Philip Deitiker, Wikimedia Commons
Frustration?
Resentment?
Apprehension?
Once again: why anti-Zionism is antisemitism
7 hours ago
Friday, June 17, 2011
Sunday, June 5, 2011
Socialized Medicine....Ooooooooh! Bad!
My Darling In-Laws!
My father-in-law (who is every bit as merry and mischievous as he looks in that photo above) wasn't feeling well at the end of last week. He's 84 years old and has had some health problems in recent years, but over all the guy is as healthy as the proverbial horse. On Friday morning, he was really feeling ill, was feverish, and in general was giving my mother-in-law something to worry about. Since she doesn't drive, and he was not well enough to drive, she called a general assistance number for a doctor to come visit on Friday in the morning. Mind you, they were not in the capital, Madrid, but were in their little apartment in a suburb of Alicante called Playa de San Juan, where they spend the summer, and often part of the winter, to avoid the intense heat or intense cold of those seasons in Madrid. She called for a house visit? Oh, come on! When is the doctor going to show up, in November? Well, a few hours later, the doctor arrived and after doing a fairly thorough exam decided that really, my father-in-law should go to the ER for further testing. *Groan* you say, I say, we all say... how on earth is he going to get there? The whole point was that my MIL doesn't drive! Well, they had a solution for that. Yep, the ambulance the doctor called arrived a short time later and took them to the nearest hospital, where my FIL was indeed examined further. After some routine testing, they decided he probably has a urinary tract infection. He was prescribed medication and they dispensed it right there at the hospital. But, when he was being released four (oh my gosh, so long!) hours after he arrived, they discovered that my MIL couldn't drive and they needed assistance getting home. So the hospital called the ambulance guys back and had them take them home. Total cost to the in-laws: $0.00. Yep, free care under social security and socialized medicine. I shudder, and I do mean shudder to imagine how much the entire enterprise would have cost here in the US. If you could even get a doctor to make a house call and decide you were sick enough to need to go to an ER. But can you imagine the getting home part? Call a cab, Lady!
My FIL is feeling much better today. They're going to Madrid tomorrow on the AVE. (Rapid train) But just to go to some other appointments and file their tax return and stuff. Then they'll head back to Alicante for the summer. It's much cooler than Madrid. I'm just glad that he'll be better and that the healthcare is as good as when they're home in Madrid. Because if Seattle seems far from home, all points Spain seem even farther somehow.
A Video Some People Don't Want You To See
Once upon a time, in 2008 a French documentary filmmaker by the name of Marie-Monique Robin made a film about a biotechnology company. Robin is an award-winning filmmaker of exposé documentaries on diverse subjects like organ theft, the French secret service practices that include death squads and systematic torture of Algerian dissidents, Cuba, false accusations of pedophilia on teachers and most recently a film on US practices of torture. Needless to say, given her topics, her films have not been the most popular ones on the top 10 lists. However, her 2008 outing, which was about an American multinational corporation which is one of the largest in the world, attracted a Rachel Carson Prize (Norway), the Umwelt-Medienpreis (Germany) and and best film at the Ekofilm Film Festival in 2009. An unrelenting documentary that systematically rips the curtain off the hangers, allowing you to see in full light the man(ufacterer) behind the curtain, the man pulling the levers of regulatory, legislative and scientific spheres, you will be surprised (You are, right? Sure you are!) to hear that this film, shown at a number of prestigious film festivals and venues in Europe and in Latin America, barely made a blip here in the US. In spite of the fact that a good fraction of it is in English (the rest is subtitled, don't worry) and that it actually had to be dubbed or titled back into French, Spanish, German, Swedish, Norwegian, Dutch, Italian, Czech, Portuguese, Greek and quite a few other languages (and it was!) in order to be released elsewhere. You also can't find this film to rent on Netflix and such. Nope. Not there. So, since I was advised that I really had to see this film, I set out looking to buy a copy.
