If you've ever colored Easter eggs -- I mean the old-fashioned way, with food-coloring, not with those plastic wraparounds -- then you know that when you mess up, you have two options: rinse them off with some white vinegar and start over, or forge ahead, layer even more color on top, and hope that something presentable emerges.
Okay, so that metaphor's a bit of a stretch, but that's what came to mind when I read, earlier this week, that scientists at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln, have engineered a new category of transgenic crops. The new plants -- which include broad-leafed greens such as soybeans, tomatoes, and tobacco -- harbor a bacterial gene that makes them resistant to an herbicide called dicamba.
"But we have Roundup!" you cry. "Why do we need anything else?" Well, because Roundup (active ingredient: a chemical called glyphosate) isn't working as flawlessly as it used to. According to the story in Science (sorry, subscription only), 24 percent of farmers in the northern Midwest and 29 percent in the South say they have glycophate-resistant (GR) weeds. Crop scientists in Argentina, Brazil, and Australia report GR grasses popping up too.
Which is hardly a surprise when you consider the loads of the chemical we've dumped on our fields in the past few decades. In 1995, U.S. farmers used 4.5 million kilograms of glyphosate; today they use 10 times that amount. And glyphosate-resistant crops (better known as "Roundup Ready"), first engineered by Monsanto in 1986, now dominate the market. Today, more than 90 percent of soybeans and 60 percent of the corn are glyphosate resistant. With many farmers using glyphosate as their sole herbicide, we've essentially ensured that mavericks would eventually sprout. "The selective pressure for weeds to develop resistance has been huge," Stephen Duke, a plant physiologist at the USDA's Agricultural Research Service told Science.
Now plant researchers are hoping to alleviate some of that pressure by introducing dicamba into the mix. If farmers can rotate between dicamba-resistant (DR) and glyphosate-resistant crop varieties, they say the likelihood of weeds gaining a foothold will fall. The new plants also feature an interesting safety mechanism that should help stave off weeds: the dicamba resistance gene (taken from a bacterium) lives only in the plants' chloroplasts. Because chloroplast DNA is only inherited through the maternal side, this means that the GM gene can't be spread through the male pollen. It's a reproductive stopgap of sorts.
But the researchers themselves don't seem so confident that Mother Nature won't soon outsmart even this clever maneuver. Monsanto, which has licensed the dicamba technology, is hard at work on "gene stacking" -- combining genes for multiple herbicide resistance into one plant. "We have the technology today to develop herbicide resistance to anything we want to," Jerry Green, a weed scientist with DuPont Crop Protection told Science.
Yes, we have the technology. That's not the point. How and whether we should use that technology seems to me to be the more relevant issue. Our love affair with glyphosate is showing the first signs of an ugly breakup, and instead of changing (or reversing) course, we're simply forging ahead with more chemical solutions, more layers of genetic dye.
Perhaps the most disturbing part of it all, though, is that when the first dicamba-resistant soya goes into production -- in three to seven years, according to Monsanto -- no one will probably notice. Without a cogent system of labeling standards, consumers will have no idea that this has gone to market, and the mainstream press (sorry, Science and Nature) certainly won't cover it. It's not so much that I'm fearful of a hazard to human health by ingesting these foods (a Twinkie probably has more ingredients to worry about); it's the damage these GM crops do to the greater environment that's so troubling. These mighty duos of herbicide and herbicide-resistant crops create a vicious loop that we've been happy to run in because there's profit to be had. The fallout, though, is biodiversity itself. The widespread planting of these GM marvels to the exclusion of all else wreaks havoc on ecosystems, on levels we can see and on those we don't yet understand. It would be nice, at least, if as voters and consumers, we could have a say in the matter ... Because while this egg may look pretty on the surface, I have a feeling it's already rotten inside.
