We have some ambitious goals ahead of us, from art to videos, tax-exempt status and more, but there is one more thing that I think we should strive for in the coming year – making the news. We are indexed by Google News, so in that sense we are making news as we report and comment on what goes on in the world. But what I mean is making a big enough impact in the world that other news organizations start reporting on us. The more reaching out we can do, the more people may come here and exchange ideas, contribute articles, and learn about science. I know that we have a good following amongst scientists, and it would be great if we could bring more people into the discussion.

We’re also on our way to a bigger league.

At the beginning of December, I thought that we had gotten to the point where a Wikipedia article about our organization (which is more than just a blog) was appropriate, giving the bare-bones rundown on what we do. Other organizations such as the Non GMO Project and GM Watch have pages, of varying quality, why not us? I built it over a few days and it went up on December 6. A few editors helped out with improving it, and suggesting links to de-orphan the page, and everything seemed fine.

Then, right on the New Year, an editor flagged it for deletion. Over about a week, various editors chimed in on how big of a mention in different news sources was big enough of a mention for notability, and I provided what more information I could to help out. I tried to point out politely when a couple editors were not even bothering to read some of the sources, and made sure they were aware that I both created the page and am a founder of the site in question. In the end, our page was deleted, with not enough of a strong ‘keep’ vote from other editors.

I thought it was ironic that editors were arguing that I myself may be notable but Biofortified is not – even though my notability in this case stems from what I have done here on Biofortified. Kind of odd, don’t you think?

I’m not worried about the deletion, because all of my work (and other editors’ additions) has been saved, and the entire thing can go back up once we have but a few more references to meet the oft-arbitrary guidelines of notability. So here’s another incentive for us to make some news!

I would like to solicit some ideas of things that we can do this year. There is on-the-ground public outreach and events, online gatherings, and additional resources that can be put together on the site. What would you like to see?

I thought one fun thing we could do is organize a book reading of the original Frankenstein, which could involve virtual meetings over Google+ or a webinar-type site. Or should we dress up like fools and get people to sign a petition to ban genetic recombination? Serious and silly, there are many ways to get messages out there. Let us know in the comments!

Let’s make 2012 be the year we make some serious news.

Environmental Outlook: Labels for Genetically Modified Foods

In 1992 the FDA ruled against requiring labels for genetically engineered foods. Join us for a panel discussion on the rationale for that decision and why some are urging the FDA to reconsider its stance.

Thomas Redick: Global Environmental Ethics Counsel

Gardiner Harris: Science reporter for The New York Times and author of the mystery novel “Hazard.”

Gary Hirshberg: President, Stonyfield Farm, Inc.

The development of the roster of guests was rather interesting, and bears mentioning. It has gone through numerous rounds of change. Initially, Val Giddings, President of Prometheus Agricultural Biotech, was going to be on the show, and then they also decided to add Doug Gurian-Sherman from the Union of Concerned Scientists. Then they switched to inviting our own Pam Ronald from UC Davis, and for a brief time period her name was also on the website. I heard from Pam last night that they decided that they did not want to have a science section on the show, and canceled that part of it.

In this whole process, it seems, the producers were trying to “balance” the show, but each iteration of the process showed that a false balance was being achieved. The journalist Chris Mooney has described the trap that some journalists fall into when covering science-related issues is to give equal time to scientists that represent the consensus of the scientific community and those that represent outlier or minority positions. This show was about to go even farther by giving this minority viewpoint more time on the show than for responses from the practicing scientist guests, and as a result, there was difficulty negotiating the interview.

But the end result may be more appropriate. The newly-added guest, Thomas Redick from GEEC sounds interesting, and it appears that he argues against labeling, as evidenced by a book he co-authored, Thwarting Consumer Choice: The Case against Mandatory Labeling for Genetically Modified Foods. I am not familiar with him or his arguments in specific, so that will be new to me.

So have a listen, I will be, and represent science by calling in as early as you can to ask questions! Feel free to discuss the show below live or afterward.

(This just in: at the last minute, they have added and advertisement for a pro-labeling e-book by Hirshberg and other critics of GE, making it pretty clear the intent of the show.)

Money Matters

In 2009, due to an outpouring of support from the science blogging community and from our readers for what we’re trying to do, we won a contest that provided our blog with a $1,500 grant that helped us revamp the site, pay for hosting and purchase prizes to build a community of readers, and get some more diverse content on the blog. Now, after two years our grant is running out and we are going to need more funds to continue to keep our blog community going strong, and expand it with some more projects.

First, our expenses have mainly been spent on Promotion (prizes, posters, shipping), hosting costs (server, domains, photo album), conference reporting (gas, train, cheap motel), and site development (graphic design, plugins). Here is a visual breakdown of what proportion we have spent on each area. For those who are new to Biofortified – those who write here do so as volunteers, so our funds do not go to pay for what is written on the blog.

You no doubt may have noticed a section for Transcription in the above pie chart. That’s because we have hired a student who is writing some excellent transcripts of audio and video interviews we’ve done that I will post on the blog in the next couple days. This will make it easier for people to read, reference, and check back on these interviews. We would like to continue to make these transcripts available, and in fact, some will be absolutely necessary. I have a really good 2-hour phone interview I conducted earlier this year that will need to be transcribed before I can do something with it.

Another major expense that we would like to be able to make is to commission artwork. Communicating science depends as much on art as it does science, and we’ve got some great artists on call who can make us some killer graphics for improving the look of the site, for videos, and informational pages. An artist can also help us realize an attractive and thought-provoking T-shirt design for the blog.

And let’s not forget our long-term project of cataloging and summarizing all existing research on the relative risks of genetic engineering, a project we call GENERA. This will take a significant amount of money, which we do not expect to be able to gather this time around. But there is something we can do which will make funding that project possible: tax exemption.

As a science education and discussion organization, we would qualify for tax-exemption, and we would do it if we had the money for the filing fees. Not only would it make it possible for future donors to deduct their donations, it would also open up more opportunities to continue and expand our projects because we would be eligible to apply for grants from many charities and nonprofit trusts that require tax-exemption. Being exempt also carries more reporting and transparency responsibilities, but we plan to go further with yearly financial reports published on the blog.

From now until mid-January, we will talk a bit about how reaching our funding goal of $2012 for 2012 will be able to help us do the things I mentioned above and more, and how important this is.