What do you see when you go to purchase this film on Amazon? If you're an Amazon Prime customer, looking for your free shipping and your nice little Amazon guarantee, you see the image above, leaving you wondering... hey, is it really the right film? If you want to see the image of the DVD, you have to go with a third party vendor, which is what I ended up doing, paying for postage, after confirming that it really was the film I wanted, but hey, look at that- the DVD is actually cheaper? Hmmm. Of course, there's the nice picture of the French language version of the film. But that's not a DVD for our Region. Well, no matter, I bought the less expensive, third-party DVD, (it arrived just fine) and I watched it. And I showed it to my skeptical husband and my bright children and a slew of other people that I know. I found out after discussing things with a reader of the blog that the film was now up on Google video (yay for Google! Yay for BBC!) and hence I can post a link for readers to stream the video.
I really think that this is one of the most damning documentaries about a company I've ever seen. It cuts to the heart of the harm done to the biotechnology, and specifically the GMO industry, by suspect or downright corrupt practices. There are things that I think are a little slanted, and one thing that I think has been somewhat disputed since 2007-8 when Robin was filming it. But overall, this film is an indictment of the capitalist agenda when married to, or more accurately dominating, science. There are aspects of this film that literally made me tearful, given the noble ideals that scientists are supposed to aspire to in their research and with respect to the idea of peer review and the underlying purpose of, and public trust in, regulation.
So, I'm not naming names here. Promised my husband I wouldn't. But I am telling readers that they really ought check out this link and watch a movie that summarizes all the worst that you have ever heard or feared about GMOs. In spite of the fact that I'm still pro-GMO when appropriately studied, peer-reviewed and marketed responsibly, I think there are things in this film that every responsible citizen of every country should see and be aware of. The practices, as far as weakening regulatory agencies, or even, as many would suggest, infiltrating regulatory agencies and legislative lobbying that further weakens regulation itself, are important to consider.
The amazing science of GMOs, and probably the entire biotech industry, are harmed by practices that ultimately backfire and then make the general public distrust science. It is a vicious cycle. As people distrust science more funding basic science is threatened. As a result, scientists may become more reliant on private funding and specifically corporate funding, in lieu of steadily diminishing federal (public) funding. And how much more likely are you to skew your results, or just... not ask the hard questions, if you will lose your corporate funding stream?
This video will show you everything that can go wrong with GMOs and this way of doing business.
It shows you ways in which the ability to do good, novel science can be harmed by the bad practices of a few, powerful companies.
Please watch it?
I'll be back later in the week with more information on the good that GMOs can do, an assessment of the water crisis (have you been reading the NY Times on the subject this past week?), and more about the coming realities of growing food on a warming, drought-ridden planet.
GMOs. They can help this planet.
If we allow people to have the funding and research time to get it right.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Vigilante Sharia or Mental Illness?
Katya Koren
There are, however, conflicting reports about her death. Huffington Post is reporting that she may not even have been Muslim (although I'm not exactly assuming that would have let her off, you know?) and that the arrested youth, a classmate, may have kidnapped her, raped her and killed her as a result of some sort of obsession. The Mail has published an update on their original report here. 16 year old Bihal Gazhiev may be mentally ill and might have been rambling about Sharia Law.
Given the way mental illness is viewed in some areas of the world, it's not hard to envision how the information might have come to be distorted, if indeed, it was distorted. While I am no fan of Sharia justice (an oxymoronic term, if ever there was one...), I wouldn't want to be claiming that Sharia was to blame if it really wasn't. When the story first broke over the weekend and there were few bits of info, I didn't post on it. Now I'm glad I didn't.
No matter why or how Katya Koren died, it was a horrific fate for anyone.
