Genetically Modified Foods; Friends or Foes

      So the last time I posted, I thought I would have another post up within 24 hrs. Yeah not so much. Sorry but time was not on my side.I finally determined what/where I will be doing a research project next year for my masters degree, and the I started my job milking on a small dairy this week.On Saturday I took a trip back to Chicago to find an apartment and listen to Jeffrey Smith give a presentation on genetically modified organisms (GMOs).  Anyways today I would like to do a post GMOs myself.

     First off I want to say that I am not against the idea of genetically altering foods. Plant and animal breeding has taken place since the advent of horticulture. However this form of genetic manipulation is what one would call vertical gene transfer.The desired genes are transferred down from the parent organisms to the offspring. For example, a cattleman and dairy farmer might cross breed their herds to yield a breed that is both productive for producing milk and well muscled for meat production. An example of this would be the breed known as the American Milking Shorthorn (productive milk and beef producer). Similar means are used to produce desirable plants and flowers. Most of us probably remember learning a bit about this back in Middle School or High School science classes with Gregor Mendel and his pea plants (see more here). GMOs, however, are not achieved via vertical gene transfer. The technology utilized involves the use of horizontal gene transfer.

American Milking Shorthorn

The production of GMOs relies on a form of horizontal gene alteration known as transformation.For a thorough description of this process, you may want to refer to this article by Michael Peel, of the agriculture extension agency at North Dakota State University (here). The shortened version is something like this; a desirable gene is identified and isolated, and transferred to a bacterial plasmid (a small circular piece of DNA) for protection. The plasmid is then inserted into the cells of the plant the scientists seek to alter, with the hope that the gene on the plasmid will teansfer to the target cell. The other, more common means of transfer is coating particles of metals such as gold with the genes of interest and shooting them into the target cells with a gene gun (sounds sci-fi right?)  The scientists can then use certain markers to identify if the gene transfer has taken place between the plasmid (remember its carrying the desirable genes) or the gene carrying particles and the target plant cells.


Diagram of the described horizontal gene transfer for the visual learners out there.

      Now that we've discussed how GMOs are made, lets take a look at the implications. Genetic modification is not only used in foods. This technology can also be used to produce pharmaceutical drugs, and supplements. It is used in industry to produce useful chemical agents, and can also be used for genetic mapping purposes. To the best of my knowledge, the technology used for artifical genetic modification has only been in use since the early 1970's coincident with the Green Revolution (discussion on green revolution). There first study I could find on the use of genetic modification dates back to '73 and was done by Stanley Cohen and colleagues at UC-San Francisco (1).

  In my opinion, the discoveries of Cohen and others during the green revolution were beneficial to the quality of life for mankind, with the increased production of  high quality food (although I cant say the same for the earth as a whole due to increased population pressure and environmental degradation). Contrary to others, I dont think the green revolution was spurred by malice. The occurence of the Green Revolution is a major reason the population has ballooned from 3.7 in 1970 roughly 7 billion today. In the words of Cohen et al,

   " Here is potentially useful for insertion of specific sequences from prokaryotic or eukaryotic chromosomes or extrachromosomal DNA into independently replicating bacterial plasmids."

 

    I believe the intent was great, but unfortunately overzealous corporations and policy makers have been too quick to allow the rapid proliferation of genetically modified crops into our food system and business practices have been less than scrupulous to say the least. In theory drought resisatant rice in sub saharan Africa sounds great to alleviate hunger in the region. I would love to see cold tolerant banana & cashew treeshere in my native midwest, but there are several catches to be considered.

   To begin with, the production of GMOs is most often carried out large corporations with profits in mind, more so than the greater good of man. Four companies, Syngenta, Dupont, Bayer, and Monsanto are thought to control more than half of the world's seeds (2) Monsanto alone holds over 650 seed patents! In addition to owning a lion's share of these market these companies do not have trhe greatest track record. For example it has been well reported in documentaries such as Unatural Selection the foreign media such as The Dailymail and The Telegraph across the pond in the UK that the practices of Monsanto led to massive suicide numbers by indian farmers. Anecdotally I have discussed with many India natives over the years as well. This 2008 article in The Dailymail by Andrew Malone describes the situation (3).