How you can help

There are several ways that you can help us reach our goal. The first is you could give a donation through our PayPal account by clicking this button here or in the sidebar:

Any amount is great and welcome. If you would like to get some idea what your donation can help us do, here are some suggested amounts:

• $5 will buy a big spool of thread for embroidering tote bags.
• $10 will get a prize sent to a community contest winner.
• $20 will send Frank N. Foode on a plant-based adventure chronicled in our photo album.
• $35 will pay for one month of hosting costs for the blog and photo album.
• $50 will pay for a transcript of a normal interview.
• $100 will allow us to travel to and report on a conference.
• $150 will pay for some graphic art to be commissioned for the blog or for video projects.
• $200 will pay for the transcription of an in-depth interview.
• $400 will pay the application fee for tax-exempt status.

Paypal takes a small cut of each donation (2.5%), so if you want to minimize this impact on your donation and send it by check, please contact us for an address to send it to.

If you choose to make a direct donation, let us know if you would like to be acknowledged by name – we would love to tell the world how you have helped us, but if you wish to remain anonymous we respect that – and we will thank you by email. (Also, just a friendly reminder – our policy is not to accept direct funding from for-profit corporations.)

Never miss a planting date with Frank!

If you want to contribute, but would like to get something for your donation, there is another way you can help out. As Anastasia reported, we have a Zazzle store with many fabulous pieces of merchandise such as blog mugs, clothing, ornaments, a mousepad, and even a Frank N. Foode 2012 Calendar as well! 25% of sale prices will go directly to Biofortified.

Are you not in a position where you could donate money, but would still like to help us reach our goal? Please consider promoting our fundraising drive to your friends, family, contacts, exercise partners, in your smoke-filled rooms, your social networks, and your underground food pantry co-ops. We have all kinds of nifty promotion buttons below the post for social media, email, and heck, PDFs and printing which you can use to help spread the word. How ever you help out, you can brag about it in the comments of this post and get accolades from everyone! Tell everyone on your own blog and dare your readers to do better. Be creative!

Because we will. Frank will keep you posted on our progress in the sidebar with a color-changing corn plant, so you can see how far along we are. As a matter of fact, we’re already off to a great start. We have gotten some sales in our Zazzle Store, as well as a sudden surge of support through individual donations. As of today, I’m pleased to report that we have already raised $871.19! We are two fifths of the way there! Thanks to everyone who has helped us out so far.

Let’s make 2012 be a banner year for Biofortified, and help us raise $2012 to make it happen. Only $1140.81 left to go!
Thank you for considering supporting what we do here at Biofortified. I hope you are having a great Holiday Season and that we all have a fantastic and fruitful New Year.

The ghost of Norman Borlaug, haunting foodies since 2009. Artwork in CIMMYT Seed Bank

I responded that contrary to such lofty conclusions, a combination of missing details, shortened quotes, and silver-bullet single-solution thinking was at play. The ensuing discussion was heard around the food blogosphere with Michael Pollan tweeting for people not to miss reading our exchange, and Mark Bittman advertising it as well. I would like to continue and expand the discussion here, and bring up some things that have been glossed over and forgotten in this discussion.

How much Nitrogen?

The main thrust of our disagreement was over the issue of the source of nitrogen for growing crops that are going to feed the world. Tom quoted Norman Borlaug as saying that organic would not be able to feed the world, and tried to address it with the ISU brochure. But as I pointed out, Tom cut off the quote, avoiding a key phrase that indicates he is talking about nitrogen production. Here is the full quote:

That’s ridiculous. This shouldn’t even be a debate. Even if you could use all the organic material that you have–the animal manures, the human waste, the plant residues–and get them back on the soil, you couldn’t feed more than 4 billion people. In addition, if all agriculture were organic, you would have to increase cropland area dramatically, spreading out into marginal areas and cutting down millions of acres of forests. At the present time, approximately 80 million tons of nitrogen nutrients are utilized each year. If you tried to produce this nitrogen organically, you would require an additional 5 or 6 billion head of cattle to supply the manure. How much wild land would you have to sacrifice just to produce the forage for these cows? There’s a lot of nonsense going on here.

This key phrase underscores the perennial problem of switching from fertilizers to an organic-only approach. The first question is where you are going to get the nitrogen that plants need to grow? It takes a lot of energy to pull nitrogen out of the air and break its triple-bonds to turn it into a form that plants can use. This is a major energy cost for conventional farming, but it also secures its higher yield. The only way that organic agriculture can get nitrogen is by harvesting it from other living things in one way or another. Nitrogen can be “fixed” from the atmosphere by legumes, which can be grown as a “cover crop” that is planted after the fall harvest, or in the spring to cover the land in an off-year and gather nitrogen that will be plowed into the soil. You can also plant a “catch” cover crop with a grain such as barley or oats, intended to capture excess nitrogen during the winter, which can be plowed into the soil in he spring. Or, you can gather nitrogen in the form of animal manure – which comes from previously-grown crops, and thus, previous sources of nitrogen. You could also go for fish slurry – and harvest your nitrogen from the ocean, or weirder still, argue over naturally-occurring deposits of Chilean nitrate (PDF) and their status in organic agriculture. In any case, the nitrogen has to come from somewhere. Ironically it would seem, nitrogen from human waste is not allowed. The ISU research that Tom was enthusiastic about was a little fuzzy on where the nitrogen was coming from:

The organic plots receive local compost made from a mixture of corn stover and manure.

Nitrogen Cycle, from landscapeforlife.org

Where did this manure come from? How many acres of land were required to produce this manure, and where did the nitrogen come from to produce it? These are questions that are not detailed, and it shows one layer to the complexity of long-term sustainability. Tom responded to defend organic agriculture with a paper that estimated that with cover crops alone (PDF), the world could produce enough nitrogen to replace all synthetic fertilizers. The Badgley et al. paper had many assumptions, but also some good information. Their basic approach was to estimate how much available nitrogen can be produced on all the non-forage croplands in the world. Essentially, how much can we gain by planting legume cover crops? But this is where the incompleteness of the paper began to unravel.

The paper assumed that none of the croplands currently in production were being planted with cover crops already. So the acreage of non-cover-cropped lands was overestimated. Next, it also assumed that legume cover crops would actually grow on all of these acres. Statistics about current practices are very hard to find, and the one that I could find (PDF), for New York vegetable growers (not grain), said that 50% of their acres had cover crops, and 20% of those were legumes fixing nitrogen. As I have learned, besides the timing of planting and the weather, certain cover crops can make pest problems worse, and if you follow a legume crop with a legume cover crop, you can have issues with rotting. Before you can estimate whether cover crops can provide enough nitrogen to replace fertilizers, you first have to estimate what can be practically achieved in actual cropping systems. Even the Rodale research did not plant legume cover crops every year.

