to several times on this blog, food is a very complex issue. I'm fascinated by food, not least because I can eat so little of it (no gluten, no casein, no eggs, no soy- it's a tough diet) but because there's this whole issue of ethical and humane, sustainable and environmentally sound farming which plays into my mind about what I choose to eat. In the coming weeks I hope to have the delightful Seanan Forbes guest blog for us about ways to source responsibly produced food. (Prelude anyone? Check out the Chef's Collaborative link over ➞ in the Passel of Riches. It's a Seanan recommendation.)

Today however, we have Dr. Thelma Lee Gross, a Veterinary Pathologist practicing in California. Thelma is internationally known (and there will be hell to pay for saying it, but even I'm astonished by the 9,120 Google hits to her specific name in quotes) and the author of several highly regarded small animal pathology texts. I've known Thelma for exactly one half my life at this point and if there is one thing I can tell you it is that Thelma Lee Gross is not shy when it comes to offering her opinions. Live markets have been a passionate cause for Thelma and I was surprised in fact, in sourcing some biographical material, to find a one page commentary titled: Scientific and moral considerations for live market practices in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association from way back in 2003.

How did your dinner die? Is it ever okay to be cruel to animals in order to eat them? Where do we draw that line? Peter Wedderburn of the Telegraph blogged on the issue of Kosher slaughter and its effective recent ban in New Zealand. New Zealand joined Iceland, Norway and Sweden in banning ritual slaughter by requiring that animals be stunned prior to slaughter. Is Kosher and Halal slaughter cruel? The debate is a contentious one loaded with religious and political overtones. To what extent are long-held cultural practices acceptable in modern times, especially when revisited with the eyes of modern veterinary medicine?


Those of us who have been lucky enough to travel outside the US are well aware of different cultural practices and tolerances for what some of us view as food and others of us view as sentient animals and others of us see as both, in one form. We've probably all been to those seafood restaurants where you see live lobsters in a tank. I still remember shrinking in horror at the idea of their fate when I was a child. (I haven't changed my mind, actually.) My love of animals is a large part of why I was a vegetarian for many, many years. Seanan, however, will tell you about the serious issues of sustainable farming of vegetable crops. Because that's not exactly a solution either.


It is my hope that we can discuss food in the coming months from two perspectives- Seanan's and Thelma's. It would be fantastically informative and I hope it works out. These ladies are very busy and I'm thrilled to snag them as I can.

In any case, with no further ado, Dr. Gross:

---

Frogs and Turtles for Sale

(image credit: Laurel Smith)

Tribalism: Playing the “Culture Card”

On March 4^th, 2010 the five-member California Fish and Game Commission voted unanimously to ban the importation of non-native turtles and frogs for food.  The humane consideration of live market practices, as outlined in my recent article in the Sacramento News and Review, was not the issue; in fact, the commission never cared to consider the humane argument.  Instead the ban was enacted because the imported animals are competing with the native species of California by spread of disease, by competition for food and habitat, and by predation.  This argument is certainly mainstream and popular, and it is easy to see why this line was taken by the commission over the politically more fragile argument of animal cruelty.

During a regularly scheduled meeting of the Commission on May 5^th about a dozen market supporters attended the hearing to protest the ban.  Six state legislators also submitted a letter of dissention to the Commission.  The letter was signed by State Senator Leland Yee (D-San Francisco) and Assembly-members Fiona Ma (D-San Francisco), Ted Lieu (D-Torrance), Paul Fong (D-Sunnyvale), Mike Eng (D-Monterey Park), and Warren Furutani (D-Long Beach).  On May 6, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that, "After hearing from the merchants Wednesday morning, Commission President Jim Kellogg promised that the body would reconsider the new policy at a future meeting, citing both the legislators' request and the public testimony."  Thankfully, on Thursday, May 20, in a packed hearing room in Sacramento, the State Fish & Game Commission voted 3:2 not to overturn the ban.  Three of the original state legislators were present and testified against the ban: Senator Yee, and Assembly-members Ma and Lieu.  

