GMO Food for Thought

I read a rather interesting commentary by a Canadian university researcher on the internet recently entitled “Why Canada should support Coexistence Crops.”

The article focuses on genetic use restrictive technology and its use in genetically modified foods. Genetic use restriction technologies, or GURT for short, are systems designed to prevent the unwanted transfer of transgenes (the modified DNA inserted into plants that makes them genetically engineered) to other plants or the unauthorized propagation of genetically modified crops. According to the author, there are several ways the technology works, including creating GURT containing seeds that will not germinate and GURT engineered plants that produce only sterile pollen, but the systems all have one thing in common: blocking the possibility of genetically engineered genes and traits from ending up elsewhere.

Canada has had an interest in GURTs since it joined other parties to the U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity in imposing a moratorium on the technology six years ago. Canadian representatives called for an end to the moratorium at the U.N. Convention meeting in 2004 and recently Canada, Australia and New Zealand called for support for field testing of GURT seeds on a case by case basis at the U.N. meeting earlier this year.

According to several different reports, genetic use restriction technology seeds are one of the most controversial products that biotechnology has produced, which is why critics often refer to them as “terminator seeds” or “suicide seeds.” The author, however, suggests a more appropriate and descriptive term: coexistence crops. The author coined this term because these particular crops would eliminate the possibility of two neighboring fields crossing with each other. I think coexistence crops are aptly named because they can “co-exist” with both fields of GM crops and conventional crops.

The author contends that, perhaps more than any other aspects of genetically engineered crops, GURTs have been the target of massive fear generating campaigns by activists, environmentalists, and other critics. According to the commentary, critics say coexistence crops threaten farmers in developing nations because they prevent seed from being saved from one year to the next. However, they’re not designed for developing world farmers because, as the article points out, they are more designed for farmers who regularly buy new seed each year.

Critics also claim that coexistence crops threaten biodiversity and say that the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, of which Canada is a signature, prohibits the development of these types of crops. Since coexistence crops would block gene flow from genetically modified crops to other plants, their incorporation into biotech crops is actually in keeping with an article of the Protocol, which states that parties shall ensure that any living modified organism are undertaken in a manner that “prevents or reduces risks to biodiversity.”

Coexistence crops would also have several advantages over today’s genetically modified crops, the author contends. With these types of crops, any issue of cross pollination between GM crops and organic crops would be eliminated. Cross pollination has always been a “concern” of the organic lobby and environmentalists who insist that food must be kept “natural.” In fact, pollen from genetically modified crops does not threaten organic crop certification at all. According to the International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movements (IFOAM), there should not be any threshold of cross-pollination, and if it occurs it doesn’t necessarily threaten a product’s organic status. The IFOAM doesn’t even advocate mandatory testing of cross-pollinated crops.

In addition, the article says that coexistence crops can help with the development of plant made pharmaceuticals. Adding GURT technology would further increase the safety of plant made pharmaceuticals, end the reliance on refrigeration that has hampered vaccine delivery in parts of the world, and allow these pharmaceuticals to be grown wherever they are needed.

While I agree with some of the author’s assertions, I have to ask if the increased nutritional value that is a noted benefit of biotech crops will remain intact with coexistence crops. I would have also liked to have read about any preliminary studies that have might been done on genetic use restriction technologies and whether they really do prevent cross-pollination, if such research is available.

Although the hypothetical concerns and controversies over biotechnology will certainly continue, research and development of coexistence crops should be performed. The potential these crops could bring is exciting and could lead to greater acceptance of biotechnology around the world. It will certainly be interesting to see what happens next with this technology.

Posted by AC Baumer at 9:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The state of Missouri can certainly be called the “BioBelt.”

For years, the state has been among the leading planters and producers of genetically modified cotton, soybeans, and corn in the United States. These fields have yielded over 300 million pounds of genetically modified crops a year and have helped to increase the net income for farmers across the state to over $114 million a year, according to various reports.

Missouri has also served for decades as the headquarters for some of the leading agricultural biotechnology and life sciences corporations in the world, including Monsanto, as well as the home to several emerging scientific research facilities like the Donald Danforth Plant Sciences Center, the NIDUS Center for Scientific Enterprise, and the Biotechnology Development Center of Greater Kansas City. These companies and research facilities employ tens of thousands of people in good paying jobs and represent a total direct and indirect annual economic impact of over $10 billion.

In addition, a number of universities in Missouri, including Washington University in St. Louis, Saint Louis University, and the University of Missouri-Columbia, have invested more than $360 million in the research and development of new technologies in the plant and life sciences, as well as in local and regional biotechnology developments, according to reports.