I then had a thought. If you are going to plant a legume cover crop (as with any cover crop), you are going to need seeds. Those seeds have to come from somewhere, and will take up a certain amount of acreage to produce. Out of curiosity, I thought I would calculate how many acres of farmland would be required to grow the seeds necessary to cover the world’s croplands in hairy vetch, a common and highly regarded legume cover crop. The results were stark.

The Badgley paper estimated the total available croplands as 1362 M hectares (Table 4), and if all were planted with legume cover crops, it would produce 140 Million Megagrams of Nitrogen (or 140 Teragrams). The paper reports that the world uses 82 M Mg of Nitrogen (82 Tg), which means that according to these numbers, to exactly replace the amount of nitrogen being used by farms today, you would need 1362 * 82 / 140 = 798 M hectares of legume cover crops – so about 800 million hectares. How much seed would you need to plant that?

Hairy Vetch. Photo by neckonomania

The recommended seeding rates for hairy vetch are 30 pounds per acre. The only source I was able to find about seed production of hairy vetch reported that you can only get 200-540 pounds per acre of seed (PDF). This means that for every acre of cover crop, you would need 1/6 to 1/18 of an acre to produce the seed you would need. (You also need to produce the seed for the seed crop – making it slightly higher). Without knowing the true average for seed production, I just averaged the high and low-end of the range to arrive at 1/12 of an acre of seed fields to produce enough hairy vetch for one acre of cover crop. To plant 800 million hectares of hairy vetch cover crops, we need about 67 million hectares (or 164 M acres) of hairy vetch seed production to supply it. For seeds to plant the seed fields, add another 6 million hectares to give you 73 million hectares of land.

For perspective, I looked up the total cropland of my awesomely-productive home state of California, which according to the USDA, has 4 million hectares under cultivation. This means that we would need almost 20 California’s of cropland to grow enough hairy vetch seed to plant these 800 million acres, and if you converted all Californian farmland into seed production (goodbye meat, dairy, etc) you still only have 10 M hectares, and you would need the farmland of 7 Californias.

Where are we going to find this extra land? Or should we decrease the total cropland area in the world by five and a half percent? (73 / 1362 = 5.4%) This is the opposite of feeding the world, and it presents a real challenge for cover crops. But not the last challenge, either.

Another detail worth noting is that the yields of these organic plots can have higher total nitrogen applied when compared to conventional plots. In this paper (PDF) on nitrogen rates and leaching, also from Rodale, almost twice as much nitrogen was applied every year in the organic plots relative to conventional, in order to maintain their yields (Table 4). This translates, as admitted in the paper, into greater rates of nitrogen leaching into the surrounding environment. Nitrogen in the soil is a very mobile nutrient – it washes out easily. Nitrogen runoff from farmlands contributes to water pollution, leading to things such as the Dead Zone in the Gulf of Mexico. It turns out that according to more Rodale research (PDF), not only do organic farms leach just as much nitrogen as conventional farms, but farms with legume cover crops leach even more. 20% of the applied nitrogen leaches out of organic manure and conventional systems, while 32% of the nitrogen applied to legume cover-crop systems leaches out. There is a lot of research on nitrogen leaching and cover crops, including some that don’t sound so bad for leaching, but there is a shortage of good long-term leaching studies. There is also evidence that the cover crop can harm the yield of the following crop. Not only does the amount of nitrogen applied to maintain yields call into question the sustainability of these sources of nitrogen, but also the environmental sustainability of the downstream effects of legume cover crops as a silver-bullet solution to the world’s nitrogen needs.

So even post-mortem, Norm still beats Tom in an argument. Cover crops in an organic system have a long way to go to get to “feeding the world.” This is not to say there isn’t potential in cover crops – because there is. But one thing we must not slip into is silver-bullet thinking – nor excluding a tool from a toolbox because someone calls it a silver bullet.

The Role of Genetics

Modern genetics includes a whole range of tools that we have in our toolbox, all of which are going to be essential in the decades to come. Not only do you have your basic breeding, gene banks for diversity, and genome sequences to help you find important genes, but modern technologies such as marker-assisted selection and genetic engineering are playing an increasing role in crop improvement. One of the ways you can help a plant gather more nutrients from the soil so they don’t run off is to strengthen its root system and its ability to uptake nutrients. In the last few decades, fertilizer use has stayed about the same, while crops have been yielding more, which means that they have been bred to be more nitrogen-efficient. With nitrogen efficiency as a goal, you can increase the yield of a crop without requiring more nitrogen to be applied, or perhaps maintain the same yield while applying less nitrogen. For you breeders out there, this can mean testing out your new hybrid contenders in nitrogen-limiting environments to see just how much yield you can squeeze out of a drop of N.

In the genetic engineering arena, there is a nitrogen use efficiency trait developed by Arcadia Biosciences, which I understand they have licensed to several seed companies and for a variety of crops, and even a nonprofit technology transfer organization for Africa. Transgenic rootworm resistance has been linked to nitrogen use efficiency (because it protects the roots so they can take in nutrients), however a field trial going on at UW-Madison has not been able to observe a consistent benefit from it – sometimes it requires less nitrogen, but not always (PDF summary). Still, one can write an entire book chapter on the potential for genetic engineering to contribute to nitrogen use efficiency.

There is another way that genetics can play a role in the nitrogen needs of the planet, one that might not come to mind right away: breeding a better cover crop. Currently, cover crops are evaluated on a species-basis. Red clover or hairy vetch? Why not take a survey of red clover and hairy vetch germplasm, looking for those that fix nitrogen at high rates, have good winter survival, and decay at a reasonable rate to provide fertilizer for crops the following year, and then combine those traits? (And while you’re at it, you could try to do something about hairy vetch’s horrendous seed yield. Non-shattering trait, anyone?) This kind of research potential is not just limited to legume cover crops – as grains are often used to capture nitrogen from the growing season to mix back into the field the following year as mulch. Why not breed or engineer a cover crop grain plant that is really good at scavenging nitrogen in the soil?

The future of sustainable agriculture is going to look a lot more like organic than most of what we have today, however, there are ideological barriers within that approach that are limiting its ability to not only expand but to use new technologies that can actually help it reach its goals. Imagine a nitrogen-efficient high-yielding corn crop that follows a legume cover crop that fixes nitrogen at an accelerated rate, followed by a winter wheat that grabs the excess before it can leak into the Mississippi. If we were to actually have this system, as organic and sustainable as it sounds, ironically it would not likely be eligible for certification.