Jared Lee Loughner in Court
(Chris Morrison for the Associated Press)
Meanwhile, on the topic of murder and mental illness, I want to mention that while I was on hiatus, on May 25th, Jared Lee Loughner, the Tuscson shooter who killed six (including Judge John Roll and a 9 year old elementary school student government representative, Christina Taylor-Green), wounded thirteen, including US Representative Gabrielle Giffords, was ruled incompetent to stand trial by Phoenix Federal Judge Larry Burns. I got quite a bit of critical mail about my post on Loughner, and the fact that I felt sympathy with his family's plight in dealing with his mental health issues and that he had refused treatment but they allowed him to remain in their home. While many viewed the 22 year old as "just a bad kid" and "drug addict", Jared Lee Loughner has been diagnosed with (paranoid) schizophrenia. Loughner was carried from the courtroom at his most recent hearing, where he was ruled incompetent, after an outburst. He will remain in a psychiatric facility under treatment. If he recovers sufficiently, he will be tried for his crimes. Still psychotic, Loughner fervently believes that he killed Ms. Giffords. Ms. Giffords continues her rehabilitative treatment for her serious brain injury in Houston, Texas. She continues to make progress in her recovery.
GMOs: A Silent Forest- David Suzuki's Take
From the Google posting of the trailer for Suzuki's video:
A Silent Forest - The Growing Threat of Genetically Engineered Trees (GE/GMO)
15:46 - 2 years ago
A SILENT FOREST: The Growing Threat of Genetically Engineered Trees (GE/GMO) This award winning documentary film explores the growing global threat of genetically engineered trees to our environment and to human health. The film features renowned geneticist and host of PBS' The Nature of Things David Suzuki, who explores the unknown and possibly disastrous consequences of improperly tested GE methods. (Emphasis Marzie's) Many scientists and activists are interviewed in the film, which serves as an effective and succinct tool for understanding the complex issue of GE trees. The film includes the testimony of many experts on the subject and serves as a valuable tool to inform students and those interested in environmental issues. The film has been well used in public forums, government as well as college and high school classrooms. The film includes an interview with Percy Schmeiser, who lost the rights to his own crops to Monsanto, when Monsanto seeds contaminated his fields. As Schmeiser says in the film: "It doesn't matter how it gets there, destroying your crop. All of your crop, becomes Monsanto's ownership and they can lay a lawsuit on top of it against you. Even if the contamination rate is 1%, all your other 99% of your crop goes to Monsanto. And that's what startled the world, how farmers can lose their rights overnight, an organic farmer can lose his seeds and his rights overnight, and get subject to a lawsuit." The film shows how farmers like Schmeiser and indigenous people may lose their way of life and belongings in the face of new biotech friendly science and legislation. A Silent Forest won first place in the EarthVision Environmental Film Festival and a First Place in the Wild and Scenic Environmental Film Festival. The film is created by award-winning director Ed Schehl who has been making and promoting documentaries on environmentalism and social justice for 15 years. As new crucial forms of legislation and urgent needs for action arise, this film makes information available to the general public. You can order the "A Silent Forest" video from: http://www.CreateSpace.com Thank you.«
Think of it this way: would you want to have a rush to market a vaccine, for yourself, for your children, if we had no firm idea of what its longitudinal (horizontal) effects are? If it could make you, or someone of a different ethnic background, sicker rather than better in the end, as intended? If it could protect you but sicken your cat or dog? As I said in last week's posts the broad reaction against GMO science is ignorant and fails to address the fact that the science that allows creation of GMOs is both amazing and useful. Like anything else in nature, science gives us tools which require considered handling. When handled with full understanding, we have eradicated diseases like smallpox, almost eliminated diseases like polio, have developed medications to help us fight tuberculosis or HIV, and we have learned much about agriculture and propagation. Give science time, and scientists the time and ability to do thorough research, is Suzuki's message here. It is a message that the world must listen to if we have a hope of overcoming some of the aspects of climate change that cannot be ignored any longer.
