Go, Bill!

I found this video and I’m quite pleased (now let’s see if this works)–

http://www.smartplanet.com/technology/video/bill-gates-tackles-controversy-over-genetically-modified-crops/415022/

Ok, so I’m giving up on actually embedding this video. But the link is above. This is where I found it, which happens to be the blog of one of the authors of an excellent book that I’m reading on genetic engineering and organic farming. But don’t just take my word for it, follow that link and find out yourself.
I’m so pleased that there is good stuff like this to back up the genetic engineering movement. I like the part where Bill says,

“What we, our foundation, has done is we’ve gone to the seed companies and we’ve gotten all the intellectual property from people like Monsanto, DuPont, Baer, to create seeds for Africa and those companies get no royalties in any way of any kind. They simply donate their scientists to work on seed varieties that combine the traits that they’ve done for ritual farming, drought resistance being a very, very important one, and get that in for these African farmers.”

For once ignorant people can’t say that the companies are only doing this for profit! I love it and I love what they’re doing. Way to go!

Allergies and proteins and genetics, oh my!

Thanks to a suggestion by Haylie Lobeck, I’ve looked into the genetic engineering research done on allergens in food.

When people react to food allergies, it’s because their body treats certain proteins in that food as if they were harmful. Basically your immune system freaks out because it thinks it needs to fight what you just put in your body. So theoretically if we get rid of the proteins that trigger this, couldn’t we get rid of the allergy?
The NIAID (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases) is funding research to help combat allergies to peanuts and cows’ milk, though I cannot find that either they or anyone else has actually done the research to remove the allergen. Perhaps I have not looked hard enough. But I think that it’s possible to do, at least with some foods. Granted, the new product would have to be thoroughly tested and approved by the FDA/NIH/USDA before it went one the market, and even then people may not accept it. The public can be notoriously hard-headed sometimes.
It is known though that we can transfer the allergens from reaction-inducing foods into normally harmless plants. For example, a researchers added components of Brazil nuts into soybeans, and after some testing it was found that the new soybeans had been contaminated by the allergens from the nuts. This has people a bit worried about the safety of gm products.
There is also worry that new proteins introduced to foods may cause new allergies. That is hard to test for. We have yet to really know the criteria that makes one protein a potential allergen and another harmless. It was because of a new protein in Starlink corn that made it not receive approval for human consumption, though the product did not seem harmful.

Here’s an interesting (though irrelevant) bit of information I didn’t know. As I read through the Wikipedia article on allergens, I noticed it said that poison ivy/oak “causes the skin rash…  by changing a skin cell’s configuration so that it is no longer recognized by the immune system as part of the body.” Isn’t that interesting? Maybe it’s just me. And anyway, how far can one trust Wikipedia?

Root-Beer Scented Flowers and Food That Fights Obesity

I thought I’d take a look at some of the interesting things that scientists have been doing with genetic engineering.

The first thing I came across was this. It’s not really related to food, but it could be used in food in the future. Scientists stumbled upon about twelve unknown genes in a petunia that they eventually linked to scents produced by a flower. “Some tweaking and amplification eventually showed that the genes allow petunias to create scents ranging from rose to wintergreen.” Including root-beer. Now wouldn’t that make a nice bouquet?
Now, as scents are closely linked to tastes, this could prove handy in making better-tasting fruits and veggies in the future.

Another interesting, though also non-food, tidbit I picked up is from Toyota’s Prius manufacturing plant. Toyota created new versions of two different flowers (sage and gardenia) in order to offset some of the pollution produced from the manufacture of the Prius. “The sage derivative’s leaves have unique characteristics that absorb harmful gases, while the gardenia’s leaves create water vapour in the air, reducing the surface temperature of the factory surrounds and, therefore, reducing the energy needed for cooling, in turn producing less carbon dioxide (CO2).”
They also have grass that has been specially developed to grow slowly so as to only need cutting once a year.

Food could fight obesity! Well, sort of. Scientists are experimenting with making food that makes us feel satisfied sooner. When we eat, some scents are released in the process of chewing. These scents help us feel full and satisfied. Though it still has to be fully proven, scientists believe that releasing more aroma may encourage us to eat less food.

Oh, titles.

Coming into this, I was worried about finding a resource that was “non-partisan,” if you will. But I was pleasantly surprised. I am currently reading Seeds of Contention by Per Pinstrup-Andersen and Ebe Schiøler, which happens to be excellent. It’s basically the issue in a nice, unbiased nutshell. I’d like to note right now that most of my ideas for posts are going to originate from things I pull from this book (though I still have a couple other books to read that I will also likely use).

I think today I’ll look a bit at Monsanto, and some of the ethics that come into play with GM crops. Monsanto makes Roundup, an herbicide specially made to work with their line of GM crops: Roundup Ready (includes maize, beet, and rape [canola]). Using certain genes from wild plants that make them resistant to certain chemicals, the seeds are made to withstand Roundup. This way, the field can be sprayed with herbicide that will only kill the weeds, not the crops. Roundup, when it first came out, was heralded as an environmentally friendly move, since it replaced some of the stronger herbicides that were being used. And, indeed, less of it is needed on a field because it can be applied later when the weeds are bigger. Therefore less of it falls on the ground and puts harmful toxins in the soil. But, the trend now is pushing for no herbicides at all, due to their toxicity. Plus, some GM crops like Roundup Ready don’t yield as well without the herbicide. “The seeds and chemical go hand in hand: there is little point in one without the other.” But together they do produce dependably good yields.