Many Pieces to the Puzzle

This summer I visited CIMMYT in Mexico, and one of the most dynamic presentations was given by Kenneth Sayre out in the field, amongst research and demonstration plots of Conservation Agriculture (CA). This approach combines rotations and cover crops with reduced tillage to reduce erosion, increase soil carbon and nitrogen, and reduce water stress and weeds. Besides discussing the benefits of these approaches, it was also pointed out that CA does not suffer from limitations against judicious use of fertilizer, or even genetically engineered crops. Are there perhaps some limitations to this approach, and ways to improve it that have not yet been thought of? Yes, as with everything else. While usually the CA plots do better than the non-CA plots, this year at the station the reverse was true.

We need better crops, improved soils, more efficient water and land use, more rotations, better nutrient recycling, precision farming, and improved social and political structures to make it all work. Too often, questions in agriculture are popularly addressed with narrow, single solutions, with lip service to diverse approaches. “Organic is the solution” vs “genetic engineering is the solution.” Honestly, I hear more of the former than I do the latter, but they are both misguided. It is interesting that while Tom and I were debating the merits of nitrogen issues in organic agriculture, he framed it as him versus a “GMO enthusiast,” and Mark Bittman framed it as “organic vs conventional.” These misleading frames of reference are part of the problem because they keep discussion adversarial and exclude the practical middle-ground. To paraphrase Jon Stewart: Stop. You’re hurting us.

There are many pieces to the puzzle and when it gets set up as one worldview versus another we all lose – because all current worldviews are wrong. Whether you are talking about the nitrogen needs of the world or water, energy efficiency, pests and disease, there is a lot more that we don’t know than there are things we know. Starting with the answer and trying to support it is going to inevitably lead to failure, and so the best approach, as it  always seems to be, is to have an end goal in mind and let the pragmatic application of scientific research figure out how to get us there, using multiple interlocking and interacting approaches. Do you want to feed the world sustainably, securely, and healthily for generations to come? Let’s figure out how to get there.

Question number one asked people to self-report their understanding of GE food. While self-reporting has its own problems (Like people who say they completely understand GE foods yet don’t really know anything about them), it does provide some information about how aware different groups are about GE. The survey reports that 65% of people are aware that some foods in the store are genetically engineered, and high-income and highly-educated people are up in the 80s. As for the understanding of the concepts, check out these results:

As you might expect, education level influences people’s self-reported understanding of GE food, and the column with the asterisk shows a significant result, which should be a no-brainer: People with a high school education or less report that they have a low understanding of genetic engineering. This understanding appears to be a result of higher education, and as we have discussed on this blog before, secondary education has room for improvement. You can look at the data for age and income in the paper, but I thought the education level was the most interesting.

Next, they asked the survey participants their opinion about the safety of GE food, and this reveals a result that is partly surprising, and partly expected.

Most people are undecided about the safety of genetically engineered foods. This should come as no surprise to anyone in this debate, although quite frequently people on the anti-GE side (and sometimes the pro-GE side) think that most people believe that these foods are unsafe. This is entirely not the case, as the peer-reviewed literature shows that most people are undecided in general about GE, and that includes safety. But there are a few surprises in these results.

When I describe the shape of public opinion on GE, I often say that the people who have decided in favor or against GE as being roughly equal, but both minority groups next to the majority of undecided people. This Reuters survey reveals that in fact more people in the US believe that GE foods are safe than those who do not. And as you move from younger to older, less to more income, and lower to higher education that you see the greatest differences. Amongst people over 65, who make $100k per year or more, or have advanced degrees, there are twice as many people who believe GE foods are safe than those who believe that they are unsafe.

This has several important implications, including the fact that companies that advertise their products as being “non-GMO” tend to have people of higher income and education as their niche market – and therefore marketing their products on the basis of GE foods being unsafe may not resonate with these customers. These results also mean that there is a positive correlation between education and belief about the safety of GE foods.

The survey asked a question about labeling of GE foods, and found an unsurprising result:

Consistently, surveys have shown that about 90% of people, when asked, believe that GE foods should be labeled in the store. Anti-GE organizations tend to state that this is because most people want to avoid GE foods. Most of these surveys don’t delve into why people want them labeled, but some published papers do. Consumers want more information about genetically engineered food, which makes perfect sense considering how many people are still undecided about its safety, benefits, impact, etc. For those who dislike the idea of GE foods, naturally they would want to avoid them. Amongst those in favor of GE, there is probably more diversity of opinion about labels, ranging from no need whatsoever, to wanting to know if something is GE because you would want to buy it. I would rather know that some foods were GE than not, myself. But the important factor in deciding how much people want a mandatory food label is the strength of the desire, not an answer to a simple binary yes/no question. This can be (and has been) asked in several ways, such as how much people would be willing to pay for GE labels, or for people to rate different kinds of labels in order of importance. Examining attitudes on labeling outside of these contexts does not give guidance for public policy.

Now here comes the real news – would people eat GE foods?

This is the result that most people who talk about the acceptance of genetic engineering should pay attention to. Despite lack of knowledge about GE crops, uncertainty regarding its safety, and a desire for labels – most people surveyed would eat genetically engineered plant-based foods, to the tune of 60%. This 60% represents people who would eat GE foods if they knew they were genetically engineered, so even if you were to institute mandatory labeling for GE crops, this is 60% of those people who would happen to read that on the label – people who do not would not change their decision. Furthermore, we can also see that acceptance of genetic engineering in animals is lower – at about 40% for both fish and meat. This is similar to where opinion on plants was years ago, and we have not yet had genetically engineered animals on our dinner plates. So this result could either reflect an inherent difference in attitude between genetic engineering of plants and animals, or, a difference in attitude that reflects the time since the introduction of GE plants.

There are, as with all studies, certain caveats. This survey was conducted on 3,025 people, with an error rate of 1.8% That’s pretty good, however it does not reveal the limitations of the type of data collected. This is data based on self-reported assessments of current and/or future hypothetical behavior – something that is known to give an inaccurate picture of actual behavior. Survey respondents can sometimes give what answer they believe they should give, rather than how they would actually behave. And people can sometimes be really bad at self-assessment. For instance, when asked about generosity toward charitable organizations, respondents rate themselves as being much more generous than they actually are. The best kind of research you can do on human behavior is to actually study human behavior, or set up hypothetical situations that more closely reflect reality. This is the stuff of peer-reviewed research, and not the kind of thing you can do with phone surveys.