After you have watched this video, ask yourself why companies feel encouraged to develop GMOs with the wrong goals and why corporations are getting away with insufficient testing of these organisms, which will not likely be giving us what we will need in the future. Instead of focusing on making plants more drought resistant, more heat tolerant, more saline tolerant, providing successful and safe means of vaccination against the tropical diseases that will work their way into temperate climates (as vectors like mosquitoes spread encephalitis and malaria at more extreme northern and southern, formerly temperate, latitudes) we sadly largely hear about products that, in the end, are not only generating stronger pests and potentially damaging the integrity of heritage species which are a resource for future development, but which spread GMO genomes that are proprietary? Why are these the GMOs dominating our market, our media, and our the ag world? How will we, as citizen voices, change the practices that have allowed corporations to dominate the GMO field in such deleterious ways? How can we keep the baby when we discard the dirty bathwater?
There are no easy answers here and the stakes, within the next 20-30 years, will be high. As columnist Tim Lang asked just yesterday in The Guardian, "where is the 21st century approach to feeding the world?" This was in response to yesterday's Oxfam report Growing a Better Future, which finds that presently, one in seven people on the planet (925 Million, soon to be 1 Billion) are hungry and which suggests that the cost of many staple foods (wheat, rice, corn etc) will triple by 2030. Some raise the prospect of food riots. In the complex interplay between biofuels vs. edible crops, we have the overlay of looming climate change and what effects it may have on our food crops. Without direction, these issues will only worsen. Oxfam's new report contemplates these issues and poses a warning about where our efforts with respect to agriculture must be focused.
It is my feeling that Suzuki is right: we are wasting valuable time by allowing corporations to streamline and release GMOs that have been inadequately tested or perhaps tested under biased conditions. Not only do we risk tampering with the environment in ways that we cannot fully understand, but we are hampering the ability of scientists who are studying GMOs appropriately, by ruining the public perceptions and the political will to fund this type of science. As some (though not all) comments on Thelma Lee's blog posts on GMOs have shown, many people now regard GMOs with blatant negativity. The science is considered flawed and damaged, the products deleterious to public and environmental safety. Sadly, the effects of corporate greed and the rush to approve products that perhaps should have had much more thorough testing, are damaging the credibility of the science itself.
Like any tool, genetic engineering can have positive or negative results and consequences. Without demanding better testing, supporting publicly funded, independent research, and fostering development of GMOs that address looming issues like climate change and disease, we are, as Tim Lang so accurately says, 'squandering the scientific possibilities'...
First Do No Harm
Attribution unknown
Monday, May 30, 2011
Palate Cleanser #152
Hellebore (Lenten Rose), Atlanta Botantical Garden
Lotus, Atlanta Botantical Garden
Lotus leaves, Atlanta Botantical Garden
Magnolia, Atlanta Botanical Garden
Friday, May 27, 2011
Genetically Modified Organisms: Is it Nice to Fool Mother Nature? Part 2
Researcher holding up a GMO vegetable in the laboratory
© Monika Wisniewska via iStockphoto.com
Genetically Modified Organisms: Is it Nice to Fool Mother Nature?
Some Problems with GMOs
It is not surprising that genetic modification is not without its costs. Most of these relate to potentially negative environmental impact. Nothing is free, and certainly not GMOs. This section will deal with some of the issues that have arisen and may arise as a result of genetically modified food crops.
Antibiotic Resistance Genes Amflora potatoes, one of the older GMOs, is used in industry (See Part 1). It contains an antibiotic resistance gene that is used as a marker for genetic modification. Antibiotics are applied to select the successfully modified product which co-expresses resistance to the antibiotic used. If the product is modified correctly, it survives because it also resists the antibiotic. However, this resistance gene could theoretically be transferred to bacteria by direct exposure of the modified potato to the environment in which bacteria abound.
As concerns over antibiotic resistance are increasing rapidly in the modern medical world, this technique of selection should be discontinued and, in fact, is considered antiquated by current standards of GMO production. Newer GMOs are confirmed via the use of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing or bioassays. Nevertheless, this potato was approved for planting in Europe in 2009.