Asian American market supporters from San Francisco and Oakland also attended the May 20^th hearing, mostly elderly people with no knowledge or sensitivity regarding environmental protection, let alone humane issues.  Their main arguments were "5,000 years of Chinese tradition” and that turtle and frog meat was “good for one's health”.  In other words: “It’s our culture so that means you shall not interfere.  If you do, you are an insensitive racist”. 

This cultural argument is not unprecedented.  See past and current arguments for cock fighting (see also here), Indian tribal hunting of Florida Panthers, and charreadas (Mexican rodeos which include some inhumane practices, such as steer tailing and horse felling; see also here). (Marzie also notes the ongoing battle in Catalonia, Spain over bullfighting.)

I accept that some of the motivation of these Asian legislators was political, for after all, politicians are elected by their constituents and they are paid to pander to them.  But the nearly exclusively Chinese retaliation in this case is suspect.  (The involvement of Assembly-member Furutani remains elusive. Surely it wasn’t: “All Asians should stick together” was it?)  In my view, the blind support of “tribe” occurred without any consideration of the inherent integrity of protecting California habitat and native species.  Neither did it begin to consider the inhumanity of live market practices.  That is immoral, in my view, because it places racial or ethnic identity above other considerations, like the extinction of California’s native species, as well as the barbarism of mutilating animals while they are still alive.  The culture card was used to trump reason, morality, sensitivity, and humanity.  I for one cannot wait until the day when we are all ethnically indeterminate.  Maybe then this madness will stop.

---

I hope to have Thelma Lee give us a piece on California's Proposition 2, about which she is well versed and has published thoughts. In the meantime, readers of the blog who wish to know more about industrialized farming from a factual standpoint would do well to visit: http://www.ncifap.org/ and read the Pew Commission Report on Industrialized Farming in America (titled Putting Meat on the Table). Even the Executive Summary will give you pause for thought.


© Bright Nepenthe, 2010

Eating Animals, Part 2

Eating Animals is a three part series by Thelma Lee Gross, DVM. Food for Thought is the second of three parts. 

Eating Animals, Part 2: Food for Thought

In the previous post I addressed the problem of factory farming and the welfare issues it creates.  In response to the overwhelming weight of the problem and its seeming insolubility, many of us have chosen to reduce or eliminate our consumption of animal products.  But is this the most moral choice?  Is it the most practical one?

Image Credit: NIH/National Library of Medicine

The problems of vegetarianism

Vegetarianism tends to ignore the barbaric conditions of most conventional egg and milk producing operations in the country today.  In truth, a strong argument could be made for the intrinsic inhumanity of any milk or egg producing system, no matter how welfare-oriented.  Male chicks are destroyed as hatchlings; on conventional factory farms, egg-laying hens are crowded into battery cages.  Even the Human Farm Animal Care Association permits slight beak trimming on its certified farms.  Male newborn dairy calves are removed from their mothers, and are destroyed or siphoned off into baby beef or veal production.  Cows have been bred into walking udders that are milked three times a day, and are always eating in an attempt to keep up with such a huge caloric demand.  Thus, a vegetarian must consider sourcing eggs and milk from welfare-intense systems to be eating humanely. 

  

Image credit: GoingVeggie.com

The problems of veganism

TThe clearest ethical argument is that killing animals for food is wrong, no matter how they are raised.  From the point of view of the individual, how can this be an arguable position?  However, seen from the point of view of our species as a whole, it becomes less clearcut, less black and white.  Certainly, there are evolutionary reasons that we eat meat; losing our dependence on fibrous leaves and switching to meat may have coincided with the weakening of our jaw muscles, allowing our skulls to expand and our brains to enlarge. (To learn more about this concept, see here.) It is ironic that meat consumption may be coupled to the development of brains that are big and complex enough to consider the ethical problem of eating meat! 

Should we override our omnivorous genetic imperative?  Or are there are other reasons besides evolution to justify the consumption of animal products in a morally conscious modern society? 