The Non-GMO Project reports on their website that a 2008 CBS/New York Times poll, “53% of consumers said they would not buy food that has been genetically modified.” Yet, we find that this survey find that fully 60% self-report that they would eat GE plants, and 40% for animals. How can we put these two results together? First, the statement on the Non GMO Project website that these 53% “would not” buy GE foods is false – the study did not give results that are clearly delineated like that. Although I have been unable to find any data from the original 2008 poll, this book chapter(PDF, pg 7-40) describes some of the results in more detail. The 53% figure represents the people who personally rate buying a GE food “not very likely” and “not likely at all.” These are expressions of likelihood, not determinations of the binary behavior of whether or not they would in practice. The 53% figure also lumps together people who feel moderately disinclined and strongly disinclined to buy them – and if their results follow other existing research, then the people who feel strongly disinclined are in a minority. It was also a question about buying attitude, not eating behavior, and the sample size was one third that of the new Reuters survey. Finally, 50% is right in the middle of 60% for plants, and 40% for animals, so it could reflect the average attitude of people toward GE.

However, There is another difference: time. The CBS/NY Times poll was conducted in 2008, and the Reuters survey was conducted in 2010. There has been much discussion about GE in the past few years, perhaps attitudes have changed somewhat – a possibility that we cannot rule out. The survey also found that 70% of people were aware of GE foods in the marketplace, whereas the CBS poll found only 44% were aware of them in 2008. Clearly, more people are aware of them, and perhaps have become educated about them. I’d like to know where they learned about them! (By coincidence, Biofortified was founded in 2008.)

I would like to make one last point about labeling of GE foods. Several groups are pushing for mandatory labeling, often suggesting that there will be widespread rejection of these GE foods once labeled. This survey shows that when asked, and when aware that food have been genetically engineered, still 60% self-report that they will eat GE foods that are on the market. We already know that people don’t read the labels, as found by Charles Noussair in 2002. And this quote from Noussair bolsters my comment about the difference between opinion surveys and actual behaviors:

“Opinion surveys capture the respondent in the role of a voter, not in the role of a consumer,” he says. “The two behaviors can be quite different, as many studies have shown.”

Japan is arguably one of the most GE-cautious nations in the world, yet, 94% of its soy is imported, 71% of which is from the U.S., and 93% of that is genetically engineered. Therefore, despite the presence of mandatory labels, at least 62% of the soy in Japan is genetically engineered, and people buy and eat it there. Labels will not eliminate GE foods from stores, because people will buy and eat them nevertheless. Adding an extra cost to everyone’s food based on public opinion and not actual behavior or demonstrated need should give you pause. If it is your own desire you are expressing by pushing for these labels, remember that this survey shows that public opinion on the safety and acceptance of genetically engineered foods is not in your favor. If anything, it shows the need for more information, and what happens when more people get it.

*As noted in a comment below, the survey is from 2010, but it appears to have resurfaced recently, so I thought it was just released, but that the data was from 2010. The first sentence has been edited to reflect this fact.

What kinds of environmental risks? Things like basic genetics research, comparing breeding to biotechnology, and downstream effects of environmental release. There is even a section for it you want to submit a research proposal to study co-existence between GE and non-GE crops. You could even study pyramided, or “stacked” GE crops and compare them to single-transgene varieties. So many possibilities.

This call for grant applications is important for several reasons. Research coming out of this program would build upon, and compliment existing research, much of which is listed on this page on our blog. When published, it would also go on this list. (Out of curiosity I called up NIFA to inquire if a project like our GENERA project could be funded under a grant such as this. Sadly, no – the focus is on experiments and not catalogs of them, unless we were to take other people’s raw data and reanalyze under a new algorithm.) Sanely investigating and evaluating the kinds of environmental risks involved in genetic engineering is of utmost importance, and the research must put it in the context of plant breeding and agriculture in general. It is also my fond hope that for whatever projects are funded by this grant program, that the investigators keep in mind how their research would be conveyed to the public.

This is the first time I’ve promoted a grant for scientists to apply for on the blog, and it may not be the last. I thought that we could get some discussion going about what kinds of research we think would be worthy of pursuing? I have two main ideas.

The first is that we have had and heard a lot of discussion about using genetic engineering techniques to move and modify genes between plants of the same species, known as Cisgenics, and more recently, Intragenics. While it seems to be the case that consumers find this to be more appealing than cross-species genetic engineering, I find from discussions with scientists that there is considerable debate about the ups and downs of this distinction. Some see it as little different and merely a way to make an end run around regulations, others see it as a potentially less-disruptive way to alter the genomes of plants. This blog post by Kevin Folta was picked up for one of my department’s journal club discussions, and there were some interesting comments about it, including, how long must a gene be in a species for it to be worthy of being picked up and moved and have you still call it Cisgenics? Can you take Bt out of corn and stick it into another corn?

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that we have limited data to really answer the question about whether or not moving genes within or between species are inherently different in their risks, versus the same. Some argue that taking a gene from another species is riskier because if opens up new possibilities for interactions between genes because the proteins didn’t co-evolve. On the other hand, some take the co-evolution argument to the other side to point out that interactions also co-evolve and that two genes that have worked together in the same species may be more likely to interact, and there is still the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference at all.

There is some evidence and theory behind each position, but what we would need, then, is an experiment designed specifically to address the question of whether there is a difference, and what kind of difference. I suggest that one way you could go about this is with an experiment that goes something like this. There are genes in many species which serve similar functions due to common ancestry, which are called homologous genes. But, they may have evolved slightly differently in each species, so you could test whether the closeness of the species source matters by simply generating many GE plants with each of these homologous genes, and then comparing the result. You could look at gene expression to see if there are any significant differences between them, for example.

Scientists in the audience might point out that the place in the genome where you engineer the new genes will matter, so you would probably have to generate several transformations in different sites and compare the distributions of effects. You could also look at phenotypes to see if anything odd comes out consistently with one and not the other, or investigate what proteins might interact with the different transgenes. Do this for several sets of homologous genes from progressively more distant organisms and you’ve got yourself a way to test this hypothesis! Add another plant species to insert them into and it will broaden applicability.

Alfalfa by TwoWings via Wikimedia Commons.

I would also like to see some research on coexistence come out of this. What would be some good management practices that will minimize gene flow and spillover effects between neighboring farms? How much time must there be between flowering, or what kinds of borders are necessary, and what would crops that won’t cross with other varieties due to cross-incompatibility genes mean for these practices? Moreover, there is some opportunity for an interdisciplinary research in this area.