In April 2005, Missouri Governor Matt Blunt formed the Governor’s Advisory Council for Plant Biotechnology, a nine member panel made up of state, industry, and academic leaders to discuss efforts to make the state a fertile place for new biotechnology companies and enterprises. Earlier this year, the group backed the governor’s Lewis and Clark Discovery Initiative, a proposal that, in addition to aiding universities across the state, would set aside $5 million to attract and retain life science and biotech companies and to commercialize existing genetically modified crop and plant pharmaceutical research already being conducted in the state.

Missouri’s biotech efforts had a slight setback earlier this year when Ventria Bioscience, a California based biopharmaceutical company withdrew from plans to move its facilities to Maryville, Missouri. Ventria was collaborating with Northwest Missouri State University on a project that would cultivate rice containing human genes for growing proteins that could treat ailments such as diarrhea and dehydration affecting people in developing nations around the world. Delays in state financing prompted the company to drop these plans.

Despite this, the state continues to move forward in its biotech efforts. Recently, the Missouri Senate Agriculture Committee approved a bill that would give the state responsibility for the “regulation, labeling, sale, storage, and planting of seeds.” The bill would also bar local governments and the state from adopting regulations that exceed federal requirements. A similar bill is pending in the Missouri House.

The need for this bill rose out of concern that Missouri would risk falling behind its neighboring states in the race to attract agricultural industries and biotech research should local governments enact more restrictive regulations. Currently, half of the states bordering Missouri have adopted or are considering bans on local regulations.

As a Missouri native, I have had a genuine interest in the state’s position regarding the issue of biotechnology and genetically modified foods for years. I firmly believe that Missouri is sending a clear cut message to the rest of the United States that it is open to biotechnology though its efforts thus far as well as through this current legislation. Missouri should be commended for its continuous work in supporting biotechnology, attracting new biotech enterprises, and encouraging innovative research on genetically modified foods by companies, research facilities, and universities throughout the “Show-Me” state.

Posted by AC Baumer at 8:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I read a very interesting commentary in Newsweek recently entitled “Why GM is Good for Us.” The piece poses a rather intriguing thought: that genetically modified foods may be better for the environment than organic crops.

The article discusses a particular hazard that farm-raised pigs pose – the phosphorus in the pig’s manure can pollute the environment. It caused an ecological disaster in Europe in the 1980s and prompted European governments to impose strict regulations on pig farming. Pigs can’t be done away with because they provide more dietary protein, cheaply, to more people around the world than any other animal. During the 1990s, pig production doubled in areas like Vietnam and by 70 percent in China along densely populated coastlines. Still, according to a February report by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, the resulting pollution has threatened coastal marine habitats.

The author talks about a solution to this problem – a genetically modified pig dubbed the Enviropig. Two Canadian biologists at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Cecil Forsberg and John Phillips, have constructed a novel DNA molecule that, when inserted into a pig embryo, gives the genetically modified pig the ability to secrete a phosphorus-extracting enzyme in its saliva. The tests so far have shown that the phosphorus content of the Enviropig’s manure was reduced by 75 percent – a dramatic result by industry standards.

So, with these new technologies, one has to wonder what organic food proponents and environmentalists really think about these advancements in biotechnology. Will these individuals remain so vehemently opposed to genetically modified foods at the expense of one of the things they hold so dear in their beliefs, the environment? Still, standing in opposition to these new biotech advancements is the notion that “natural” is good and “synthetic” is bad. Genetic modification, in the organic view, is unacceptable for the mere fact that it is done in a laboratory. What environmentalists and those favoring organic foods can’t accept is the fact that scientists and researchers use what is found in nature to create these genetically modified foods, even if the work may be done in a lab.

The author also points out that organic food doesn’t measure up to their hype. Organic farmers spray their crops with chemicals, including toxic pesticides, which directly goes against the consumer’s belief that organic crops are gown as advertised without chemical pesticides. Natural products can also cause allergic food reactions in people, especially small children, killing hundreds each year. Genetically modified foods can greatly reduce this risk.

In addition, a recent Scottish Crop Research Institute study suggests that the public has mistakenly formed false beliefs about organic agriculture as it relates to the environment. The study noted that scientific evidence (not marketing claims) shows organic methods to be no better and, in many cases, worse for the environment.