   The gist of it is that in India for millenia, farmers have farmed using heirloom seeds and re-collected the native seeds every year at no cost. In recent years, Monsanto has marketed their seeds to farmers promising higher yield. The farmers pay the premium for Monsanto's patented seeds and chemicals (Roundup anyone?) with loans expecting high yields to pay back their loans. Unfortunately the promised high yields have not come to fruition in many cases, leading the farmers to yield net loss rather than financial gain. Furthermore, since the seeds are Monsantos they cannot recollect them. They must but more seeds. Several farmers have been driven so far into debt that they are forced to relinquish their familt land, which has often been passed generation to generation for several genearations. The circumstances have led many to commit suicide. Fortunately activists such as Vandana Shiva are doing their part to educate the Indianfarmers and reclaim Indias farming sovereignity. Farming in smaller, "less developed" nations is less of a business and small farms can not afford to risk their financial livlihoods on promises of companies such as the four listed above. On another positive note, farmers in other nations have got the message as well.
 
    Coverage of the Haiti earthquake aftermath by the mainstream media died down pretty quickly, but the Huffington Post reported that Haitian farmers actually burned seeds "donated" by Monsanto. The article reported that  peasant farmer leader Chavannes Jean-Baptiste of the Peasant Movement of Papay (MPP) called for the immediate burning the of 60,000 seed sacks to be donated  by Monsanto, thus saving the farmers from having to continually purchase Monsanto seeds and the pesticides that often accompany the seeds. The farmers may or maynot have given up higher yileds by burning the seeds, but I have to agree with there decision, in that I would not want to play financial russian roulette with the Monsanto seeds either.

     Well its getting past my blogging time limit, and I have some gardening to do, so let me try to top this post off. Tomorrow I plan to discuss the health implications of GMOs. As I said I am not completely against the idea of gene modification and the improvement of plant characteristics, but as noted earlier the technology is extremely recent, relatively speaking, and I don't think these plants should have been introduced to our food system without thorough inspection on health implicationsfirst. Unfortunately that is not the case. Animal studies have been mixed in regardes to health findings in animal feeding models. Negative findings have included organ damage and sterility within 3 generations of feeding aniamls GMO feed! I plan to discuss this tomorrow.

   As I stated above, our media has not done a great job of informing the public on GMOs, the possible associated risks, and the bad business practices taking place. Below is the story of two respected journalists, Steve Wilson and Jane Akre who were censored from reporitng an unflattering news piece on a local Florida Fox station. No conspiracy here, as it makes perfect financial sense for media mogul Rupert Murdoch not to risk losing millions in advertising dollars from Monsanto for his Fox empire (see Murdoch wiki).

     In conclusion let me finish this up with a little positive news and a couple of resources. The knowledge on GMOs is finally going a little more mainstream. Prince Charles has actually been calling for cessation on the use of GMO and even spoke against factory farming just days after the recent royal wedding (4 & 5). Jeffrey Smith, one of the worlds leading advocates made a recent appearance on the Dr. Oz show to discuss GMOs (here). The Huffington Post   recently reported that 9 out of 10 Americans would like to see GMOs labeled (which they currently are not) and 53% of those polled stated they would make a conscious effort NOT to buy GMOs if they knew what foods they were found in (here).

I really have not discussed the health findings that may lead many to want to forfeit GMOs quite yet but for those interested in learning more I suggest navigating the Institute for Responsible Technology. There you can find non GMO shopping guides, as well as read the blog solely dedicated to GMOs, and download other resources such as audio CDs you can use for your own further education and to give to friends , family, etc.
Heres the link....
http://www.responsibletechnology.org/

Lastly (no really), a quick tip I often reccomend to avoid GMOs is to just avoid processed foods (as you should be doing anyway) and read your PLU's when you buy produce. If it begins with 4, it's conventional. If it begins with 9, it's organic and if the PLU begins with 8, the product is GMO. In the 3-4 years I have known to do this, I have never seen a PLU beginning with an 8. Heres an example just in case; 4060 = broccoli, 94060 = organic broccoli, 84060 = GMO broccoli. Again just an example, Ive never seen GMO broccoli. A mnemonic my mom came up with is 8 is evil, 9 is nice.

Mmmm

Alright that's it for today.

-AR

Home Food

"Most lawns are purely cosmetic in function. Thus, affluent societies have, all unnoticed, developed an agriculture which produces a polluted waste product, in the presence of famine and erosion elsewhere, and the threat of water shortages at home"-Bill Mollison

Pretty handy book if your in to gardening or self sustainablility...

My current night stand read is Introduction to Permaculture by Bill Mollison. Mollison is credited as being the founder of Permaculture, which essentially focuses on establishing sustainable cultures through sustainable food production, urban design,even efficient use of city refuse (humanure) and so forth. I first heard about Mollison while reading some of Joel Salatin's work. The past couple of years I have been reading gardening books and putting my skills to the test, but permaculture is the equivalent to putting your garden on steroids.* The point of this post is that it is spring time and therefore time to start getting seeds ready or at least planning your garden. Even a couple of symbolic tomato plants on the patio hepls. Here is a photo of some plant's from my garden last year.