Climate Citizen: Michael Pollan on agriculture and health care
Tweet for the bees
Soda lobby gets its game on
Comments
View as Threaded
ndunne Posted 11:27 am
31 May 2007
NJD
NJD
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 2:59 pm
31 May 2007
Fortunately cotton is on the way out because of King Corn but don't think that stuff is all that benign either. It takes a lot of nitrogen to grow that stuff, more than cotton. Something deep inside of me says "screw the new genetic breeds, go develop some native species that are tolerant in the first place." To heck the crop yields, I want something sustainable and won't screw up the environment. Pay the farmers for good American feedstocks and not the highest yield. Stop using Round-Up and other weed killers so darn much.
Please no Frankenstein GM plants. Go native.
Onward through the fog
Permalink
SustainableGreen Posted 3:49 pm
31 May 2007
Yep, Sam, Monsanto and crew have the perfect business model. First they develop and sell Roundup, and tell people to 'dose 'em real good! We'll make more!' Then when dose rates started killing crop species the mad scientists and soulless marketers developed Roundup-ready crops. Yay! Now to counter the new set of Roundup-resistant crops and target species we now arrive at the next generation of Roundup!
The combination of a long history of high dosing, resistant crops, and target species have seriously degraded a lot of ag land to the point where it is a toxic or sterile medium--biodiversity of a parking lot.
There have also been very troubling advances in GMOs, and the response from the mad scientists and soulless marketers has been Terminator technology, which they say will prevent GMOs from escaping. Yeah, right.
We need to outlaw all of them. Period.
David
Sustainability For Life
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 11:10 pm
31 May 2007
" To heck the crop yields, I want something sustainable and won't screw up the environment. Pay the farmers for good American feedstocks and not the highest yield."
So, we all agree that low yields are okay, even though we might have to, say, double the area of cultivated land to ensure sufficient food for those alive today and to permit large areas to be devoted to non-food crops that will restore nitrogen and other nutrients in the soil? We don't mind cutting down all the remaining temperate and tropical forests to protect the environment?
And, we agree that farmers should be paid more to grow less? Everyone can just pay twice as much for their food so we won't have to use chemicals or GMOs? I'd swear I read somewhere else on the Grist site that the rise in the price of corn, just corn, due to demand for ethanol is going to make food too expensive for consumers. Those concerned about this were apparently alarmists. Folks have plenty of money and won't mind paying a little more for food for the sake of the environment.
So... to heck with chemicals... too heck with GMOs... too heck with the few remaining scraps of natural habitat... to heck with affordable food... we must destroy the environment to save it and force people to spend more on food and less on... whatever they are supposed to give up... so they will be happier.
Forward!
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 11:46 pm
31 May 2007
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/4/24/12934/9687
we probably have the resources and know-how to feed 10 billion humans "sustainably" at the moment.
Chemicals are a fossil product. Best to get beyond that ASAP.
Organic agriculture produces very similar and sometimes superior yields to conventional with fewer inputs (chemical, financial, fuel), while building soil. Chemical use degrades the soil base.
The Orion Grassroots Network: 1000+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more
Permalink
Karen Lee Orr Posted 2:10 am
01 Jun 2007
From the Global Justice Ecology Project
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_5439.cfm ...
Also visit GM Watch ~
http://www.gmwatch.org/p1temp.asp?pid=1&page=1
Permalink
PBrazelton Posted 3:14 am
01 Jun 2007
http://www.google.com/search?q=organic+vs+conventional+yi ...
Cool, eh? I know it's scary to think that we can actually grow enough food for ourselves without hacking DNA code, but for the other 99.999999% of the planet that doesn't make money from genetic engineers it's a pretty sweet deal. Best part? Organic farming leaves behind rich soil where you can grown anything - and unlike conventional biocide farming, it doesn't slaughter everything withing bloom range.
Again, to your point that we need to turn some our land into a moonscape so we can have forests, it's not either/or. Everyone says it is, so it must be true, but it ain't. We can feed ourselves, protect our resources and leave behind a planet that hasn't been sterilized with a one-two punch of terminator genes and poisons.
