Thursday, September 10, 2015

Musings: Biotech Bits

Thought I'd share a few interesting tidbits that emerged while listening to lectures by some of the nation's top academic researchers over the past few days.

The use of herbicides has gone up since the advent of herbicide-resistant (i.e., Roundup Ready) crops, but the use of insecticides has gone down. And there's less tilling required with herbicide-resistant crops, which means there's less siltation and less top soil loss, which also helps reduce runoff of fertilizers and other inputs. It seems there are trade offs with everything, including agriculture.

It cost about $10 million for Simplot to navigate the regulatory hurdles required to secure approval of its Innate potato, which has been genetically engineered to resist bruising and browning. It also produces the pale white chip that consumers desire. In developed nations, 50-60 percent of the potato crop is used for french fries.

Though anti-GMO activists loudly complain that corporations are controlling agricultural biotechnology, the high regulatory costs have created a situation where only the big guys and those with deep pockets can play. The deregulation costs far exceed the research budgets of any public institution. Those high costs help to explain why agricultural firms aren't eager to relinquish patents.

Several scientists wondered, “Why is profit considered bad for agricultural companies, but not tech companies? Patents ensure future innovations.” Or in other words, why is it OK for Apple to make money, but not the company that developed the Arctic Apple, which resists browning?

Stanford Hospital recently announced it was “proud” to be the first to serve certified GMO-free beef, prompting a genetics graduate student to scold: 

“Stanford Hospital should be embarrassed to support a movement drive by public paranoia rather than science. If it had consulted its own genetics researchers, it might even have learned that these research are using GM as a tool to advance basic research and therapeutics that could be used in this very hospital.”

Which reminded me of a comment I heard a scientist make at the Transgenic Animal Conference in Tahoe last month: “People think nothing of injecting a genetically engineered substance [insulin] directly into their arm, but they won't eat it.” Or as another researcher phrased it, “If you want to put a pig gene in an orange, people go nuts. But if you take a human gene and put it in bacteria, no problem.”

And that reminded me of a comment that another researcher made, about how people are irrationally squeamish about technology that moves genes between species: “We already share so many genes with other species — including bacteria. There is no such thing as a such and such gene that belongs to only one species.”

Along similar lines: “There's an assumption among the public that DNA is unchanging. But that's simply not true. We're all mutants.”

Though anti-GMO activists like to portray the issue as either/or — conventional breeding or biotech — plant breeders consider the best tool, with biotech having the advantage of speed. It can take 30 years to develop a new variety of citrus through conventional methods, compared to four using biotech. “But we need both. We can't have a longterm viable GE program without having a conventional program to keep improving the base stock.”

Very few of the fruits, vegetables and grains we eat were originally present in nature. They've been developed through mutations and genomic alterations. “All the variety and variation we see in the store today are not 'natural.' They came about because humans intervened in breeding and selection. But the methods that are the least invasive and most predictable are the ones people fear the most and want labeled.”

Genetically-engineered apples, papaya, squash, brinjal (eggplant), potatoes and plums have all been deregulated. With plums, they've been engineered to resist the plum pox virus. Those resistant varieties can be used as root stock, with a scion grafted on top. The resistant qualities are transferred to the scion without changing its genetic structure, which means the fruit is not transgenic (GMO).

Farmers often plant organic papaya trees within a ring of transgenic papaya, which attract the aphids that carry the ringspot virus and thus provide protection for the organic trees. So much for the claim that the two can't co-exist.

Baby food companies are concerned because they can't get enough non-GMOs to produce their products, but they're terrified to be the first to have write “contains GMOs” on their food to comply with mandatory labeling.

And for all those who still entertain the notion that we can do away with production — often derisively termed “industrial” — agriculture and feed everyone with backyard farms and “yardens,” consider this: Globally, the human race consumes 1.3 billion pigs, 2.6 billion ducks and 52 billion chickens, which produce 59 million tons of eggs and 90 million tons of meat.

19 comments:

  1. Thank you Joan for being the "voice in the wilderness"! It takes a lot of guts to stand up to those who vilify you for consorting with the "enemy". But you have seen that if you pursue reason and logic then there is "nothing to fear but fear itself". Can biotech be used for evil purposes? You bet! Can computers, automobiles, cell phones, I-pads, I-pods, television, airplanes, radio, and all the other conveniences of modern life be used for evil purposes? You bet again! It is really up to us, as individuals, to sort out the good from the bad. And, if evil uses are truly being used with technology then those who would do so need to be rooted out. But to ban the technology completely because it is seen as being evil is very short-sighted. There will come a day when we may need the technology to more than just feed the population. We will, and do, need it for medical advances. Just think how amazing it would be if we could engineer a gene into food that attacked wayward cancer cells! I think there is a huge potential future for food biotech but, unfortunately, we have to fight through this perception of evil and unnatural to get there. We did it with vaccines, and we are still having a few skirmishes over that. But those of us who grew up in the time of measles, mumps, rubella, and chicken pox are eternally grateful that vaccines were developed to protect our children today! Please keep up the good work!

    ReplyDelete
  2. can you provide some context or references for the idea that organic papaya is often grown within a "trap crop" of transgenic papaya to reduce aphid-vectored virus load?

    ReplyDelete
  3. For 9:19 AM
    Please note the last sentence of this document which is produced by the University of Hawaii College of Tropical Agriculture and Human resources.