Agricultural Test Area © Andres Reh vis iStockphoto.com
Herbicide Ready Issues In theory, if a crop is resistant to an herbicide, then that herbicide (usually glyphosate, Roundup) can be used with impunity, and weed control is achieved without tilling (See Part 1). However, recent evidence by Michael Owen, a weed scientist at Iowa State University, indicates that “weed communities” are shifting as a result of the practice of planting glyphosate-resistant crops and then focusing on the use of one herbicide. The genetic trait itself seems to be having no direct effect on the weed communities via crossbreeding; rather, it is the overall method of weed control that is creating local pressure to shift the weed communities to those that include glyphosate- resistant species, creating new problems for the farmer. The conclusion by Owen and Green is that diversified weed management systems, as well as new herbicides, will need to be developed. This seems to negate the benefits of herbicide resistant GMOs, and it may ultimately increase the need for a variety of potentially more toxic products.
Although scientists are indicating that these weed shifts can lower crop yields, in House oversight meetings in October 2010, Ann Wright, a deputy undersecretary of the Agriculture Department, said the department “lacked authority” to restrict herbicide-tolerant crops, much to the dismay of Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), who is working on the superweed issue. He stated the Department could stop herbicide-ready crops under its noxious weed law, of which Wright was apparently ignorant. According to Wright, the USDA can only regulate herbicide-tolerant crops as pests themselves but cannot stop farmers from using the crops, even if they lead to the development of resistant weeds. The Environmental Protection Agency said it had raised the weed-resistance issue with the USDA and was in “conversation” with them. At that hearing, Owen, who has also worked on a National Research Council, said he believed it is too late anyway because farmers have come to rely on the use of one herbicide (glyphosate) alone. Currently 93% of the soybeans and 70% of the corn planted in the USA in 2010 were herbicide tolerant varieties.
In October 2010, current Roundup Ready plants (stecklings) from sugar beet rootstock were ordered to be removed from the ground by Judge Jeffrey White in San Francisco, due to a lawsuit involving the Sierra Club, Organic Seed Alliance, and other plaintiffs. This suit followed USDA-issued permits to plant the stecklings, even though White had revoked the federal deregulation of seeds and crops containing the Roundup Ready trait in August, pending a new environmental study. However, this week the USDA decided to allow the current crop to be harvested, even though the environmental study will not be released until 2012.
It is clear that glyphosate-resistant crop plants may function as weed pests. Herbicide-ready rapeseed (canola) often is alternated with other crops and can show up as a weed in the alternate crop’s plantings the following year. This may force the use of more persistent and different herbicides and is certainly not the intended effect of this GMO.
These problems are significant and quite possibly outweigh the benefits. If this type of GMO ultimately creates an increase in pesticide use and begins to function as a weed itself, then it should be removed from the market and other alternatives sought.
GMO Cotton (South Africa) © Brasil2 via iStockphoto.com
Bt Issues There is some evidence that the prolonged use of Bt crops can create emergence of resistant insect strains or elevation in populations of insects that are naturally resistant; these would likely have emerged with the use of Bt alone. There is recent field evidence that certain strains of mirid bugs have acquired pest status in areas of China where Bt cotton is grown.
In essence, any responsible program of genetic modification that involves pests like weeds and insects should be considering the emergence of resistance. Bt crops remain useful because of the significant reduction in production costs and relative safety of this type of pesticide. Characterizing the mutations that enable resistance could lead to the development of molecular tools to monitor resistance in the field, as well as new genetically modified crops that stay ahead of pest resistance without the use of toxic external products. This might be achieved by further studies like those described in Part 1, where naturally occurring pest-resistance genes are transferred from one plant to another in a “share the wealth” approach to pest control.
Genetic Drift The increasing use of GMOs often means that the variety of planted strains is diminished as farmers adopt more lucrative crops. In places where there are heritage strains of importance to native farmers and consumers, cross pollination from modified crops becomes a real worry. In Mexico, for example, concern for the genetic pollution of native varieties has spurred protests, despite evidence that using genetically modified corn ultimately may provide independence from imported U.S. corn by substantially increasing domestic yield. Native varieties in some areas already contain genes from genetically altered corn. The fear is that indigenous species that display adaptive traits for certain challenged regions may lose those advantages by exposure over time to genetically modified corn. This has not yet been found. Hybrid corn already exists in Mexico and has been regularly mixed with native corn varieties. Genetically modified canola (rapeseed) has been growing in the wild, and has apparently crossbred with native strains, according to a survey in August of 2010 by the Ecological Society of America.