Certainly health concerns surrounding veganism abound in the literature.  But, even if every vegan could manage a healthy diet, a totally vegan world is not a viable solution.  Healthy veganism simply is not attainable in third world countries where sources of grains may be limited due to inhospitable soil or climate.  One hopeful opportunity to reduce our dependence in the future is synthetic meat production, such as the recent creation at the University of Missouri of a soy chicken that not only tastes like poultry meat, but has a similar texture.  The practical employment of universally available, palatable meat alternatives unfortunately is still years away.

Grain production is not a kill-free proposition.  Steven Davis from Oregon State University makes a convincing argument that consumption of grassfed ruminants will result in fewer animal deaths than veganism, which requires a heavier diet of grain. As fields are turned over during planting and harvesting, nests of small mammals, such as field mice, are disrupted and babies destroyed.  The counterargument is that death from grain production is accidental, whereas animals reared for food are deliberately killed. 

Lastly, vegetarianism and veganism are also unlikely to be adopted by a majority and thus are slow and ineffective ways to bring about change in food animal welfare.  A recent survey conducted by a Harris Poll for Vegetarian Times in 2008 showed that “3.2 percent of U.S. adults, or 7.3 million people, follow a vegetarian-based diet.  Approximately 0.5 percent, or 1 million, of those are vegans, who consume no animal products at all.”  A personal choice to become a vegan certainly gets one off the ethical “hook” but it does not address the fact that most of the world will never be vegan, at least not for generations to come.  We must seek a faster solution.  We must consider the right of all food animals to a decent life.  This is as much a moral imperative as is the avoidance of consumption.

Next:  What are our options?

The main text portion of this post is ©Thelma Lee Gross, 2010.

All other components are by Bright Nepenthe, 2010

Eating Animals, Part 3

Eating Animals is a three part series by Thelma Lee Gross, DVM. What are our options? is the the third and final article. 

Eating Animals, Part 3: What Are Our Options?

In the first two posts I outlined the problems of factory farming systems as they relate to animal welfare and discussed the practical and moral reasons for change.  Vegetarianism and veganism provide only partial and impractical solutions, largely because they do not provide a rapid enough correction.  What else can be done?

Dairy Cow

Image credit: Lisa Kyle for the Los Angeles Times

Organic farming 

The USDA has established guidelines for organic food in the National Organic Program (NOP) that were implemented in 2002. As some of these guidelines deal with behavioral needs of the farm animal, including outdoor access, and there is third party oversight by the USDA, organic farming offers improved welfare over conventional systems, particularly for pork and eggs.  (Farrowing crates and battery cages are not used.)  However, there are some loopholes in the guidelines.  There are several exceptions to allowing outdoor access for ruminants, notably “inclement weather,” which in parts of the Midwest may stretch over many months.  Organic beef also may be fed in feedlots for fattening toward the end of their lives.

It may be difficult to detect substantial differences in welfare as organic farms increase in size.  In a discussion of large-scale organic farming Michael Pollan writes in The Omnivore’s Dilemma (p. 161): 

“The industrial values of specialization, economies of scale, and mechanization wind up crowding out ecological values such as diversity, complexity, and symbiosis.”  

Nevertheless, the organic movement is certainly in a welfare-positive direction, and should be encouraged and promoted on small and large farms alike.  Obviously, welfare improvement on larger farms is critical because it impacts a larger number of animals.

One problem with organic farming, in my view, is the inability of the farmer to administer antibiotics.  Although the USDA forbids withholding necessary treatment for sick animals under Section 205.238 of its NOP code, in practice, farmers often withhold treatment because it is impractical.  Treating sick animals with antibiotics sometimes is avoided since it involves separate housing and handling of the animal, as reported recently in The Des Moines Register. Similarly, organic dairy cows with foot abscesses, a common problem, cannot be treated with antibiotics and kept as organic.  Treatment may be withheld if lameness is not severe enough to affect production, or the animal may be destroyed.  For this reason it seems preferable to purchase from a company with both organic and conventional farms; sick animals from organic farms can be shuffled to the conventional side if treatment is needed. 

