Women’s Bioethics Blog picked up one of my posts:

A group of researchers from the University of Southampton are hoping to establish a settlement of genetically modified poplar trees on land owned by the Forestry Commission as part of a research project into biofuels. Sounds good on its face – modified trees that may help us solve some of our oil dependency problems. But it’s not that easy. The truth is, these trees would present a whole other set of problems.

Clare Oxborrow, A campaigner for the eco-friendly organization, Friends of the Earth, explains the potential problems: “Our concerns with GM trees are even more serious than crops because trees are very long-lived. They are inherently geared up for spreading seeds and pollen because of the way they reproduce. There’s a huge potential for cross-pollination. It could have a really negative impact and cause widespread ecological damage.”

The proposed plantation would be the first attempt to cultivate genetically modified trees in Britain since 1999, when activists destroyed 115 plants. Those particular trees were super-trees – they had been modified to grow at four times the rate of a normal tree. That means they used more oxygen, more resources(what resources?), and could reproduce and pollinate faster. Campaigners have said that they will fight the new, similar plan amid warnings that allowing the move to go ahead would be “an unknown and worrying risk” for Britain’s ecosystems.

You can read the rest of the article on their site here.

Agriculture company, Monsanto, has spent years in court and seemingly endless money to fight dairies who were labeling their milk rBGH-free. The compound - genetically engineered Recombinant bovine growth hormone (hence rBGH) has had controversy swirling around it for some time. Apparently the company is now fed up and facing a growing backlash against rBGH, which once conquered the U.S. dairy industry. Monsanto is selling the rights to produce Posilac, its name for the the product.

Apparently Posilac had become a marginal part of Monsanto’s profit growth - which derives mainly from its dominance of the genetically modified corn, soy, and cotton seed markets – so they’re willing to let it go. And that’s probably good news for small farms fighting big Monsanto litigation.

Whatever company buys it probably won’t have Monsanto’s supply of money – or the company’s litigious desire to try to prevent dairies from labeling their products rBGH-free. The announcement marks a victory for consumers’ right to know what’s in their food.

A new technology is emerging in Australia that may lead to a genetically modified variety of wheat that could withstand severe drought and increase yields by 20 per cent.

Professor German Spangenberg said that 35-50 per cent of wheat growing areas around the world were regularly exposed to drought conditions, and this new modification could help ensure they have successful crops.

The trials are being conducted in Australia’s Victoria state and after encouraging initial findings last year, a second trial crop has just been planted.

Spangenberg spoke out against countries and governments that are wary of the genetically modified organism trend saying, “There is a risk when societies - manipulated by irrational fear - become technophobic and thus create disincentives for innovation and for adoption of new technology, hindering economic, environmental and other societal benefits that would be otherwise accrued.”

He added that the pressure of global warming had contributed to recent falling yields and that GM must be considered as part of the solution.

“We have seen the production output in eight major cereal-exporting countries, which represent approximately half of global production, drop by 4 per cent in 2005 and by 7 per cent in 2006,” he said.

Spangenberg and his team estimate that the commercial cultivation of the drought resistant wheat to be 5-10 years off, and are also investigating opportunities to take the drought resistant application to other crops.

The issues of genetically modified foods are going to be one of the big issues of the 21st century, as the population grows and the traditional agriculture is challenged to keep up.  Can GMOs actually save us from reaching the limits of population, or will the affects be detrimental? Some people may be willing to make compromises of their beliefs about GMOs and their fears, and take a chance given that these types of foods could have a positive outcome. But others won’t and will continue to fight for stricter legislation and more research before these types of foods hit the market. As I talk about in my book, there is little in the way of testing for these foods, and, given the issues surrounding it and the amount of money involved, can GM be stopped?Proof of Life psp

By: Jonathan Javitt

Imagine a cleaner pig. Thanks to researchers at the University of Guelph in Ontario, you don’t have to imagine – they’ve engineered them. It has nothing to do with their appearance – the look just like any other pig – but the difference can be found in their genetic makeup, specifically in their “cleaner” manure.