These results indicate that genetically modified organisms, like all organisms, cannot be contained and will interbreed to a varying extent. The effect of the proposed trait on the environment should be studied prior to release and traits such as herbicide resistance should be avoided. For the sake of genetic banking alone, not to mention the cultural importance of crop and other plants, heritage varieties should be carefully protected by strict segregation from GMOs. This is also important for organic farmers who cannot market their food if “contamination” by GMOs is identified.
Bt genetic material has been identified in tissues of wild mussels. Mussels likely receive the genes during feeding when they ingest Bt contaminated microorganisms. The long term effect of such exposure to these lower organisms of the food chain is not yet known; Bt is not known to be toxic to any organisms other than insect larvae. But it is conceivable that other effects of environmental spread of GMOs may emerge as further studies are made.
Genetic Engineering (Plant) © espion via iStockphoto.com
The Influence of Industry
GMOs are often promoted as the one-stop solution in the management of the world’s food problems and instead should involve an integrated and holistic approach. Such strong emphasis on this silver bullet of biotechnology is promulgated by industry, which has a strong vested interest in GMOs.
The Monsanto Company is the world’s largest producer of genetically engineered seed, including Roundup Ready products, and controls over 90% of the world’s genetically engineered seed production. Monsanto came under investigation by the U.S. Justice Department in 2009 as a result of its business strategies and licensing agreements. For example, Monsanto does not permit independent companies to breed plants that contain both Monsanto's genes and the genes of any of its competitors, called “stacking,” unless Monsanto gives prior written permission.
In some cases, this company is clearly influencing or controlling which scientific studies of GMOs are done and published. Some researchers working with GMOs have apparently had to pry the data for testing out of Monsanto via Freedom of Information filings and lawsuits. Although their secrecy may have something to do with proprietary issues, this resembles a cover-up to the public. Monsanto does not claim responsibility for the genetic drift from its GMOs, and in the case of GM canola spreading to the wild, disingenuously tried to make it an issue of patent rights.
The final section of this series will attempt to balance the pros and cons of GMOs from an ethical perspective, with a view to the future of our world.
Genetic Modification in Balance
The core of our distrust of genetic modification is that we do not like the idea of humans manipulating a genome of anything, not even a bacterium. It conjures up a fear of mad scientists creating monsters fused from fish and elephants or birds and snakes. One internet poster, for example, shows a fruit viciously biting its consumer and was featured on a previous post of this blogsite. There is a fear of the “slippery slope” and that ultimately we will manipulate our own genome for eugenics, and not just to avert or reverse genetic disease (See Part 1). We are already engineering farmed salmon to grow more quickly, although the FDA has not yet given its approval. And recently scientists in Canada engineered a pig to produce phytase, an enzyme that helps in the digestion of cereal grains. This obviates addition of phosphorous to their diet. This reduces production costs and allegedly reduces phosphorous contamination of the environment. Pigs are mammals. Are we far behind?
The Case for Human Disease Human gene therapy is a natural outcome of genetic manipulation and in essence creates GMOs of us humans, but in a “good way.” Diseases that lend themselves well to gene therapy include sickle-cell anemia, Tay-Sachs disease, Duchenne muscular dystrophy, Huntington's chorea, and cystic fibrosis, as these occur from mistakes involving single nitrogen bases of a DNA molecule. If a correct copy of a given gene can be successfully inserted and then assume its normal function, these genetic disorders may be cured. Research has begun in combined immunodeficiency disorder and alpha-1-antitrypsin deficiency of humans, among other diseases.
If we do not like the idea of genetic engineering, aren’t we willing to relax our disapproval when it means saving lives? You bet we are. Although we can all imagine an end point, the horrific one involving designer offspring and new creatures created from genetic parts of others, can we not be selective in the use of genetic modification? Can we not pull back when problems emerge and forge ahead when real benefits are gained? I think we can.