Image credit: Sustainable Grub

A practical approach to research in farm animal welfare: the Farm Animal Initiative

Instead of adopting the anthropomorphic approach of some animal rights groups, it is important to discover what an animal actually desires if given a clear choice and to adapt those choices to a practical farm setting.  These welfare needs are species-specific and require research to discover and implement.  For example, laying hens will learn to push a heavily weighted door to be able to dust-bathe and perch. However, an outdoor environment is not something that chickens will invariably seek, being naturally avoidant of inconvenient weather (“weather weenies” as one animal welfare scientist of my acquaintance puts it).  In fact, laying hens often choose to be in shelters but must have access to other welfare enhancements such as litter for dust-bathing, nest boxes, and perches (“furnishings”).  Chickens raised indoors for the first five weeks will often not venture out of doors into grassy areas when they are provided.  Thus “free range” may be more of a marketing tool than a real enhancement for poultry. 

The Farm Animal Initiative (FAI) in the U.K. tests animal welfare-enhanced systems on their for-profit farm, using field research in a commercial setting, and with industry backing (including TESCO and McDonalds Europe). This approach keeps practical issues for the farmer, such as ease of management and economic feasibility, on the table from the beginning.  As described in The Future of Animal Farming, the FAI studies welfare systems that can be adapted to economies of scale.  The FAI farm has studied environmental enrichment for pigs in group systems in which aggression is minimized and therefore tail docking is not needed.  They have found that tree-enrichment of pastures for broiler chickens attracts more birds outdoors without increasing exposure to bacterial disease (although birds still avoid extreme weather).  The farm’s breeding program also selects for animal welfare-enhancing traits in balance with production traits; e.g. broiler birds with slightly smaller breasts and lower-maintenance sheep that can lamb successfully outdoors in all weather.  The FAI farm always emphasizes cost-effectiveness of implementation by the farmer, thus ensuring long term success.  Such practical, farm-based programs as these are sorely needed in the U.S. and could be funded by industry and animal welfare groups alike. 

Image attribution unknown

Third party inspection and certification programs

An important way to avoid marketing as a substitute for committed improvement of farm animal welfare involves third party independent inspection and certification programs.  Several such systems exist in the U.S. and abroad.  In 2000 the American Humane Association established Free Farmed Certification (now called American Humane Certification). I was unable to find a description of their standards online; access appeared to be restricted to prospective or active producer-members.  This organization is currently being criticized for its support of furnished cages (cages with nests, perches, and scratching areas, as well as more space per bird).  Nevertheless, these certified farms practice a higher level of welfare than conventional factory farms.

In 2003 the Human Farm Animal Care organization was formed, which certifies products that have been reared according to its strict guidelines (“Certified Humane”).  Their standards are clearly presented online for the consumer and producer and are considered by some groups as the “gold standard” of its type. These standards can be adopted by large farms. 

The Animal Welfare Approved (AWA) program was begun in 2006.  Standards are the most stringent of the three programs; however, only farms owned by individuals or families are accepted for certification, which largely restricts membership to small farms.  Although the standards are laudable, it is also critical for large farms to improve their welfare standards in order to affect the greatest number of animals possible.  Moderate, incremental improvements are more easily accepted by large producers.

As consumers we can send a clear message to retailers, and thus indirectly to producers, that there is a demand for animals that are raised as animals and not widgets.  Consumers are the ultimate supporters of welfare improvements because increased demand in the marketplace sends a strong message to the retailer, which drives demand for these products back up the line to the farmer.  This explains TESCO’s support of FAI in the U.K., for example.  If we are serious about animal welfare, then we must strive to eat humanely by purchasing food for which production is welfare-driven.  Increased cost is often less than anticipated, and seems a fair price to pay to the farmers who are willing to make these changes in their production methods.  