As I have shown before, we don’t know a lot about exactly what are the thresholds for consumers when it comes to cross-pollination between GE crops. The Consumers Union did a biased poll with loaded terms, and yet, couldn’t get consumers to care very much about it. Organic groups and exporters are worried about consumer rejection (or rather, processor rejection) if there is cross-pollination, and it seems to me that coming up with thresholds for cross-pollination in a coexistence regime necessitates knowing what consumers think, in a robust and scientific manner. If consumers like the 1% rule, are fine with a 5% rule, or wouldn’t touch a 0.0001% transgenic-pollinated organic crop, those would lead to different situations entirely. Imagine a project where both the methods to achieve coexistence are studied alongside consumer attitudes toward the results of those methods, and you’ve got a nice interdisciplinary project.

What would you like to see get worked on? Any thoughts about what I described above? There’s $4 million of research to be funded – wouldn’t it be grand if an idea started here and made it into a selected proposal?

In the realm of food politics we hear claims that genetic engineering is ‘the solution‘ to world food problems, or that we just need more food per acre. We also hear that it is all about distribution or diet, and that we do not need more food to feed these people. The fact is that both of these dichotomous views are wrong. The task of adequately and consciously feeding, clothing, employing, and protecting 7 Billion people will take all of these things, and a lot more. About a month ago I watched this video created by the University of Minnesota’s Institute for the Environment – and I think it is the best video I have ever seen that sums it up. Watch it.

The Inconvenient Truth is not only that we have this huge task ahead of us, but that many of the people we need to come together to do this would rather bicker about petty political differences. Now how do we get all those people at the table without chucking food at each other?

Best Quote: “Why are Surgeons the only ones allowed to perform Surgeries? (…) And the only other people who can check to make sure that they’re not manipulating…”

“Are other scientists!”

“They’re very smart, these scientists.”

“That’s what I’m saying!”

The Daily Show hits the nail on the head on science, once again. Any DS clips on genetic engineering? Yup!

Glusosino-What?

There has been considerable interest in investigating the composition of foods to determine what parts of them can contribute to our health. (And what detracts from it too.)  Broccoli and other cruciferous vegetables have garnered considerable attention for their effects on the development of cancer. Research has revealed an important class of compounds called Glucosinolates, particularly one known as Glucoraphanin. When this sulfur-containing compound is metabolized by a plant enzyme called Myrosinase, it becomes one of two different compounds: Sulforaphane and Sulforaphane Nitrile. These two Isothiocyanates have been found to have preventative effects against cancer, and Sulforaphane is by far the more potent of the two. And this year, an important paper found that even the precursor, Glucoraphanin, also has important effects.

I apologize for the dizzying array of chemical names. So let me see if I can make them easier to understand. Glucosinolates include many similar kinds of compounds, and Glucoraphanin at the top of the picture here is one example. It gets the Gluco- from having a glucose sugar molecule bonded to it, which is that ring on the right hand side. Isothiocyanates are another class of compounds, and the main example is Sulforaphane. You can distinguish them by that N=C=S group on the Sulforaphane above. There are many Glucosinolates and Isothiocyanates important for this topic, so rather than bring up so many names I’ll only talk about the groups (end in -ates) and the two specific ones I mentioned (Glucoraphanin and Sulforaphane both have -raph- in them).

How do they work? Well, there is a huge amount of research on this topic, and while I could send you on a journey through a google or PubMed search, there are a few clear things that we know. Broadly speaking, cancer is uncontrolled cell growth that usually happens with DNA is damaged, but there are other causes as well (such as cervical cancer being caused by papillomaviruses). Chemicals that damage DNA are known as mutagens, as they can alter the string of letters in the DNA to read differently, and since the mutations they cause can also cause cancer, they are also called carcinogens. We encounter carcinogens in our everyday lives, from artificial chemicals we’ve produced for one reason or another, to the oxidative stress caused by normal cellular respiration, to the UV light naturally emitted by the Sun. Carcinogens are also found in our food.

Yes, our food produces carcinogens. More specifically, there are chemicals naturally present in our food, that when eaten, can become carcinogens. Since plants cannot run away from their predators, they have evolved to defend themselves using chemical and biological weapons, while animals have evolved enzymes and other ways to protect against those defenses. We produce a host of enzymes in our livers that detoxify chemicals that we eat in our food every day, and they are classified as Phase I and Phase II ‘xenobiotic’ metabolizing enzymes (there are also Phase III but we won’t get into that). Phase I enzymes take a foreign chemical and add or expose a functional group that Phase II enzymes can then add a molecule to, which allows the modified chemical to be excreted from the body. However, sometimes the chemicals produced by Phase I enzymes turn out to be carcinogens, which can cause damage before the Phase II enzyme is able to safely destroy it. Some chemicals that are known to have carcinogenic activity are among the Coumarins, Flavonoids, Glucosinolates, Isothiocyanates, and Phenols found in many plants – including broccoli.

Some of these compounds can also affect the activity of Phase I and Phase II xenobiotic enzymes, and often both. A chemical that induces the first class might cause more carcinogens to be produced, while one that induces the second class would more quickly eliminate them from the body before they can cause damage. Sulforaphane was discovered in 1992 to selectively induce the second, and not the first. And the more Sulforaphane you consume, the more it induces this activity. What this means is that consuming Sulforaphane will increase your body’s ability to protect itself against many forms of cancer. Indeed, and although some early research on Glucoraphanin suggested it might be harmful because it induces Phase-I enzymes, the new 2011 paper indicates that it upregulates cytochrome p450 along with Phase-II enzymes and therefore also contributes to the anti-cancer properties of broccoli itself.

You may have noticed that since Sulforaphane is an Isothiocyanate, and Glucoraphanin is a Glucosinolate, that they are members of two of the classes of compounds I mentioned above that have known carcinogens among them. Breeding for enhanced levels of one could affect the levels of others, so there is a great deal more complexity to this issue than I have described here. In addition, some Phase-I enzymes eliminate carcinogens, and some Phase-II enzymes create carcinogens as well. There are other compounds present in cruciferous and other vegetables that contribute in other ways as well. But on the whole it is true that these compounds have a beneficial effect, despite these complexities. And since Sulforaphane is produced from Glucoraphanin in cruciferous vegetables such as broccoli – then eating broccoli that is higher in Glucoraphanin will protect against cancer even more.

To top it off, a paper published this year found that Sulforaphane also inhibits the activity of two enzymes in cancer cells, leading to cell death. So its benefits may not be limited to preventing, but perhaps fighting certain kinds of cancers.

Breeding Better Broccoli

Now the question becomes, how can we get broccoli on our dinner plates that has more of these beneficial compounds? There is considerable variation in the amounts of Glucoraphanin and other Glucosinolates in broccoli, and this review paper by E.H. Jeffrey et al discusses what is known about this variation. They show that Glucoraphanin and other Glucosinolates can vary from as little as one tenth to as much as three times the amount found in your average broccoli. Not all broccoli is bred the same.