A Balanced Approach The most laudatory stated goal of genetic modification of our food is that of fighting starvation and malnutrition. But genetic modification should not be touted as the end-all and be-all of agriculture’s successful future. As we have seen, GMOs can grow in areas of environmental deprivation, such as in high saline soils and in areas of low water availability. They can increase the availability of nutrients. However, it is possible to conventionally breed many of these traits into foods, as organizations like HarvestPlus are doing. Iron, zinc and vitamin A are the principle targets of this organization’s efforts at biofortification. HarvestPlus is producing sweet potatoes with beta carotene and is working on a similar corn crop. Cassava with beta carotene; iron-rich beans; and iron and zinc enriched millet, rice, and wheat are being produced for Asia. In Peru potatoes are being developed at the International Potato Center in Lima to contain more iron and zinc, also without genetic modification.
Burmese Rice Planting © David Kerkhoff via iStockphoto.com
Green Super Rice is actually a number of new rice varieties that are being conventionally bred to maintain high crop yield with less fertilizer and in unfavorable environmental conditions. A Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation-funded rice research project, these rice crops are being targeted to poor rice farmers in fifteen countries of Africa and Asia. These strains can be tailored to the individual needs of a region, such as drought or flooding. The ability to produce these varieties is dependent on molecular genetics and a detailed knowledge of the genes under study. A key technique involves subjecting biotic and abiotic stresses to offspring, thereby eliminating weak lines in a system of accelerated natural selection.
In a further example, a salt-tolerant wheat that yields 25 per cent more on saline soils than its parent variety was created by placing salt tolerant genes from Triticum monoccum, a wheat species that grows on poor, arid soils in the Middle East, into durum wheat. This was accomplished using non-GM breeding. Successful offspring were identified using the latest molecular marking technology.
“Site-directed mutagenesis,” is a technique that is currently lead by Cibus, a company in San Diego. This uses the plant’s own genetic machinery to change its DNA. Regulatory approval is more straightforward because outside genes are not being introduced. Cibus has reached agreements with a variety of companies and organizations to use its technique on their crops, including the Flax Council of Canada. Although this is still genetic modification, it may be tolerable to a public that fears “Frankenfoods” because altered genes are sourced from the plants’ own genetic armamentarium.
Genetic technology remains vital even in the conventional production of new crops. Writing in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) in 2009, researchers stated: “……the best biofortification strategies will likely involve genetic engineering in conjunction with conventional breeding, particularly when the direct enhancement of local elite breeding varieties is required.”
The use of a GM versus a conventional crop must be considered on a case by case basis. If financial gains are to be made by the farmer, the GM crop will be selected, and not always to the benefit of the future of farming. This is human nature. Scientific research must be independent of big business and must indicate when GMOs have gone wrong, no matter their temporary financial advantage. Then they must be removed from the marketplace.
Genetically modified crops should not be used to the exclusion of conventional crops, particularly if their use is being driven by financial gain on the part of big business. If conventional methods provide seeds that breed true from generation to generation and have viable traits that ensure a healthy and productive crop at a cheaper price, then they are superior and should be promoted. In addition to biotechnology, viable, informed agro-ecological practices are critical. GMOs alone do not guarantee a successful crop.
The Problem of Feeding the World Perhaps the most highly touted positive outcome of GMO crops is in the fight against world hunger and malnutrition. We have already seen in Part 2 of this series how genetic modification is being geared towards nutritional augmentation of crops as well as towards improved yield in areas of highly challenged soils and climate. While conventional breeding programs are making significant contributions as well, the role of genetic modification should not be overlooked.