Steady advancement in food animal welfare, occurring in the setting of persistent food animal product consumption, may be in conflict with more aggressive groups such as PETA, rejected by many due to positions and actions that are deemed extreme, despite their laudable goals.  On the other end of the spectrum of animal welfare consciousness, increased cost of organic and other higher welfare products often is at odds with a fast-food nation mentality.  Many people say one thing but pay another.  But there are signs that the consumer is coming along.  In 2009 voters in California passed Proposition 2, which required all farm animals to be able to stand up, turn around, and stretch their limbs, thereby curtailing the use of swine gestation and farrowing crates, as well as battery cages for laying hens.  Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger later closed the loophole for egg producers by requiring all out-of-state eggs to be held to the same housing requirement. 

The only practical and humane solution is to consume fewer animal products and to be sure they are produced as humanely as possible.  This is not a perfect solution—but neither is trying to feed everyone on grains and legumes.  Actively influencing others to consume less and make better welfare choices, as advocated by Michael Pollan, may be the most practical and timely option we have.  Try to purchase products that are third party certified, or, at the very least, organic.  Factory-farmed meat and other products should be shunned, including eggs and milk.

If we, as moral beings, eat animals and their products or live in a world where others do, then we must strive for animal welfare systems that give them more of what they want.  In other words, we must honor them with as good a life as possible, even if we personally do not eat them. 

---

Thelma Lee and I will be doing a question and answer discussion about some of the issues that she has written about in this series. If you would like to add your question to the list, email me at marzie.blogs@gmail.com.

The main text portion of this post is ©Thelma Lee Gross, 2010.

All other components are by Bright Nepenthe, 2010

© Bright Nepenthe, 2010

Genetically Modified Organisms: Is it Nice to Fool Mother Nature? Part 1

DNA Model and Vegetables in Refrigerator © Günay Mutlu via iStockphoto.com

Back in the days when I had grand plans for this blog, before a slew of family issues, health problems (and all the attendant depression that goes with all your grand plans getting totally messed up and not wanting to get bogged down with any negativity in my writing), I promised my readers a series on GMOs. After my poor friend Thelma Lee spent many hours working on an article that would give readers a scientific understanding of GMOs, I just tanked with the blogging for a time. Sourcing photos and deciding what I might be able to say or not say (legally) in any follow-up posts (after receiving some cautionary advice from a reader and a friend) made it all seem daunting. But, given the ever evolving world around us, the topic seems more relevant than ever. In the wake of violent storms, floods, droughts, earthquakes, volcanic ash thick enough to scramble international flight patterns and therefore affect sunlight in some agricultural areas, the issue of genetically modified agricultural products is timely.


Actually, though you might think most about GMO foods, GMOs impact three areas of our world currently- agricultural (yes,  food products, but what about textiles fibers, and other applications?), medicinal (think vaccines or drug delivery or vitamin augmentation) and industrial (think waste remediation, for example). But what do you think when you hear about GMOs? Many people think:

But what is it that you're actually saying no to? And... should you be?

Most people have no idea what the deal is with GMOs. I feel strongly about such subjects because as a PhD chemist, I'm weary of hearing that 'chemicals are bad'. Your body is made up of a delicate balance of chemicals. 'Chemicals' are not bad. And let me tell you, not all organic stuff is good, either. Wanna talk about some natural or organic stuff that's bad? I could go on for days, listing things like arsenic (naturally occurring), radon (naturally occurring), ricin (naturally occurring), saxitoxin (naturally occurring) or how about a humble little protein called avidin, found in egg white and which binds the vitamin biotin with one of the highest affinities known, to name but a few. Avidin is actually one of the reasons that you shouldn't eat raw egg whites. (Biotin is kind of useful in the human body, ya know?) But avidin, which on the face of it might seem bad, has actually been an incredibly useful tool in biological and medical research science.

