Now on ScienceBlogs: Oxytocin: Starting with the basics
An interactive discussion of current issues and technologies in biotechnology
This blog is sponsored by Invitrogen.
What's New in Life Science Research is managed and written entirely by Seed editors and expert guest bloggers. Read more about them here.
January 19, 2009
Category:
If GE crops are considered safe by most scientists, why not simply label the produce from these crops and let people decide for themselves? Most people like to know what they are eating and make their own choices.
I am a label reader. If there is an excess of added sugar or too many ingredients with names that I don't recognize then I don't buy the product. Not all information, however, is useful.
Posted by Pamela Ronald at 7:47 PM • 12 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
January 12, 2009
Category:
Expanding on Janet's discussion of the power and politics of food labeling, what if American consumers saw this when they went to their local store to buy a can of tomato puree?
I suspect it would turn many people away, or at least prompt them to start questioning the extent to which we buy and consume GMO foods on a daily basis, and why and if this a problem in terms of health, nutrition, and the politics of food production.
So, if you want to know more, where do you start?
First, with the basic knowledge that while European countries and the European union has been guided philosohpically by the "precautionary principle," the United States has been guided in general by the principle of "substantial equivalence." In essence, these are two very different approaches to ideas and policies related to risk and food production and consumption, with the Europeans very wary of GMO food and Americans quite willing to eat GMO foods or oblivious and uninterested in the issue as a whole. I find it surprising that more Americans aren't interested at all in GMO questions and controversies, especially given that we produce and consume the vast majority of the world's GM crops.
With that in mind, it's fascinating to learn about how these diametrically opposed tacts came about. This article, although now almost 8 years old, provides an excellent analysis of the historical forces, in relation to food safety, risk, and regulation, that set Europe and the United States on distinct paths. These differences are also closely followed by the World Health Organization, which monitors food safety and policies towards GMO production and consumption around the globe.
For real time developments, a great virtual place to go is NYU Professor Marion Nestle's website www.whattoeat.com, which she spun out of her recent book. You'll see an entry from a few days ago that discusses a recent GAO report that highlights the marked lack of regulation and of regulatory coordination of GMO crops. For some time now, Nestle has been at the cutting edge of politics, nutrition, and food policy, offering astute analysis of America's peculiar, some would argue pathological, approach to eating.
Finally, for those of us who believe that GM labels are necessary for reasons of health, information, and consumer transparency, you can get involved at The Campaign, which is supported by a long list of organic producers.
Posted by Alexandra Stern at 12:27 PM • 8 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
Category: genetic engineering
For all the ballyhoo about genetically modified organisms (food, in particular) making the world a better place, there's also the fact that GMO technology is big money.
Science writer and environmentalist Chris Clarke said it best in his "non-knee-jerk primer" on GMOs:
I have some concerns about the safety of GMOs, based on our rudimentary understanding of how gene expression may be affected by change in a single gene, but not enough to make me want to ban research or completely rule out use of GMOs in daily life altogether. But add the profit motive and the ability to patent lifeforms and you get attempts by individual corporations to corner the worldwide market in one species after another, which is bad for farmers and consumers, and you also get thuggish attempts to subvert independent research, which is bad for science.
In the first 2009 issue of the Vatican newspaper, Cardinal Renato Martino also focused on GMOs and profit and the correlation with famine and hunger worldwide:
"If one wants to pursue GMOs (genetically modified organisms) one can freely do so, but without hiding that it's a way to make more profits," he said.
Utilizing genetically modified foods calls for "prudence" because genetically modifying organisms can increase yields in some instances, he said, but people must not abuse their power to be able to manipulate nature.
And in 2001, Louise O. Fresco, Assistant-Director General of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations wrote:
As the portfolio of GM applications increases, the international community needs to ensure that GM crops make an optimal contribution to world food security, to food safety and food quality, and to sustainability, and that they remain available to the public at large. However, despite some hopeful signs, FAO's inventory suggests that genomics and related research are not being directed to meeting these key challenges.
Indeed, the perceived profit potential of GMOs has already changed the direction of investment in research and development, in both the public and private sectors, away from systems-based approaches to pest management, and towards a greater reliance on monocultures. The possible long-term environmental costs of such strategies should not be overlooked.
As some might say, money is at the root of all evil. Or others might say, money makes the world go around. Either way, it's an important aspect of GMO development that should not be overlooked.
Posted by Hsien-Hsien Lei at 11:16 AM • 19 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
January 11, 2009
Category: genetic engineering
It appears that Bt toxin, found in genetically modified corn and used to kill pests, could wind up in aquatic ecosystems:
Researchers, including Todd V. Royer, an assistant professor in the IU School of Public and Environmental Affairs, established that pollen and other plant parts containing toxins from genetically engineered Bt corn are washing into streams near cornfields.They also conducted laboratory trials that found consumption of Bt corn byproducts produced increased mortality and reduced growth in caddisflies, aquatic insects that are related to the pests targeted by the toxin in Bt corn.
Caddisflies, Royer said, "are a food resource for higher organisms like fish and amphibians. And, if our goal is to have healthy, functioning ecosystems, we need to protect all the parts. Water resources are something we depend on greatly."