At one point in the recent past I watched the film Food, Inc., some of which was either not related to my topic or fearmongering, which is why it has not come up until now. But one thing I carried with me was the attention it paid to seed saving. Monsanto, like I mentioned in my last post, has patents on their seeds. (see Monsanto’s response to the film) In order to use Roundup Ready, farmers must sign a contract stating that they will not save the seed from those crops to use the next year. Some farmers were unhappy with this, and proceeded to do it anyway. Obviously, breaking their contract is legally wrong and perhaps unethical, but should companies have the right to patent their seeds?

A Look at the Other Side

As a quick note, USDA Scientists recently finished sequencing most of the genome of the soybean– which could help scientists engineer a better GM crop. Apparently the GM soybeans haven’t been faring as well as their “natural” brethren as of yet. Scientists last year mapped the genetic sequence of corn.

Though I haven’t yet researched much on the side of those opposed to GM crops, I felt I should touch on what I know. (I still have a book to read that should give me a better idea for later posts)

Some GM crops are made to produce their own pesticides (like a controversial potato), and people are worried that this may make foods harmful the human and other animal consumers, as well as potentially create resistant pests. Some GM corn is also being linked to organ failure.
It’s hard to be certain that these foods are safe. Some things require years to study.  After all we didn’t know radiation was dangerous until we saw the results many years later.

One of the big GM seed companies, Monsanto, has taken quite a beating from those opposed to genetic engineering. And some of that is just in their policies. Monsanto prevents farmers from saving seed to plant the next year, because they have patents on their seed. This is more expensive for farmers, as it requires that they continue buying new seed every year.  Also some seed-cleaners are not only losing their market, but are being sued for aiding those farmers that choose to break Monsanto’s policy.

Another argument against is that many GM crops, in growing faster and bigger and stronger, also use more nutrients from the soil. They therefore often use more fertilizer which is not only expensive but potentially harmful to the environment. If extra fertilizer is not used, a field can become leeched of its nutrients and will not be able to produce as much in the future, and even crop rotation cannot always make up this deficit.

What THEY know (and aren’t keeping a secret)

I’ve noticed so for that an overwhelming percentage of the people writing about my topic of study are against Genetic Engineering. But many of that group also seem to be fearmongers. I am trying to be wary of such things. I don’t care that “THEY” don’t want me to know this. Who are “they,” and is it really as bad as you say it is?

At any rate, I’ve decided that for this post, “they” shall be educated scientists, and I shall see what their take is on genetic engineering.

One of the goals of scientists is to create plans that are more disease resistant and that can be grown closer together in order to have a higher yield. Or to create a variety that will not be wiped out by natural disasters like drought or flooding.  Take rice for an example. Seasonal monsoons can sometimes kill rice if the floods cover the rice for more than four days. So, scientists bred rice that can last much longer than that: eighteen days submerged. Another scientist did something similar by giving rice “snorkels” to help then survive the flooding (see also link). This is important stuff. Rice is a main staple many Asian and African countries, and (as far as I know) many other places as well. Scientists are even making plants potentially more resistant to global warming (and just generally hardier) by breeding them with certain weeds.

So, I think THEY may have a noble goal, and so long as extensive testing is done this may turn out for the benefit of society after all.

Frankenfoods?

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have been in many of the foods we eat for over 15 years. There have been groups of people concerned about how these products may be effecting us and our environment, and some have pushed the FDA to label GMO products. As far as I can tell, the FDA has done little in this regard. But do they have to? For years people have been breeding plants and animals for specific traits. Farmers save seed from their best crops to plant the next year, cows are bred to produce more milk, and even flower growers try to make the perfect plant. Genetic engineers are blasted for “playing God,” but arguably they are doing the same thing people have been doing for years, just faster and more efficiently as they can isolate the desired genes.

I’m afraid that this post is beginning to sound biased. Tsk tsk.
I must haste to add, therefore, that there are points of the genetic engineering process that are not quite like the old method of breeding for traits. Scientists have, in some cases, put pieces of genes from other plants and even animals into a species in order to bring out the desired traits (these have been dubbed “frankenfoods”). I am not well acquainted with the methods and results of this, but I can see how this could justifiably raise concern. I hope to look into this later in more detail.

A Basic Overview

As of yet, my topic is fairly broad, though I may choose to narrow it in the future once I begin my research in earnest. I have decided to research the genetic engineering of plants for food, or rather the controversy stemming from it. There are those who see it as a benefit to the world and those who view it as a hazard.
My opinion at this time is that though there are inherent risks with changing anything in nature, the genetic engineering of plants is overall a good thing and will prove to be beneficial in the future.
I would appreciate any comments or questions you may have, and if anyone can point me towards possible references (human or otherwise), I would be grateful for the help.