The goal of Thelma Lee's article (split into two parts, so you can better absorb the information) is to explain the current science behind GMOs and some of the lofty goals that GMO producers have explored, many of which have been, or are on the verge of being, achieved. And you should ask yourself, as you read, if GMOs really sound all that bad, once you understand them better? And if you're still unconvinced, ask yourself: Is every GMO bad? Is the science bad? Is the business angle or potential for monopolies of a GMO product bad? Does the potential for good far outweigh the potential bad? The facts may challenge your thinking and, at a minimum, will have you considering:

Genetically Modified Organisms: Is it Nice to Fool Mother Nature?


by Thelma Lee Gross, DVM

Introduction and Background

Since the 1953 discovery of the chemical structure of DNA by Watson and Crick, humans have wanted to manipulate it.  A unique double helix of chains of sugars and phosphates attached to nitrogen bases (adenine: A; cytosine: C; guanine: G; and thymine: T), DNA both codes for the production of proteins and controls which ones are turned on or off; i.e., made or suppressed.  In this way, the characteristics of an organism are genetically determined for traits such as disease resistance or products such as hormones.  Modifying DNA meant that humans might change the outcome of a cellular characteristic or product in a more specific and controlled fashion than by the conventional routes of selective breeding and, later, mutagenesis, which is the relatively nonspecific alteration of genetic material using chemicals or radiation.

Using enzymatic scissors (endonucleases, exonucleases) and glue (ligases), scientists soon learned how to manipulate DNA and its subcomponents, genes.  In 1973, Stanley Cohen and Herbert Boyer invented the technique of DNA cloning, which created copies of the segment of DNA under study.  By increasing the amount of DNA available for manipulation, this technique allowed genes to be transplanted between different biological species and signaled the birth of genetic engineering.

In order to produce a genetically modified organism, or GMO, the gene or genes must be chosen, replicated and isolated, and then transferred to the host genome.  Plasmids, circular pieces of DNA usually found in viruses or bacteria, are common vectors or vessels of transfer, particularly for plants.  Simply put, the spliced gene is incorporated into the plasmid by cutting its circular structure, inserting the new genetic material, and closing the circle.  The plasmid is then inserted into the host via plasmid-infected bacteria.  Genes can also be “shot” via microinjection into host cells in cases where plasmids cannot function well in this capacity, particularly in the case of animal cells.  The organism is then regenerated from the transformed cells.  Antibiotic exposure to eliminate non-transformed organisms that do not co-express an antibiotic resistance gene, polymerase chain reaction (PCR), or bioassay testing is required to insure that the chosen gene is expressed in the regenerated organism and will function as expected.

Next I will outline the current use of genetically modified plants and their benefits to agriculture, medicine, and industry. 

The Use of Genetically Modified Organisms in Agriculture   

Genetic modification of food crops has been directed to several key goals.  Crops have been altered to resist pests and herbicides; to improve nutrition; to survive in climactically or soil-challenged locations; and to provide increased yield, improved taste, and longer shelf survival. 

Pesticide Resistance  The principal types of genetically modified crops that resist pests are those containing the Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) gene, which produces a bacterial-derived larvicidal toxin.  Bacillus thuringiensis toxin displays no significant effects on the environment, or mammals and birds, but is toxic for certain species of caterpillar larvae. 


Crops that are modified to be pest-resistant can be beneficial in several ways.  The use of Bt crops reduces the use and therefore the cost of chemical pesticides.  Bt cotton has been highly effective in reducing the need for Bt pesticide in commercial production.


Secondly, GMOs containing pesticide have been found to protect conventional crops in the vicinity, as in recent studies of Bt corn planted alongside conventional corn.  Conventional corn was protected from borers simply by co-planting with Bt corn.  This increased yield and reduced overall cost since conventional corn is less expensive to grow.


Lastly, naturally occurring, pest-protective genes from one crop plant can be inserted into another, thus “sharing the wealth,” as in the recent studies of natural proteinase inhibitors of potatoes and tobacco that were transferred to cotton.  Transferring inhibitors from more than one source increased the resistance of cotton to caterpillar pests because caterpillars quickly develop new proteinases when exposed to one type of inhibitor only.  This stacking technique improved the performance of these GMOs.