While I agree with most of the author’s assertions about genetically modified foods, there are some statements I disagree with. I agree that testing needs to be done to show that genetic modification works and that GM foods are not harmful to humans, but I think the author should have mentioned the countless studies that have already been done that prove that very same thing, including 2005 World Health Organization report that said genetically modified foods have “passed risk assessments and are not likely to, nor have been shown to, present risks for human health.”

I also disagree with the author’s assumption that the most significant GM applications will be ones that alleviate the problem of agriculture. I believe there isn’t a significant problem with this. There is only so much that researchers can do in a lab, greenhouse, or a research facility. Outdoor testing of genetically modified crops in fields needs to be done to see how these crops react in different soils and weather conditions. Field testing is a key part of making GM crops successful.

Despite the opposition to genetically modified foods that environmentalists and the organic lobby continue to impose on the public, advancements in biotechnology will certainly continue. Individuals need to fully support scientists and their efforts in pursuing this research on genetically modified foods, whether these crops help improve the environment or provide much needed and nutritious foods to impoverished nations.

Posted by AC Baumer at 5:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBacks (0)

The state of Hawaii, whether it likes it or not, can be considered the world’s largest outdoor biotechnology lab. Scientists and researchers first planted the genetically modified Flavr Savr tomato on a small plot of land in the state in 1988. Since then, federal regulators have approved more than 10,000 applications to grow genetically modified crops on more than 49,000 separate fields all over the United States, according to different reports. More of these fields planted with biotech crops are located in Hawaii than in any other state in the U.S.

Through biotechnology, Hawaii has been able to produce soy plants that are immune to weed killers, low-nicotine tobacco, and disease-resistant cotton. About 95 percent of all of the biotech acres in Hawaii are planted in corn, according to the Hawaiian Alliance for Responsible Technology and Science (HARTS Hawaii), an agricultural trade alliance, outnumbering genetically modified corn crops grown in both Iowa and Illinois.

One of the most notable things that biotechnology has done in Hawaii was to rescue one of the state’s leading food industries from ruin. In 1992, Hawaii’s papaya industry faced an economic disaster when the papaya ringspot virus (PRSV) was discovered in the Puna District of the island of Hawaii, where 95 percent of the state’s papaya was grown, according to the USDA Agricultural Research Service at the U.S. Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center. By 1995, PRSV was widespread throughout Puna.

In 1998, scientist Dennis Gonsalves, a native Hawaiian then at Cornell University, spliced a harmless piece of the PRSV virus into papaya tress, creating a genetically modified papaya that is resistant to the virus. Today, these genetically modified papaya tress also help serve as buffers to help keep the PRSV virus from spreading to non-resistant and conventional papaya trees. Because of biotechnology, the $16 million a year papaya industry in Hawaii is thriving again.

Today, high-value agriculture such as biotechnology and hybrid crop development is a leading source of economic opportunity in the Hawaiian Islands. The academic and commercial plant breeding facilities in the state provide good jobs and income for many island residents, especially those individuals in rural areas. In addition, it has saved acres of land which might otherwise be bulldozed for property development, securing this land for more environmentally friendly purposes.

With all of the advantages and benefits that biotechnology has brought to Hawaii, it is a shame that lawmakers in Hawaii are now attempting to limit further progress with the advancement of two bills in the state senate that would place a five year ban on the field testing of genetically modified coffee and taro crops.

Anti-biotech activists, including individuals in Hawaii’s organic food industry, continue to foster fears in the state over possible contamination of their organic crops by the pollen of GM crops. In reality, their fear is unfounded. Biotechnology uses what is found in nature to create these genetically modified foods that people around the world, including those in Hawaii, have consumed for years. There have been countless studies over the years that have clearly demonstrated that genetically modified foods do not pose any threat to human health and, according to several reports, pollen flow is a non-issue when it comes to determining the organic status of a food because federally adopted organic food standards don’t prohibit the unintended presence of biotech traits in organic foods. The need to have these foods completely “natural” is something the organic food industry has adopted solely on its own.

Hawaiians also need to consider that the state’s current coffee and taro crops could be threatened by a threatening virus or disease over the next five years, just like their papaya crops faced a few years ago. By placing a ban on genetically modified strains of these crops, scientists and researchers will be limited in developing resistant crops. Although senators are considering letting these genetically modified crops grow in greenhouses in the state, field testing of these crops must be done to combat this potential devastating problem.

Hawaiians, including these state senators, need to continue to support, not restrict and ban the development of genetically modified coffee and taro crops. These decisions will impact the lives of individuals, its economy, and the worthwhile research that scientists have done in the state for years to come.

Posted by AC Baumer at 4:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)