Waiter, there’s DNA in my dinner!

Threadless recently hosted* a t-shirt contest for Jeffery Smith‘s Institute for Responsible Technology: the No GMO t-shirt design challenge (see Karl’s post Vote for talking, not fighting for more details). One of the shirts really struck me: GMO Shortens Life Span by Michael. The artist proposes an equation:

plants + DNA  = death

This slogan really makes me wonder – does the artist know that plants have DNA? Does he know that his own cells are teeming with DNA? That without DNA, life wouldn’t exist? Do most people know that DNA is essential for life? What would the average person say if told that they eat about 100 thousand miles of DNA in the average meal?

If this is the level of understanding, or rather, misunderstanding, that persons have, can we ever expect to have useful discourse on the subject of biotechnology or even biology itself? This worries me greatly. Just in case anyone out there reading this is concerned that DNA is dangerous, I’d like to provide a simple recipe that anyone can use to see and touch DNA for themselves.

Continue reading…

Share

Genetic Contamination May Not Mean What You Think It Means

(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.

Continue reading…

Share

Greenpeace goes after Australian Wheat

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:

Continue reading…

Share

Thomas Sims gets it

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.

Continue reading…

Share

Pundit OGM en español: Anti nuclear, anti capitalista, anti aviación, anti GM, anti racionalidad. Mejor dicho: no hagas nada ¿Ha perdido la brújula el Movimiento Verde?

We celebrate the creation by Ernesto Bustamante and David Tribe of a Spanish language version of GMO Pundit (Pundit OGM en español) by a repost of their latest article:

La principal pregunta de todas es cuál es la naturaleza de la política ambientalista. ¿Es el Movimiento Verde de izquierda y anti capitalista? Mark Lynas lo cree así y que aquellos que posan como Verdes deben ser marginados y dejar que se extingan solos hasta que aparezca una nueva generación de ambientalistas pro mercado, como él. “Si se convierte en una guerra cultural como el debate del aborto, entonces no se puede ganar”, dice. “Quiero un movimiento ambientalista que esté contento con el capitalismo, que salga a decir sí antes que no, y que sea riguroso sobre la forma como trata a la ciencia. El Movimiento Verde necesita un momento tipo Claúsula Cuatro – el Partido Laborista tuvo que pasar por eso.”

Anti nuclear, anti capitalista, anti aviación: El Movimiento Verde habría alienado más gente de la que ha ganado y ahora ya se oyen pedidos de un nuevo tipo de ambientalismo

… el autor Mark Lynas dice que la oposición verde a la energía nuclear es un ‘error garrafal’.

En el 2008 el laureado autor ambientalista Mark Lynas experimentó un “momento eureka”. Mientras leía en el sitio Web de The Guardian los comentarios hostiles dejados bajo un artículo que detallaba sus objeciones a los alimentos GM, él se terminó de convencer que sus críticos probablemente tenían la razón.

Continue reading…

Share
Login Register

About Biofortified

Biofortified's volunteer authors are devoted to providing factual information and fostering discussion about agriculture, especially plant genetics and genetic engineering. The site is written by grad students, professors, and guest experts. Meet our authors on the Authors page.

Support Biofortified

Frank N. Foode's Tweets