As for cost? Use the Google again and look up 'externality'. A wonderful world of economic opportunity awaits societies that don't dump their toxic waste on the poor and future generations. I'm pretty sure that if we, as Americans, would look at the total cost of conventional farming, buying organic food wouldn't look so expensive after all. We won't have that conversation until people begin looking at the whole picture, of course, and it seems like companies like Monsanto (and their sycophants) are doing a damned good job at squawking "CHEAP FOOD" any time someone points out that chemical warfare isn't a great way to raise healthy food.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 3:19 am
01 Jun 2007
(I specifically mention sweet clover and crown vetch because I wish farmers would stop buying and planting them... they are VERY invasive and difficult to eradicate.)
But what if someone was able to genetically engineer the American Elm and other trees once common in North America so they were resistant to the Eurasian bugs pushing them to extinction? Programs currently focus on crossing American and Eurasian species to create hybrid Frankentrees.
How are GE trees worse than combining gene pools that have been separated for hundreds of thousands of years? At least we know exactly which gene is inserted and where it is inserted when we make a GE tree. Crossing North American and Eurasian plants mixes thousands of genes and introduces that mixture into an environment that has never been exposed to them before. Sure, you will get the gene that helps defend the plant against its natural predator, but what if there are numerous other genes that prevent benign -- and very important insects -- from using the new Frankentree as well?
Or doe the Anti-GMO Brigade also strongly and vocally oppose introduction and spread of Eurasian plants? Do they speak out against corporations, breeders, nurseries, garden centers, and other groups of people who continue to introduce and sell Eurasian plants in North America? If GMOs are dangerous, conventional breeding efforts to move genes around the world en masse -- genes that have no been characterized at all -- is even more dangerous.
Forward!
Permalink
PBrazelton Posted 3:29 am
01 Jun 2007
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 3:40 am
01 Jun 2007
I'm simply trying to say there might be advantages, they are not all controlled by Monsanto, and they do not all increase the use of chemicals.
The example I generally point to is the late-blight resistant potato. A gene that confers resistance to late blight was isolated from a wild Solanum species. Potatoes are notoriusly difficult to breed and still maintain a set of desirable characteristics. The gene is owned by a public institution, not Monsanto. It can be put into almost any cultivar.. and is in fact being put into cultivars already grown in certain Asian countries, cultivars preferred by local farmers. The farmers will no longer have to use toxic fungicides on their fields, so the GMO will reduce the need for chemicals. The farmers will own the potatoes, which are propagated vegetatively. There are strategies for reducing the possiblity that the fungus will overcome the resistance. And work is already being done -- by public institutions here and abroad -- to ensure other genes are available in the future if the fungus does overcome the resistance.
I am as weary of the blanket condemnation of GMOs as I am of corporate marketing that tries to cover up real hazards. I wish we could find a way to sort through the flood of misinformation from both sides.
Forward!
Permalink
PBrazelton Posted 4:13 am
01 Jun 2007
Sorry if I came off harsh, but your last paragraph in your original reply pissed me off. It's that argument (no chemicals & no GMOS == ecological disaster & expensive Hot Pockets!!!) which has no merit. People aren't starving in the world because there isn't enough food or the knowledge to grow it effectively. People starve because of massive inequities in their local, regional and global markets. A privatized GMO market does NOT help with these inequities. Google "terminator gene" for illumination on how far a company will go to keep its market captured.
So take my comments in context, because that's how I took yours. You weren't talking about the miraculous open source Asian potato in your last comment, you were referring directly a challenge to the corporate structure that helps raze millions of acres of fertile land with nakedly aggressive and destructive practices.