The Brassica gang holding down fort.

In any case, I would reccomend the book and the practices it espouses to just about anyone. Whether you are interested in good health or the environment, self subsistence, or even saving a buck; growing your own food is a good idea. Personally, I do it for all of the above. Growing your own food is great supplemental exercise for the fitness enthusiast and probably adequate for the lay person if they take an old school approach and minimize the use power tools. On top of that, you can't beat fresh food. No matter what "diet" one follows, low carb, paleo, vegan/vegetarien, etc. All of these diets tend to include some plant matter unles your trying to get your Vilhjalmur Stefansson on (see bio). 

This is proof that mowing the lawn is much less cool in contrast to gardening.

Current events taking place in the world further validate the need for at least the supplemental production of local food. Not to start any debates on the merits of the globalized food production system, but the current situations in Japan and the middle east  illustrate this point quite well. For example, imagine if nuclear fallout indeed did make its way over to California soil. California is the number one food producing state in our country (1). According to a California tourist site, which I will be the first to admit may not be the most credible source, California produces over half the nations fruit, vegetable, and nut products, along with being a major dairy producer (2). Personally I know a majority of the produce I have eaten since late December has come via California.

Our food is often times more traveled than we are.

Certain foods are also highly specialized in only one or two parts of the country leaving the entire crop production highly vulnerable to disease or natural disaster. For example a majority of the worlds corn is grown in the midwest and Brazil. An article released from University of California-Davis also reports that 60 perccent of the nations apples come from Washington state alone (3). With that in mind, I understand that we can't live in fear of hypothetical situations, but it is probably prudent for the country not to put all of its eggs (and other foods) in one basket. A little bit of effort by surburanites and even city dwellers could really help to fortify our food base as well as increase the general nutrition of the food we eat.**

Think about how much food could be produced in suburban yards as well as the gas from lawn mowers that could saved or reallocated, and nitrogen run off from all the turf builder/fertilizer applied. We would also drastically cut down on food mileage. According to a report form the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture at Iowa State University, its takes about 250 Calories to produce a typical pound of pears or apples once all fuel input is taken into account (4). According to nutritiondata.com, a pound of apple only provided about 250 Calories itself (see here). In my current city, Chicago, it takes an average of 1518 miles traveled to put produce on the table (4). In Michael Pollan's The Omnivores Dilemma, it is written that it takes roughly 10 Calories to produce every 1 Calorie provided in typical California grown lettuce.


I am trying to further develop my food production adroitness this year by starting all my plants from seed, but it really can be as simple as buying a few plants from Lowes or Home Depot and plopping them in the ground, followed by an occasional watering and weeding. It really comes back to the situation being a win-win. We can have people reconnected with their food, use millions of acres of "lawn" to grow food rather than practice indentured servitude to grass. There are obviously  flaws in the current system of food production, and getting out and growing a little of your own certainly wouldn't hurt.

Mixing up some of my seed starting mix...home made compost, potting soil & vermiculture

 * Just to be clear in "gardening on steroids" comment I mean Permaculture is a step up in terms of sustainability and production. I am not referring to use of synthetic fertilizers or using pesticides.

**Analytical studies show that certain processing techniques and the travel/aging of foods can cause nutrient loss in the form of vitamin and phytochemical loss (5, 6).

Pig Business!

About a year ago, I met a women by the name of Barbara Sha Cox. I had read an article featuring Barbara earlier in the week profiling her work as the founder of the advocacy group Indiana CAFO Watch (see here) Anyways the article discussed the environmental and societal problems evoked by CAFOs (concentrated animal feeding operation) in Indiana. Ever since meeting her, I have stayed in touch and tried to do my small part (writing legislatures, signing petitions, etc.) to keep CAFOs and CAFO waste out of my home state. CAFOs basically produce inferior quality meat, the animals are treated terribly, they put small family farms out of business, and the concentrated waste produced in CAFOs damage local ecosystems and makes locations virtually unlivable due to the pollution and smell.

The first I had heard of CAFOs was a 2007 Rolling Stone article entitled Boss Hog (here). I immediately stopped eating commercial pork. Since then other sources that I heave read or watched include Omnivores Dilema, Fast Food Nation, Food Inc, The Future of Food, and others. For anyone interested, Barbara just sent me the link to a new UK documentary Pig Business discussing how Smith Field Farms, the number one pork producer in the U.S. has moved over to Poland to break a foothold in the european market. The movie features Rick Dove, a speaker at the last Indiana CAFO Watch conference, and does a great job of showing the myriad reasons why CAFOs are not an optimal means to produce meat. The official Pig Business website cane be here.

Check out the documentary...