Commentary « Biofortified

Genetic Contamination May Not Mean What You Think It Means

by Steve Savage on 4 August 2011

(This post originally appeared on Sustainablog on 8/1/11)

In the debate about GMO crops, the “threat of genetic contamination” is often raised as a reason to reject the technology. Is this threat real? Does it justify acts of vandalism? Could it lead to the “End of Organics“? Is it actually an over-blown issue? To answer these questions it is necessary to put this issue in the context of basic plant biology.

What We Are Talking About Is Really Just “Plant Sex”

“Genetic Contamination” is an emotional term which obscures the fact that the underlying biological process in question is quite normal, natural and highly necessary.

Where Have All The Flowers Gone?

by Steve Savage on 11 July 2011

Today, to be patriotic, for the 4th of July I bought my wife some red, white and blue carnations. I got them at Franco’s Flowers on Leucadia Boulevard just off the I5. If you live in North County, this is definitely the place to get flowers. I’m no professional flower arranger, but I think they came out nicely.

I asked the clerk who was trimming and wrapping the flowers where they came from, and he said, “Columbia.” At least that felt more patriotic than purchasing them from Hugo Chavez’ Venezuela.

Greenpeace goes after Australian Wheat

by Karl Haro von Mogel on 6 July 2011

Update: See post a week later– Greenpeace destroys Australian wheat trials

Last week, blogs and twitter feeds were lit up by news that a group of scientists had written a letter to CSIRO, in Australia, criticizing them for proposing a nutritional trial of genetically engineered wheat. It appeared with this article, Scientists reject human trials of GM Wheat, and is part of a new thrust of transparently poor public relations. And it foreshadows more to come. An excerpt:

A group of prominent scientists and researchers from around the world has urged Australia not to go ahead with human trials of genetically modified (GM) wheat.

The CSIRO is carrying out a study of feeding GM wheat grown in the ACT to rats and pigs and could extend the trial to humans.

The modified wheat has been altered to lower its glycaemic index in an attempt to see if the grain could have health benefits such as improving blood glucose control and lowering cholesterol levels.

But eight scientists and academics from Britain, the US, India, Argentina and Australia believe not enough studies have been done on the effects of GM wheat on animals to warrant human trials.

The trials in question appeared to be of the simple kind – the wheat has been altered in a way that should affect its glycemic index, how rapidly the sugars are absorbed into the bloodstream, and that CSIRO is interested in seeing if it has the desired effect when eaten by human beings. These kinds of studies have been done before, such as on calcium-biofortified carrots as described in this post. The letter appeared to be out of place.

While news about this letter was easy to find, the actual letter itself was not, nor were the names of the “prominent” scientists who signed it. The article mentioned only two: Dave Schubert, and Michael Antoniou. I have had contact with Schubert before, so I emailed him to find out what the text of the letter was, and who signed it. He responded promptly with a draft of the letter that he signed. However, when I asked if he knew who signed it (or who to contact), he had this to say:

Thomas Sims gets it

by Karl Haro von Mogel on 5 July 2011

Thomas Sims, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor in the Biological Sciences department at NIU. He was interviewed for a column about genetically engineered crops written for Northern Star Online, that claimed that GE foods are unsafe, quoting Dr. Oz, Jeffrey Smith, and the AAEM.

Here is an example of the claims made in the piece.

Between the U.S. and European countries, which has more instances of food allergies? Which has more instances of asthma or autism? Which has more instances of cancer and heart disease? Yes, I understand many factors play a role in these distinctions. However, I think it would be unwise to ignore the relation between the introduction of GM foods and higher instances of food-related allergies. Do you honestly believe major corporations care more about the health and safety of the public over their ability to make a profit?

His words only got a brief mention, and his response is a model for how scientists should respond to these kinds of claims. We have received permission to republish his spot-on commentary. (He has asked that I obscure the name of the young reporter who wrote the column so that it is about the information and not the person. So only the name has been edited.) Enjoy!

Column regarding genetically modified foods was one-sided and misinformed

This author’s column on Genetically Modified (GM) foods is a thinly-veiled hatchet job, repeating a mixture of half-truths, lies and grossly misinformed opinions about this technology.

Way Too Much Angst About GMO Crops

by Steve Savage on 9 June 2011

From what I read on various blogs and comment streams, there is way too much angst out there about GMO crops. Too much angst because every significant panel of scientists that has reviewed this technology has concluded that it is as safe as any other domesticated food crop. Too much angst because the reality is that only a small number of crop species will ever be genetically engineered for commercial use. There are four main reasons why this is the case:

1. Brand protectionism

2. Unfavorable economics

3. Other ways to achieve the same goals, and

4. Anti-GMO activism

RT @wilsonrobertj: @Calestous @franknfoode need a version of Godwin's law for Monsanto. Any online discussion about GMOs will mention Mo ... about 8 hours ago
@JPlovesCOTTON @Calestous Whoops, I meant Argumentum AD Monsantum. But I suppose 'at' works as well... #GMO about 8 hours ago in reply to JPlovesCOTTON
@Calestous In the 21st Century we have one more fallacy: Argumentum at Monsantum. ;) #GMO about 8 hours ago in reply to Calestous
RT @Calestous: In Middle Ages a new fallacy was added to the list: argumentum ad baculum (appeal to the stick). about 8 hours ago
RT @Calestous: @geneticmaize Humans come with a lethal weapon protected by a ring of teeth for the carrier's own sake: the tongue. about 8 hours ago

@franknfoode

Genetic Contamination May Not Mean What You Think It Means

What We Are Talking About Is Really Just “Plant Sex”

Where Have All The Flowers Gone?

Greenpeace goes after Australian Wheat

Thomas Sims gets it

Column regarding genetically modified foods was one-sided and misinformed

Way Too Much Angst About GMO Crops

About Biofortified

Support Biofortified

Recent Comments

Frank N. Foode™ on Twitter

Meta