You're clearly way smarter than me so I'll not challenge whether people should be growing potatoes in Asia in the first place. Nor will I question why this fungus is a problem. More power to 'em, and I hope that the plant's new genetic structure does not provide problems for the farmers, their land or their customers. You certainly seem to have a sense of integrity, so perhaps there's hope for the future of Frankenfood after all. <g>
Permalink
amnoelle Posted 4:19 am
01 Jun 2007
In relation to use of pesticides, however, I think that we need to get our reliance on them down considerably. It's not good for humans and it's not good for the environment. And, as time passes we just become more and more reliant upon them. I was raised for much of my life in the central valley of California where farming is a huge industry, and pesticides are everywhere. In the last few years I was diagnosed with a mild case of lupus. I have since moved to another state and have been symptom free ever since. While, there are no connections that I am aware of between pesticide exposure and lupus, I have to say I am becoming more certain that there must. So, to make a long story short, we have to get the agricultural practices in this country under control. Now, what to do about those lobbyists???
Permalink
SMLowry Posted 4:58 am
01 Jun 2007
Now I'm no scientist, but it is my understanding that as precise as genetic engineering may seem to layfolks, in fact it's not. And while it's hard to think of something that takes place on the level of genetics as violent, it is in fact a violent process: crossing species boundaries, forcing DNA from one organism into another totally unrelated organism.
Info on the late blight resistant potato is quite interesting and I find myself wanting to know more about this (late blight can be a scourge to tomatoes as well, which are related to potatoes which is why you don't want to grow tomatoes in plots that potatoes were in the previous year and also why you want to rotate such crops from year to year if possible. Unfortunately this isn't possible in my small garden and so I struggle with various (organic) means to keep one step ahead of the blights which are all-too-common in the wet, humid summers that have become the norm in New England.) Despite this interesting potato, I can't find it in myself to relax my guard against GMOs. And while it may be possible that GMOs could be used for good, the fact is right now the majority of GMOs exist to make companies like Monsanto rich. And unintended consequences are all too common for GMOs as well.
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 5:27 am
01 Jun 2007
And to create these new critters, scientists basically load a micro machine gun with the new desired gene they want expressed in the plant or animal, and then fire away at the location on the gene that they think it will work best in. Not the most accurate system.
That's interesting that leaving the valley aided your lupus, by the way.
The Orion Grassroots Network: 1000+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 5:52 am
01 Jun 2007
Anyway... it is actually very precise. The DNA you want to add to the plant is attached to tiny beads. The beads are delivered to the plant tissue via the gene gun. The DNA is designed to become inserted at a precise location in the genome -- it only becomes integrated into the genome if it contains sequences similar to the desired target. This event can be verified by checking the sequence around the integrated DNA after you regenerate a plant.
Because it is a very precise event, one can design the DNA so it does not turn off, turn on, or otherwise alter other genes in the plant.
The other common method, subverting Agrobacteria to insert the DNA you want to add to the plant, is less precise. It appears randomly integrated into the genome and multiple copies might be inserted. But one can, never-the-less, identify exactly where the new gene ended up and determine whether other genes might be affected.
Forward!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 6:00 am
01 Jun 2007
The bacteria take up the DNA we provide and, by means of their natural habit of infecting plant tissue and transferring their own DNA into the plant cells, move the desired DNA into the plant cells. It is not like we rip the cells open and cram the DNA in there.
I don't see this as necessarily more violent than growing vegetables on what was once a naturally lush piece of land. I'd say the net result... if we can use GMOs to reduce the need for pesticides, fertilizer, or more land... is far less violent than what we currently do to grow food.
Forward!
Permalink
PBrazelton Posted 6:21 am
01 Jun 2007
A hybrid is the offspring of two different populations. They can be of the same species (intraspecific) or different (interspecific).
In the first case, you're trying to take the traits of two different populations of the same species to make a single, desirable plant or animal through artificial selection. This has been going on forever - think of dogs. Widely divergent shapes and sizes, formed by human selection.
In the second case, humans been doing this forever too - think of a mule, for instance. Interspecific hybrids are a good deal because they contain more widely divergent genetic code (since the parents are so dissimilar) and therefore benefit from a phenomenon known as hybrid vitality. More diverse genetics - in a successful hybrid, anyway - means the hybrid has a more diverse set of tools to work with. This leads to greater disease resistance, faster growth, things like that. On the downside, these hybrids are typically sterile, and as such are dead-ends.