By all available evidence, Bt crops are beneficial to farmers.  The supposed failure of Bt cotton in India may be linked to the use of spurious seeds and the planting of cotton in inadequate and under-irrigated soils, which produces failure of all varieties, Bt cotton included.  Farmers who can show crop failure may be able to obtain cash settlements, thus increasing the incidence of claims. 


Herbicide-resistance This group of GMOs is best known by the “Roundup (glyphosate)  Ready” group that include soybeans, corn, canola, cotton, and, more recently, sugarbeets and wheat.  These crops are modified to resist the use of the herbicide.  The planting of these modified crops allows farmers to use less tillage (another method of weed control that physically removes the weeds), thus reducing soil erosion and assisting in soil conservation.  Studies have also found water contamination of more harmful pre-emergent herbicides is reduced in areas of Roundup Ready crop plantings. Farmers’ production costs are lowered; thus, there has been rapid and widespread adoption of this type of GMO.
 
Disease-resistance  This area of research in genetic modification is more problematic, and results have been slow.  There has been limited success in genetically modifying organisms that resist bacterial diseases, for example.  Efforts to fight “greening” of Florida oranges, a disease caused by a bacterium that is spread by a tiny insect (psyllid), have been heretofore of limited success.  As the January 10, 2011 article in the New Yorker explains (“We have no bananas”), the drive to save the commercial banana, the Cavendish, from the fungal disease Tropical Race Four is being aided by one group of researchers which successfully inserted a gene from thale cress that resists a related disease, Race One, into another strain of banana.  Early results are promising, but large scale production of resistant strains is still likely years away and it may not outpace the ultimate destruction of the crop worldwide.

Nutritional Augmentation Genetically modified microorganisms are already increasingly used to manufacture vitamins, enzymes, flavors, and other food additives.  Improving the nutritional content of food crops, or biofortification, also may be accomplished by genetic modification.  Most of these food crops are not yet available for use.  An important recent example is “Golden Rice,” which should be ready for release within the year.  Syngenta donated several of its patented technologies to the Golden Rice project for humanitarian purposes, with other biotech companies also making contributions.  Golden Rice is the product of modification of two genes, which enables production of up to 35 micrograms of beta carotene (a precursor of vitamin A) per gram of edible rice.  Rice can make beta-carotene in its leaves, but the modification gives the same ability to the rice grain.  This food is expected to avert blindness and death throughout areas of the third world where rice is the staple. 

via Wikipedia, under Fair Use

The legal hurdles are phenomenal, however. Golden Rice was ready in 1999 and was featured on the cover of Time Magazine (shown above) in 2000 with its co-inventor, Ingo Potrykus.  It is still going through the regulatory process.  As stated by the Golden Rice Humanitarian Board:  “It will take at least until 2011 before the first Golden Rice obtains final regulatory approval and can reach the first group of small holders in a target country.  Considering the enormous humanitarian potential of Golden Rice in reducing blindness (500,000 children per year) and children's deaths (2-3 million per year), it is hardly understandable that lobby groups and the authorities are not learning from the accumulated experience and making the regulatory process more science and experience based.”  Professor Potrykus, a member of that board, addressed the humanitarian issues of such a delay in his opinion piece in the July 2010 issue of Nature. 


In 2009, researchers in Spain, writing in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), reported they had genetically altered corn to contain 169 times the beta carotene of normal corn, 6-fold the normal amount of vitamin C, and twice the normal amount of folate.  The beta carotene concentration is reportedly five times higher than in Golden Rice.

Transgenic potatoes in India have 60 per cent more protein per gram than conventional potatoes; a medium potato can provide 10% of the daily protein requirement of an adult.  As a surprise bonus, the GM crop also yielded more potatoes per unit area planted. Flavonoid-enhanced tomatoes, increased carotenoids in potato tubers, and increased essential fatty acids in soybeans and canola have also been developed. This area of GM research is developing exponentially so more products should emerge rapidly in the next few years.