Your typical pig doesn’t have the capacity to break down phytate - found in much of the food that pigs eat – thus going undigested, ending up in their manure and subsequently, in other places as well. It can get into the water supply, leading to algae growth, and it can get into the air – especially when a large number of pigs live together on ranches. In short it can cause real environmental problems.

In hopes of ending these problems, study leader Cecil Forsberg and colleagues genetically engineered pigs, dubbed Enviropigs, that can digest more phosphorus.

So how is it done? According to the study, “by introducing a bacterial gene for the enzyme phytase into Enviropigs’ genome, the pigs secrete the enzyme in their saliva and expel up to 60 percent less phosphorus in their manure than their non-transgenic counterparts.”

These cleaner, environmentally-friendly pigs are just one genetically engineered animal living in experimental labs in North America. Others include fast-growing salmon, disease-resistant cows, and goats that produce antibacterial milk. All of them, right now, are awaiting FDA approval.

In my novel, Capitol Reflections, I talk about the complexities of FDA approval for modified foods – or animals – and the problems that arise because sometimes there aren’t enough checks and balances in place (since genetically modified foods is based on relatively new science.)  Those opposed to genetically modified organisms (GMO)  worry that there isn’t enough information about them yet to safely bring them to market.

It’s easy to see both sides of the argument. Items that are genetically modified typically serve a purpose for the “greater good” - faster growing grains for countries afflicted with famine, fish that would help end over-fishing, and of course, pigs that don’t pollute – but is that a reason to give them fast track approval and open them up for consumption? Do people really know what could unfold if this type of technology is mismanaged or mis-applied?

With a heated political season upon us, it’s interesting to consider the role of policies and politicians in the GMO debate.

Jonathan Javitt is the author of Capitol Reflections and a Washington insider, physician and scientist who has served as a senior White House health advisor in the past three presidential administrations. His book is available on Amazon.com .

This is an interesting post found during my blog search today. Reach it in its entirety here.

“What if I could buy a totally disease-resistant tomato plant? It would have to produce tomatoes that have great taste, of course, since that’s the reason I grow them.

But even if the taste was only equal to what you typically find in the supermarket, would a disease-free plant help farmers raise more tomatoes and — potentially — lower the price, helping families at the lower end of the economic scale?

This sort of thing is already happening with grains. Does it help or hurt developing nations?

And are those humanitarian goals worth opening what at this point seems to be a Pandora’s box? Similar questions are posed in today’s New York Times about ‘geoengineering.’”

Prince Charles drew criticism with an outspoken attack on industrial farming Wednesday, warning genetically modified food could be the “biggest disaster environmentally of all time.”

Charles said millions of small farmers around the world could be driven off their land into “degraded and dysfunctional conurbations of unmentionable awfulness” by the rise of global conglomerates.

The heir to the throne is a long-term supporter of sustainability and locally produced food and often speaks out on environmental issues.

He has an organic farm on his Highgrove estate in Gloucestershire and set up the Duchy Originals brand, which sells exclusively organic produce, in 1990.

But his latest comments have drawn criticism that he is a “Luddite”.

The Daily Telegraph journalist who conducted the interview wrote that Charles “let rip” and started “jabbing his finger” and “bouncing in his chair” when asked whether large-scale food production was the future.

“What, all run by gigantic corporations? Is that really the answer? I think not. That would be the absolute destruction of everything and… the classic way of ensuring that there is no food in the future,” Charles told the paper.

He added that “clever” genetic engineers had put the world on course for the “biggest disaster environmentally of all time.”

The world should be working “with nature. We have gone working against nature for too long,” Charles said.

Labour lawmaker Des Turner, who is on the House of Commons science and technology select committee, criticised the comments, telling London’s Evening Standard paper that Charles “has got a way of getting things absolutely wrong.

“It’s an entirely Luddite attitude to simply reject them (GM crops) out of hand,” he added.