GMOs are genetically modified directly. This means that someone actually splices genes from an external source into the DNA of another organism to create a completely novel life form. Typically these genetic recombinations could not happen naturally, no matter what pressures existed, and as such have their own classification. You'll often hear from GMO advocates that this is no different than what happens in nature, but that is not quite true. Genetic engineering is far more precise than natural or artificial hybridization, and in many cases more radical. Note the much-maligned flounder tomato as an example.
Wisc, does that sound right?
Permalink
wackatalpidae Posted 3:44 am
02 Jun 2007
Permalink
justlou Posted 5:21 am
02 Jun 2007
Some of you may be aware that Dicamba had been used extensively on corn several years ago. Problem was that the herbicide Banvel containing dicamba as an active ingredient could volatilize off the the target field for several days after application. One very big problem with this was that this volatization off site could and did injure soybeans as well as about any other susceptible broadleaf species.
Herbicide drift of spray particles is still very much a problem for all of us living in the midwest. Just yesterday I watched a neighboring farmer spraying a post emergent herbicide on his corn on a day with sustained wind speeds over 20 mph. But volatilization is a whole nuther story. Injury for these volatilized chemicals can show up miles away from the site of application. Try tracing down the source of these chemicals if you have a problem.
So, I find this news to be quite alarming! Besides seeing and having to live with herbicide injury on my plants every year, I wonder what the effect is on our health from breathing this contaminated air each spring and summer.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 12:21 am
04 Jun 2007
You raise a very serious issue. If you are aware of additional examples of herbice drift, please let me know.
I am aware that a similar problem -- though pesticides instead of herbicides -- is contributing to the decline of honey bees and othe pollinators. In a nutshell, growers focused on defending their crops from insects and not dependent on pollinators apparently don't give damn if the drift of toxic chemicals wipes out someone's bees at the same time, bees essential for pollination and fruit production.
Forward!
Permalink
Karen Lee Orr Posted 4:03 am
04 Jun 2007
Below is an excerpt from Bruce Dixon's article for the Black Agenda Report ~
Genetically altered crops will rescue Africa from endemic shortfalls in food production, claim corporate foundations that have announced a $150 million "gift" to spark a "Green Revolution" in agriculture on the continent.
Of course, U.S.-based agribusiness holds the patents to these wondercrops, and can exercise their proprietary "rights" at will. Are corporate foundations really out to feed the hungry, or are they hypocritical Trojan Horses on a mission to hijack the world's food supply - to create the most complete and ultimate state of dependency.
"Poor-washing" is the common public relations tactic of concealing bitterly unfair and predatory trade policies that create and deepen hunger and poverty with clouds of hypocritical noise about feeding the hungry and alleviating poverty. It's hard to imagine a better case of media poor-washing than the hype around the recently announced $150 million "gifts" of the Gates and Rockerfeller Foundations to the cause of reforming African agriculture, feeding that continent's impoverished millions and sparking an African "Green Revolution"
For ADM, Cargill, Monsanto and other agribusiness giants farming as humans have practiced it the last ten thousand years is a big problem.
The problem is that when farmers plant and harvest crops, setting a little aside for next year's seed, people eat, but corporations don't get paid. That problem has been so thoroughly solved in US food production that chemical fertilizers and pesticides create a biological dead zone of hundreds of square miles in the Gulf of Mexico where the Mississippi, draining much of the continent's richest farmland, empties into it. U.S. law requires the registration all crop varieties, and makes it extraordinarily difficult for farmers to save and plant their own seed year to year without paying royalties to corporations who "own" the genetic code of those crops.
'Poor-Washing, the Gates Foundation & the "Green Revolution" in Africa' can be read at this link:
http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_con ...
The report is also available on Alternet:
http://www.alternet.org/environment/52785/
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 5:49 pm
02 Sep 2007
Depends if you include ONLY the US Market, or include the lack of exports to other markets.
http://greyfalcon.net/grocerybill.png
US, we only had a mild $14 billion increase in yearly food costs.
Permalink