Survival in Challenging Soils and Climate The International Rice Research Institute runs its own GM programs.  Traits like efficient water and nitrogen use and tolerance to salinity and flooding are early targets. In September of 2010 an Australian group produced a salt-tolerant form of rice, which traps salt in the root of the plant, preventing its transfer and damage to the more susceptible shoots.

Water Efficient Maize for Africa (WEMA) varieties are being tested and should result in increased yields by up to one third.  This allows farmers to grow maize successfully in dry areas that may have been below subsistence levels. This area of GMO development will continue to provide crops that can be grown in areas of greatest need where soils and climate are perennial challenges.

Improvement of Quality and Yield A laudable goal for genetic modification is the improvement of yield as well as quality of the food product.  Yield and flavor-enhanced varieties of GMOs provide a one-two punch and appeal to growers and consumers alike.  Dr. Zachary Lippman of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory has modified a single copy of a mutant gene in tomatoes, which has resulted in increased production per plant and simultaneous sweetening of the fruit.  These potent producers are the result of manipulation of the “flower power gene,” known as SFT, which tells the plants how many flowers to make.  This scientific manipulation may lend itself to all kinds of crops, including melons and soybeans.

The Use of Genetically Modified Organisms in Medicine

In human medicine genetic modification of organisms first allowed the manufacture of products which until then could be obtained only in small quantities from a natural source.  In 1982 insulin produced by a genetically altered bacterium was approved for use in humans.  Human growth hormone, factor VIII (for clotting disorders), and interleukin-2 (to fight cancer) are other important examples.  Artemisinin, the world’s most important anti-malarial medicine, which previously could only be naturally sourced from sweet wormwood (Artemesia annua), now can be efficiently synthesized in bacteria, reducing its cost by 90%.  It will be commercially available to victims of malaria by 2012, as reported in the September 28, 2009 issue of The New Yorker in an article about synthetic biology (“A Life of its Own”).

GM plants also have increasing importance in modern medical application.  Tobacco is being used to produce flu vaccine.  Indeed, according to the January 31, 2011 issue of the New Yorker Magazine (“Going Viral”), during the recent fear over a swine flu pandemic, scientists affiliated with the U.S. government adapted the tobacco technique to swine flu vaccine, rapidly accelerating production to about a month from the approximately six months required by the traditional technique using hen’s eggs. Rice is being modified to provide oral cholera vaccine, to orally treat cedar allergy, and to contain reduced protein levels so that it may serve as a nutritional source for renal failure patients who cannot tolerate much protein in their diets.  Several varieties of rice have also been modified to fight iron deficiency anemia by expressing lactoferrin; this rice is also superior nutritionally, having higher available protein for absorption.

The Use of Genetically Modified Organisms in Industry

Plants, including those that are traditionally used for food, are being genetically modified for industrial application.  Potatoes are being engineered to make only one of its usual component starches, amylopectin, which can be utilized in the production of paper and concrete.  Called the Amflora potato, its use was approved for the European Union market in March 2010 by the European Commission.  Maize plants are being engineered to produce enzymes such as Trypzean, a transgenic trypsin that is used in industry. 

Tobacco may be used in future to remove organic pollutants from the soil in a process called “phytoremediation”.  

Next I will deal with various problems that have arisen through the use genetically modified plants. 

Part 2 of Thelma Lee's article will be posted tomorrow.

In the meantime, your homework? Here is some rice. Imagine it has been genetically engineered to have a cholera vaccine in it. Good thing? It sure sounds like it whether you live in India or Burma or Haiti. Who owns it? Who paid for the research studies of it? Will they give it away in regions prone to cholera outbreaks? Can the genes be transferred to rice plants that weren't genetically engineered? Should we even worry if they could? These are some of the many and varied issues surrounding GMOs.

To see a cure in a grain of rice...

Rice © Srdjan Stefanovic via iStockPhoto.com

is a very amazing thing.

Article text content © Thelma Lee Gross, DVM

Blog introductory and ending comments, no GMO sign and GMO question sign © Bright Nepenthe, 2011

All other images were purchased from iStockphoto and/or are fair use via Wikipedia as noted.