Basically, they found the following:
1. Measured the entry of Bt plant parts--including pollen, leaves and cobs--in 12 streams in a heavily farmed Indiana region. The research team's results demonstrate that these plant parts are washing into local steams. Moreover, during storms, these plant parts are carried long distances and therefore could have ecological impacts on downstream water bodies, such as lakes and large rivers.2. Collected field data indicating that Bt corn pollen is being eaten by caddisflies, which are close genetic relatives of the targeted Bt pests. Todd V. Royer, a member of the research team from Indiana University, says that caddisflies "provide a food resource for higher organisms like fish and amphibians."
3. Conducted laboratory tests showing that consumption of Bt corn byproducts increased the mortality and reduced the growth of caddisflies. Together with field data indicating that the caddisflies are eating Bt corn pollen, these results "suggest that the toxin in Bt corn pollen and detritus can affect species of insects other than the targeted pest," Tank said.
This study also shows that we need appropriate regulatory models to understand the effects of these foods:
Before licensing Bt corn, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency conducted trials to test its impact on water biota. But it used Daphnia, a crustacean commonly used for toxicity tests, and not insects that are more closely related to the target pests, Royer said.
This is a point that is too often neglected in public policy decisions (and has implications well beyond GM foods): how you design the regulatory criteria can make something look very good or very bad (a point I've made regarding the antibiotic cefquinome)
Given the stress our aquatic systems are already under, I don't think we need to add this to the mix.
Posted by Mike at 12:01 PM • 7 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
January 9, 2009
Category: Ethics • genetic engineering
Let's assume imagine that there are good ways to handle all the worries about GM-crops in the world that I raised in my last post -- that there won't be collateral damage among the non-targeted species, that the targeted species won't become resistant, that the GM crops will be sufficiently isolated from non-GMO crops that their genes won't end up in the larger agricultural gene pool counted upon by seed savers and other non-corporate-licensee farmers.
Let's further assume that the GM crops are nutritionally sound with no unforeseen consequences (e.g., allergic reactions) to those consuming them.
Will the consumers want these crops? Or maybe I should ask, will they want them if they know they're GMOs?
Posted by Janet D. Stemwedel at 12:45 PM • 2 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
January 8, 2009
Category: genetic engineering
The technology for creating genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is appealingly clever, and it opens up a host of possibilities for engineering crops and livestock to order. But how things work in theory (and in the lab) does not necessarily tell us all we need or want to know about how things will work in the world.
Consider transgenic Bt corn, corn genetically modified to express the Bacillus thuringiensis toxin, which is poisonous to many insects. The appeal of Bt corn is that it makes its own pesticide, poisoning the voracious insects that might try to eat it without the need to spray synthetic chemical pesticides that might harm the farm workers or even the consumers eating the corn.
Posted by Janet D. Stemwedel at 2:20 PM • 4 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
Category: genetic engineering
The potential of genetically engineered organisms—particularly in the areas of medicine, biotechnology and agriculture—is seemingly limitless. Is your soil too acidic for your eucalyptus trees? No problem. Just introduce genes from carrots, which thrive in slightly acidic soil, to your trees—and voila, healthy eucalyptus! Cells can't produce growth hormone? Genetically engineered bacteria can do that for you. Need to know where a specific protein is directed to within a cell? Just tack on the gene for green fluorescent protein—taken from jellyfish—to the DNA of the cell in question, and you'll find the answer illuminated.
Genetically engineered organisms may seem like wondrous designer creations—take a little bit of this DNA, a little pinch of that, and tweak a basic, time-tested genome to make something new and improved. The benefits are immediately visible in crop plants: juicier tomatoes, fatter ears of corn, more nutritious rice. Yet these super-foods come with a host of questions that must be addressed before they can replace traditional crops. Will biotechnology companies take over agriculture production from farmers? How do you control the rights to a specific species of wheat? How do we know that genetically engineered foods won't make us sick, fifty years down the line?
These are only the questions related to food. Genetically engineering medicines, while perhaps more acceptable to many for lack of better alternatives, presents additional ethical ambiguities. And once you get to the level of genetically engineering animals, you face the widespread fear that science will create something it can't control—a Frankenstein's monster, if you will.
So, what do we really have to be concerned about with genetically engineered organisms? Are our fears unfounded, or are they only the tip of the iceberg? To what extent do you think humanity will embrace this branch of technology in the near future? The distant future? Are all humans destined to become genetically engineered organisms themselves?
Posted by Erin Johnson at 11:00 AM • 6 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
December 21, 2008
Category: Biodefense
I'm glad Pam Ronald brought up the idiocy of the regulations surrounding biological agents. With any kind of security paranoia, people start behaving more cautiously than is needed. After Sept. 2001, shipping bacterial strains to collaborators involved far more paperwork (paperwork which certainly won't stop a bioterror attack).
Posted by Mike at 10:25 AM • 4 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
December 18, 2008
Category: Biodefense
Next week the FBI will provide my fingerprints to the Department of Justice and begin a background check to review my life activities. All my laboratory personnel will also be checked out. We do not work with anthrax, small pox, botulism or ricin. We are not palling around with terrorists.
Posted by Pamela Ronald at 5:00 PM • 8 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
Highly Allochthonous 11.05.2009
Eruptions 11.05.2009
Not Exactly Rocket Science 11.05.2009
Corpus Callosum 11.05.2009
Starts With a Bang 11.04.2009