Differences in the levels of these compounds can be caused by genetics, environment, interactions between the two, and post-harvest storage and processing. It turns out that in one study for Glucoraphanin and other similar aliphatic Glucosinolates, 60% of this variation is genetic, while only 5% is environmental. 10% is due to an interaction between genetics and the environment, which is like saying that one variety makes more in one environment, while another variety makes more in another environment. Genetics comes out as a clear winner if you want to improve the anti-cancer properties of broccoli, and where there is genetic variation for a trait like this, a plant breeder can select for plants that have that trait and improve it over generations.

Plant breeders at the John Innes Center in Norwich, England, and Monsanto’s vegetable seeds division used the genetic variation for Glucoraphanin levels in wild broccoli to breed for higher levels in a modern, commercial broccoli. This is accomplished by crossing cultivated and wild plants, and in successive generations selecting for plants that have higher levels of Glucoraphanin as well as the traits you want in a modern broccoli. They report that by testing in 23 locations against other leading commercial broccoli varieties, that their new Beneforté broccoli variety contains an average of about 2.7 times as much Glucoraphanin as your average broccoli. Since the effects increase with dosage, this means that you would be expected to gain more cancer-protective benefits by eating it. How much benefit, however, is not clear.

The environment it is grown in and what happens to the broccoli after it is harvested still matters, however. As Glucosinolates contain sulfur, fertilizing the soil with sulfur can quite understandably boost their levels. And while organic growing methods can affect some minor Glucosinolates both positively and negatively, Glucoraphanin is unchanged by this practice. How the broccoli is stored and processed also affects what levels remain in the vegetable, and finally, how you prepare it also matters. The enzyme Myrosinase that converts Glucoraphanin into Sulforaphane does this when the broccoli is chopped and chewed, but only if the broccoli is uncooked. Cooking destroys the enzyme’s activity, and also reduces the levels of Glucosinolates. Either eat them raw, or blanch them briefly! And since Myrosinase activity can be affected by the climate and season, there can still be an important environmental factor to this trait.

And one final note about breeding. While Glucoraphanin is the most abundant Glucosinolate in broccoli, it is part of a complex pathway and a complex trait, so breeding for the levels of one compound may affect levels of the others. The best breeding program will look at a broader array of Glucosinolates and other effects that breeding, environment, storage and packaging will have on the final product. Indeed, since some genotypes will do better in particular environments than others, and some may hold onto their chemicals during storage better than others, these downstream effects can inform the breeding process significantly.

Other genetic tools are helping to develop traits such as these, as this paper demonstrates that you can predict levels of Glucosinolates you will get when you made hybrid broccoli.

The Beneforté website indicates that this particular variety of broccoli is grown in a particular location in California, rather than in many places around the country. While you may not like the idea of produce shipped thousands of miles, this does mean that they have essentially fixed the Genotype by Environment interaction. In non-breeder terms, this means that they picked the best environment for the best variety of broccoli to get the highest levels of Glucoraphanin, amongst other traits. This suggests that they also took the environmental contributions into account when developing the Beneforté. The entire process took them about ten years.

While the exact amount of benefit to be had by eating the Beneforté broccoli is unclear, it does appear that it is likely to help in the area of cancer prevention. Keep in mind I am no dietitian, nutrition researcher, nor doctor, however the prevailing scientific literature indicates that it should. It would be nice to see some data published on this and other broccoli varieties, more information about other Glucosinolates in this variety, and perhaps a feeding model as well, but if I saw the Beneforté and I had the cash to get it, I probably would. The story of its breeding is almost reason enough besides the Sulforaphane!

Andy Bellatti

Back to Bellatti

Now that you know all you ever wanted to know about Broccoli and what we know about how its chemical composition prevents cancer, it is time to return to Andy Bellatti’s ill-informed piece purporting to “Bust” the Beneforté Broccoli.

The first point that Bellatti takes issue with is with regard to growing conditions.

“Similar growing conditions” — there’s an interesting tidbit. For all we know, then, Beneforté’s glucopharanin content could pale in comparison to that of organic broccoli.(sic)

Actually, if Bellatti did his research, he would know that organic growing methods do not significantly affect the levels of Glucoraphanin (which he misspells as glucopharanin), as I indicated above. The growing methods described on the Beneforté website appear to be describing climatic factors rather than the organic-conventional dimension. And it is quite odd that he takes issue with a straightforward and scientific manner of studying and reporting differences under similar growing conditions, which is necessary for comparison. But rather than try to find out the facts and report an analysis of them, he goes off the organic health halo to make what is an empty quip.

Next, he criticizes the focus on Glucoraphanin.

Of course, this obsession with glucoraphanin is a silly and myopic distraction. Broccoli, by virtue of being a vegetable, is healthful and does not need to be improved upon. None of the myriad of chronic health issues affecting millions of Americans are due to “faulty broccoli” with low levels of glucoraphanin.

Again, proper research would have prevented him from making a categorical double-error such as this. Being a vegetable does not automatically make something healthy. What is a vegetable but an edible non-reproductive part of a plant? Being healthy is not part of its definition. But more importantly, his ignorance of plant genetics betrays the second error. There is genetic variation for healthful aspects of vegetables, which means that you can have vegetables that are more or less healthy than each other, all on account of genetics. As I put it above, no two broccoli’s are the same. He is enjoying vegetables that are the result of a long plant breeding process of genetic improvement, and his suggestion that ‘This is as good as it gets’ is way off. In the case of broccoli – given that it is the same species as cauliflower, cabbage, and Brussels sprouts which vary widely in their content of Glucoraphanin, that means that the very broccoli trait in question is likely the result of human improvement already. Plant breeding is a continual process of constant improvement that should not stop.

He has also contradicted himself here – by suggesting that organic may be an improvement over conventional (which it is not in this aspect), he is suggesting that vegetables as most people eat them can and should be improved upon. If the mere virtue of being a vegetable was enough, then conventional non-organic broccoli should be enough for him.

Chia, hemp, flax. "Magic bullets" of Omega-3.

Now I will address the more important point, and that is that focusing on Glucoraphanin “is a silly and myopic distraction.” Granted there are more complexities to the cancer-preventative effects of broccoli compounds as I described above, but Glucoraphanin is still the most important part of it. But, some people have food philosophies that focus more on changing what specific foods people eat rather than changing the composition of those foods. To understand his comment in context of his food philosophy, I took some time to read his blog.