    The entire article can be found at: http://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/biotech/coexistence.html

    Co-Existence

    There are three major forms of agriculture: conventional, organic and conventional using genetically engineered varieties. Co-existence refers to a situation where different forms of agriculture exist side by side. For example, conventional farming next to organic farming or organic farming near conventional farms using genetically engineered crops. Co-existence is possible if growers are willing to work together and follow the recommended procedures for crop separation.

    Papaya

    Self-pollinating varieties are used.
    Pollen is heavy and does not travel far.
    Non-GE seed for next planting can be assured by bagging flowers.
    Papaya is a good choice for co-existence. Some farmers use GE papaya as a buffer zone around the non-GE papaya they are growing to prevent the spread of the ringspot virus to susceptible plants.

    ReplyDelete

  4. 9:19 AM wrote:
    ... to ban the technology completely because it is seen as being evil is very short-sighted.

    Exactly. The Evil of Science is a centuries-old belief. Scientists who vie with God to tinker with life are even worse. Put them together and you have the fear and loathing of GMOs, stem cell research, DNA research and the like. The non-religious project their f&l onto a presumed government-corporate cabal, but they're driven by the same psychology.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I notice that the anti GMO people are distinctly of two types. Those that were extraordinarily poor students in actual disciplines and those that can profit or do profit from the hysteria they seek.

    ReplyDelete
  6. There is no god.

    Only the religious would see science as evil.

    Keep believing in your "god of the gaps" (cognitive dissonance)

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous Anonymous said...

    There is no god.

    Only the religious would see science as evil.

    Keep believing in your "god of the gaps" (cognitive dissonance)

    Only the GMO people would see religion as evil.

    "god of the MONEY" (cognitive greed)

    ReplyDelete

  8. 5:54 PM wrote:
    Only the GMO people would see religion as evil.

    Actually, many people see organized religion as evil, and with good reason: organized religions historically have promoted intellectual intolerance.

    It's no accident that anti-science movements mimic the hierarchical structure of organized religion -- an authoritative "priesthood," masses of true believers, and a group mindset that reacts to opposing viewpoints as heresy.

    Four hundred years ago, Joan Conrow would have been accused of selling her soul to Satan. Today she is accused of selling her journalistic integrity to Monsanto. The psychology is the same.

    ReplyDelete
  9. 4:54 Methinks Joan would confuse even the most ardent of the Inquisitors, she may be balanced on GMOs, science and whatnot..but she sure be on the same side as many Fistee whackjobs on public access, beaches and Hawaiian rights. Of course I mean, the Fistifiers and Joan share the views that the Beach is public...except if the beach is near a Fistee. All Fistee beaches are off limits to the masses, only the elite goat cheese nibbling, White Cabernet sipping sniveling, Hooser ass-kissing, whiner newcomer crowd allowed.
    But since Joan has a different viewpoint on GMOs she probably is persona non gratis at the elite Fistee love-ins. How they have forgotten her many powerful and influential positions of other issues.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Joan is one who has forgotten her positions not the rest of us. She also used to question Gmo corporate greed driven conduct and pesticides too. Now she has joined their team, the Science Alliance team along with Bronson, Joni Rose and Jan Tennbrugengate.

    ReplyDelete
  11. 2:08 -- You are sorely misinformed on so many points. I continue to question all greed -- corporate and individual -- and to scrutinize and question pesticide use. The Cornell Alliance for Science has nothing to do with either pesticides or corporate greed; indeed, it's an example of corporate philanthropy, since it's funded by a donation from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and it's support of biotech is intended to help reduce pesticide use, especially in developing nations. And neither Bronson nor Jan TenBruggencate are a part of the Alliance team.

    ReplyDelete
  12. All of the people 2:08 takes issue with are intelligent, principled and stalwart compared to the Hooser led CFS mob dominated by second rate screamers. Joan, Joni, Bronson and Jan- individuals all- are in excellent mainstream scientific company on GMO's, and the Luddite mob has difficulty with this.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Why is Bronson's picture included as a member on their website?

    ReplyDelete
  14. And when was the last time you posted something critical of corporate greed and pesticide use?

    ReplyDelete
  15. I presume his photo is there because he's a science ally.

    I don't keep track, but the last thing I posted critical of corporate greed was probably about Center for Food Safety's use of fear to raise money. And yes, they're a corporation. Or it may have been Princeville co-opting the Hawaiian culture to market its new development. I have also written recently criticizing the rampant use of pesticide by brinjal farmers in India because ignorant antiGMO activists have prevented them from accessing technology that would greatly reduce pesticide use.

    Perhaps you need to open your tiny, closed mind, 9:35, and start looking at the bigger picture.

    ReplyDelete
  16. My tiny closed mind? At least I can sleep at night knowing I am on the right side of history. Like the corporate scientific and academic shills that lined up to speak for tobacco, ddt, agent
    orange and so many other corporate death
    scams, you Ms Conrow will grow old with guilt and responsibility heavy on your broken little shoulders.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Yes, your tiny closed mind, which, if opened, might finally understand that biotechnology is a tool that can be used by any entity, and your insistence that it is only corporate, and even if it were, somehow inherently tainted, is one of the deepest falsehoods — and contradictions — of your own technology-driven movement.

    ReplyDelete
  18. The nerve of these people, to post rude and self-serving comments on your well-researched, very informative, honest, and entertaining blog, Joan.

    You can bet that ANY negative or contradictory comments posted on the blogs of their ilk (CFS, HAPA, BAB, SCB, etc.) wouldn't even see the light of day and the commenter would be banned.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "No mind me", but, thank you Joan for sharing information.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.