Another Labour lawmaker, Ian Gibson, told the paper: “Prince Charles should stick to his royal role rather than spout(ing) off about something which he has clearly got wrong.”

But the future king attracted support from environmental groups including Friends of the Earth.

“Prince Charles has hit the nail on the head about the damaging false solution that GM crops present,” said its campaign director Mike Childs.

“GM crops will not solve the food crisis — and forging ahead with an industrialised farming system will continue to fail people and the environment around the world.”

The comments come amid rising concerns worldwide over rapidly rising food prices.

The World Bank estimates that food prices have almost doubled over the past three years, and its president Robert Zoellick has said two billion people are affected by the food crisis.

As I point out in my book, Capitol Reflections, this is one of the main reasons people are in favor of genetically modified foods - and their are good arguments on both sides! The danger is when not enough testing goes into a new product, or not enough research is done before the testing even begins to find out who and what is affected, and how these affects will influence us and our planet. I address many of these issues in the book which, although it is fiction, provides insight into some of the big concerns about the GMO movement today.

A book that’s being called “almost impossible to put down” by the New York Post is on sale now on Amazon!

The novel follows Dr. Gwen Maulder, an FDA scientist who is hot on the trail of a conspiracy that leads her through the corridors of power and ends in death for too many innocent victims. What Gwen discovers is that people with the resources to genetically engineer food have a surprisingly clear path toward bringing these foods to market - even when the side effects of genetic engineering can be devastating.

The book may be fiction, but it brings many interesting issues to light that are extremely time sensitive and applicable to our every day life.

By Jonathan Javitt

Genetically modified (GM) beet sugar is generally used to make Hershey’s Kisses – but that will no longer be the case in Brazil. The company recently announced it won’t use GM beet sugar in its Brazilian-made products, but Hershey has not made any such promises for its US products.

In light of this, a number of consumer watch-dog groups in the US are urging people to take action; several years ago, Hershey told U.S. consumers it would not use genetically engineered sugar. But now genetically modified sugar beets are being planted commercially in the US and Hershey is utilizing sugar made from these plants for their hugely popular “Kisses” candy.

Additionally, the nation’s largest sugar manufacturer, Crystal Sugar (from whom Hershey buys its sugar), said in the past that they would not be using GM sugar beets  and indicated that herbicide-resistant varieties developed using biotechnology would not “be sold, given away, distributed, or planted.” But it doesn’t look like that promise has been kept.

The New York Times reported in a recent article, “Round Two for Biotech Beets ” that the sugar manufacturer abandoned its promise not to use genetically-modified sugar because public resistance to GM foods seems to have faded. Crystal Sugar and others now support the cultivation of GM beets because it will increase yields. According this article, beet sugar is unlike many GM foods in that the sugar molecule in GM beets is identical to the sugar molecule made by non-GM beets.  Sugar, as a pure, crystalline substance contains no genetically modified strands of DNA or proteins.

GM beets are produced by Monsanto, which is a concern to many consumer groups – and agriculture activists -  because of perceived dangers of Monsanto’s pesticide resistant technology and the aggressive marketing to farmers who don’t use their products. The GM beets are called  Roundup Ready Beets because their DNA has been altered to survive applications of Roundup weed-killer.

Consumer groups are concerned about the introduction of GM foods for human consumption in the US because there are no clear requirements for pre-market safety testing. The nation’s food safety laws were written before GM foods were conceived and although those laws focus on proving the safety of food additives and adulterated foods, genetic modification is considered neither an additive nor an adulterant.

While these issues are debated, still others are worried about Monsanto’s central role in our food supply. As I mention in my book, Capitol Reflections, altering the food supply could potentially play a big role – and cause big problems – in our society.  In the “real world,” this is easy to see -  increasing use of GM seed and food gives Monsanto – a GMO giant - a great deal of control over the production of food, and only a handful of corporations like Monsanto are involved in agricultural biotechnology.

de vision devolution