He is a vegan, who in his own words “approaches nutrition from a whole-foods, plant-centric framework.” Still, I do not see how improving the genetics of broccoli does not fit into this philosophy. You are still eating a whole plant food. Perhaps, still, the specific composition of those foods does not matter to him?

However, his blog posts reveal a different story. He is in fact quite concerned with the specific composition of foods, ranging from listing the nutrients in each of his posted recipes, to complaining how he had to learn about how food service establishments work instead of the compositional differences of chia, hemp, and flax seeds. As a matter of fact these seeds show up an inordinate number of times in his recipes – and I daresay that “none of the myriad of chronic health issues affecting millions of Americans are due to not eating enough chia, hemp, and flax seeds.” Of course it would be silly to expect these seeds to be magic bullet cure-alls, but that is the standard that he held the broccoli to, so fair’s fair.

So it becomes very clear that Andy Bellatti is highly concerned with specific nutritional compositions of and differences between foods. In fact, the hypocrisy reaches levels that will bust everyone’s irony meters. While Bellatti tries to give enhanced levels of Glucoraphanin in the Beneforté broccoli a bad ‘raph, he is quite delighted to advertise such chemicals as important reasons to eat cruciferous vegetables in the first place!

In this blog post extolling the virtues of broccoli rabe, Bellatti says the following,

For example, it offers high amounts of isothiocyanates, compounds that fiercely battle carcinogens in the body.  High isothiocyanate consumption has been shown to significantly reduce risk of developing breast, esophageal, lung, and prostate cancers.

Compare that to what he said about the Beneforté:

Of course, this obsession with glucoraphanin is a silly and myopic distraction.

Andy Bellati: Eat it for the Glucoraphanin! Err...

Apparently Bellatti is quite familiar with silly and myopic distractions himself. He gives completely opposite opinions of these compounds depending upon the end goal of his argument. It is apparent from his blog that his food philosophy includes focusing in on these nutrients, and so by rejecting the nutrient-focus of this broccoli, he is also rejecting what seems to be his own nutritional philosophy.

Politics, Politics, Politics

He then proceeds to reveal what I think is the real reason for his distaste with the Beneforté, that it is made by Monsanto.

The biggest irony of this product lies in Monsanto’s claim that Beneforté “help[s] maintain your body’s defenses against the damage of environmental pollutants and free radicals.”

Environmental pollutants? As in, the ones that have have increased exponentially as a result of genetic engineering?

He cites The Organic Center’s 13-year report on pesticide use, which we have already discussed here and noted that it compared pesticides of wildly different impacts on human health and the environment as being equivalent by weight. In other words, one pound of a nasty herbicide such as atrazine equals one pound of roundup, which is far less nasty. Genetically engineered herbicide tolerant crops have caused a shift in herbicide use from sprays such as atrazine to safer ones such as glyphosate – which are physically heavier have a lower environmental impact quotient (EIQ) per pound, so The Organic Center reports it as an increase in herbicide by weight even though it is a safer one. The study’s author, Charles Benbrook, is well aware of this problem. The report also demonstrates that GE has reduced insecticide use, but minimizes the actual impact of this by subtracting the pounds from the total. His approach makes math easy, but misleads about the overall picture.

Andy Bellatti also cites the Environmental Working Group page on herbicides, which only reinforces this point. What examples of nasty herbicides do they use to talk about health effects? Why, atrazine! One of the one’s that genetic engineering has replaced with roundup on many farms. While he was trying to catch Monsanto in an irony, he fell into one himself.

And, above all, let’s not allow Monsanto to get away with gimmicky healthwashing.

The real reason that Andy Bellatti set out to criticize this broccoli variety was not because it was a bad idea, but was because it was an idea held by a company that he dislikes. Actually, considering that Monsanto only just bought Seminis Vegetable Seeds in 2005 to form the company’s vegetable seeds division, it was probably an idea already set in motion before Monsanto had anything to do with it.

That’s a ‘Raph

Rather than base an opinion of the Beneforté broccoli variety on a consistent nutritional philosophy, a consideration of the scientific evidence, or even basic research that both his degrees in Journalism and Dietetics should have prepared him for, Bellatti decides to instead base it on his opinion of the company that is marketing it. How much of his dietary advice follows the same pattern, I am left wondering? Are clients hiring a dietitian or a food policy activist?

He completely missed an opportunity to discuss what we know and don’t know about Glucoraphanin and the precise details about how it interacts with our bodies, and then express an opinion about the relative merits of this improvement. But he rejected even the idea of learning anything about it before uttering a cynical burp of bad sulfurous broccoli breath.

There are more things to think about that I haven’t even gotten into. Would the promise of a greater benefit lead to more broccoli consumption, or perhaps less? Are there other interactions that this trait might have for better or for worse with people’s health? What standards ought there to be for health claims based on achievements in plant breeding? There is certainly room for discussion below, but I saw this as an opportunity for everyone to learn more about a health-oriented crop variety which is one of the first in many that are sure to come. The real facts about the biochemistry, genetics, breeding, and marketing are far more interesting to talk about.

The 1st Rule of GMOs: You Should talk about GMOs. I think this is exactly right no matter what your perspective is on this topic. Please take a moment to register for Threadless, and vote on this entry. I recommend giving it a 5!

The issue of genetic engineering in agriculture needs more people sanely talking about it, not trying to start “food fights.” This entry looks like the only one that really seeks to promote discussion, whereas others promote violence (between food groups to start with), misunderstandings, and extreme views. Take a look at some of the competition:

A familiar concept – one example of how dislike for genetic engineering can get extreme. Not only wound up like dynamite, but also radioactive – I hope it bombs so it doesn’t lead to more explosive dialog.

One of the many half-plant half-animal depictions of GE crops – this time a scorpion-tomato. The entry claims that this exists, however our own reader C Radar points out that this is probably a myth.

Another one of the many literal food fight designs that showed up in the contest.

Now this one deserves its own separate analysis for its implications and motivations. Apparently a project intended for humanitarian purposes is not only an invasion, but also an invasion of slant-eyed yellow-skinned enemies to be fought off by round-eyed white-skinned heroes. As Jon Stewart would say about this kind of crossfire – Stop. You’re hurting us.

If you register to vote in this contest, you can thumb through all the entries and vote down the really objectionable ones. Too bad that 1 is the lowest score you can give! I am genuinely interested to see what exactly gets voted up in this contest, and I hope for the sake of the public discourse that the end result is not too bad.

Makes me think we need to design a T-shirt that provokes thought and dialog, without provoking a fight.