In Europe there is a pervasive resistance to genetically modified food. Because of the European influence throughout Africa and lack of education there on the role and benefits of GMOs, Africa has been very slow to implement planting of genetically modified crops. Activism against GMOs has played a significant role. Since regulatory laws are strict in Europe, this has influenced progress in Africa with which it has strong ties. It would seem that this can only prolong the problems of starvation and malnutrition in the region. Recently, Roger Beachy, head of the National Institutes of Food and Agriculture of the USDA, spoke out pointedly on this subject. Europe cannot keep influencing third world countries in this way because the cost is lives. A unified effort that seeks a role for GMOs, particularly in areas of the world that rely on a single crop for food, is critical. World support for integrating these products with modern agricultural technology must occur, however, as small farmers often do not have access to modern seeds and other technological advantages, even if they should want them. Since 1980, U.S. assistance for agricultural development in Africa has fallen by 75%.
Greenpeace has been persistent and ferocious in its protest against GMOs. It apparently funded the study of Spiroux et al. that claims toxicity of Bt and Roundup Ready corn fed to rats; this paper was based largely on statistical analysis of previous studies by Monsanto. The results of the paper have been grossly exaggerated across the internet as “organ failure” in rats. The small biochemical changes observed did not correlate with organic disease. Food Standards Australia New Zealand, among several organizations, has refuted the conclusions.
Greenpeace creates a picture of GMOs interbreeding wildly throughout nature, and thus creating an “unforeseeable and uncontrollable” future.
In reality genetically modified organisms have been part of the food chain for 15 years and have yet to create any scientifically proven illness. True, there is no absolute proof that GMOs might not cause some health effects somewhere eventually, but it is easy to scare the public with such hints of the bogeyman to come. How is this fair to areas of the world that can seriously benefit from GMOs?
Greenpeace is right to state that biological diversity is important as part of our “global heritage.” Monocultures are more susceptible to disease, as has occurred with commercial bananas and oranges. (See earlier part) Diverse varieties of heritage plants serve as a source of important material for naturally and genetically modified crops that will resist diseases as they emerge and facilitate production of novel, improved food crops to nourish the world. But diverse plantings, often important in small family farms, cannot be adapted to large scale production, and it is large scale production that is needed if our exploding world population is to thrive. We cannot expect our poor world neighbors to survive on boutique produce, grown organically on small farms. That is food elitism.
Further, regulatory delays, like those faced by golden rice, are unreasonable. It is unconscionable to hold a nutritionally-modified organism to the same cookie cutter of fierce regulatory requirements that might reasonably face a GMO that is herbicide or pest resistant. It is time for a two-tiered system with fast tracking for simple nutrionally altered GMOs that improve protein, vitamin, and trace mineral content of food, while providing a more rigorous approval process for GMOs involving pesticides, herbicides, and resistance to infectious diseases.
The rich can afford to be cautious, even if caution were due. But the poor cannot continue to face starvation and malnutrition with its attendant diseases when part of the answer lies at hand. From Jimmy Carter: “Responsible biotechnology is not the enemy; starvation is. Without adequate food supplies at affordable prices, we cannot expect world health or peace.”
The rich can afford to be cautious, even if caution were due. But the poor cannot continue to face starvation and malnutrition with its attendant diseases when part of the answer lies at hand. From Jimmy Carter: “Responsible biotechnology is not the enemy; starvation is. Without adequate food supplies at affordable prices, we cannot expect world health or peace.”
No one likes to give an inch on any highly polarized issue: look at the NRA, which does not support a ban on automatic weapons and vehemently holds on to the right to purchase a gun without a background check. As long as we see GMOs in terms of black and white, we cannot make progress to fight malnutrition and starvation, to provide a cheaper source of medicines and vaccines, to address genetic diseases, and to fight problems of pollution and energy shortage. Let us approach this vitally important field of technology with insight, thoughtfulness, and an open mind.
So it's Marzie here, with still more homework...
If you lived in Africa or Latin America and could eat potatoes or some other tuber that would prevent your susceptibility to malaria or dengue, so that you could be healthy enough to work and feed (and also protect) your children, so that you could avoid the costs, even if you could somehow afford them, of medical care for one of those mosquito borne diseases-
Would you?
Syringe stuck in a potato ©David Crockett via iStockphoto.com
You bet you would.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
