Tag: GMO

bookmark_borderGMO’s: Throwing the Baby out with the Bathwater

Posted on by admin

by Daniel Brouse

The definition of GMO is the modern version, not selective breeding. (0)

GMO’s (genetically modified organism) have been around for thousands of years; however, the irrational fear of GMO’s is a recent phenomenon. Are there risks to GMO’s? Yes. Has there been any evidence of harm to human health? No. The risks associated with GMO’s are from the impact to our ecosystem through the misuse of GMO agricultural practices.

Technically speaking, you are a genetically modified organism.  One of the first patents issued for GMO’s was for medicine. “In 1982, The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approves the first genetically engineered drug, Genentech’s Humulin, a form of human insulin produced by bacteria. This is the first consumer product developed through modern bioengineering.”

The phobia of GMO’s is really a fear of modern bioengineering patents. Modern bioengineering started in 1980. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that “genetically altered life forms can be patented. The decision allowed the Exxon Oil Company to patent an oil-eating microorganism.” (1)

Another change in the meaning of GMO occurred with the sequencing of genes. “NHGRI led the National Institutes of Health’s contribution to the International Human Genome Project. This project, which had as its primary goal the sequencing of the three thousand million base pairs that make up human genome, was successfully completed in April 2003.” (1.1) With these discoveries all sorts-of risks arose. There are the benefits of being able to use plants similar to the human genome for research. For instance, GMO tobacco plants are being used to help develop new medicines because of their similarity to the human genome. It is the ability of Man to alter genetics so rapidly that is frightening.

SHOULD WE BE AFRAID OF GMO’s?
The use of GMO’s in agriculture practices should be of concern. “There is a case for GMOs and a case against the indiscriminate use of monoculture crops fueled by synthetic fertilizer on dead lands.” (2)

Part of the concern is a monoculture crop. There may be long term impacts from the lack of diversity caused by patent controlled crops. This factor is the least concerning since patents are only good for 17 years. After that, the GMO seed is free to crossbreed.

Of more concern is, “fueled by synthetic fertilizer on dead lands.” The inherent risk from GMO’s is not the plant itself, but how the plant is farmed. Some GMO crops promote the use of RoundUp (glyphosate). RoundUp creates dead lands — the rest of the ecosystem is destroyed, at least to some extent. Certainly, all the other vegetation is extinct from that land. The collapse of bee colonies may, or may not, be part of that destroyed ecosystem. Combining RoundUp with synthetic fertilizer just adds fuel to the deadly mix.  There appears to be no debate that GMO seed created for the purpose of being fed fossil fuel fertilizer has a negative impact on the entire world.

5,000 years ago in China similar agriculture experiments were conducted. (In particular, the cultivation of rice.) Today it is believed these methods of farming are the origins of human induced climate change. (3)

If you look at the impact on Earth as an ecosystem, humans are conducting a deadly agriculture experiment.

PART II: Should we throw the baby out with the bathwater?

On the other hand, GMO farming (in particular, the cultivation of rice) is saving millions of children from dying or going blind. (4)

HUMAN HEALTH
Since 1992, millions of animals have been raised on GMO feed. Since 1996, cows, chickens, pigs and pretty much all other types of livestock have eaten GMO crops. To date, there has not been a single case of a health problem for either the animals nor the humans that consume the meat. This equates to multiple generations being raised without an occurrence of ill health.

Also since 1996, almost all organic produce has been grown using GMO fed manure. During these multiple generations of plants, neither a plant nor human has shown any ill effects related to the GMO dung.

… TO BE CONTINUED.

0) Mark Mullen (2016)
1) American Public Radio (2016)
1.1) Human Genome Project (2003)
2) Sidd (2016)
3) Richard Lovett (2014)
4} Golden Rice / U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (2015)

bookmark_borderIs Opposition To GMO Crops Irrational?

Posted on by admin

By Daniel Brouse

There is evidence of genetically modified crops for over 8,000 years. There is no evidence of harm from eating GM foods. The Bible compares the grafting of an olive branch to a human being grafted to God. Romans 11:17 — “But some of these branches from Abraham’s tree — some of the people of Israel — have been broken off. And you Gentiles, who were branches from a wild olive tree, have been grafted in. So now you also receive the blessing God has promised Abraham and his children, sharing in the rich nourishment from the root of God’s special olive tree.”

The BBC program “The Inquiry” asks:

“Ask a scientist, and they will almost certainly tell you genetically modified food is safe to eat. Yet an awful lot of consumers disagree. Is their fear of GM food irrational? Earlier this year the Pew Foundation released a US poll which suggested 88% of scientists think GM food is generally safe to eat, while only 37% of the public agree. It is the issue on which American scientists and the general public are most divided, more so than climate change or vaccines. If the scientific consensus says it is safe, should we embrace a technology that could help solve hunger and feed the world? Or is GM food a lightning rod for justified concerns about the impact of global agribusiness and industrial food production?”

Listen to the report.

The BBC report mentions flood-tolerant rice. The Ronald Laboratories of UC Davis state:

“Each year millions of small farmers in the poorest areas of the world lose their entire crops to flooding. Although 24% of the global rice crop is grown in paddies, most rice varieties will die if fully submerged for more than three days. In India and Bangladesh alone, submergence destroys 4 million tons of rice each year, enough to feed 30 million people.

About 50 years ago, breeders discovered an unusual and ancient variety of rice that could withstand 2 weeks of complete submergence. Using conventional approaches, breeders tried to introduce this submergence tolerance trait into rice varieties favored by farmers in India and Bangladesh. However, because the breeding was imprecise, the resulting varieties were rejected by farmers. In the 1990s, rice breeder David Mackill (University of California, Davis) and graduate student Kenong Xu (University of California, Davis) demonstrated that tolerance to complete submergence mapped to the Submergence tolerance 1 (Sub1) Quantitative trait locus (QTL)

In 1996, Ronald began a project with Mackill and Xu, funded by the USDA, to isolate the genes at the Sub1 locus. Over a period of 10 years, Dr. Xu carried out fine mapping and physical isolation of the Sub1 gene in the Mackill and Ronald laboratories at the University of California, Davis (Xu. et. al., 2000). While working as a postdoctoral fellow in Ronald’s laboratory, Xu identified and sequenced the Sub1 QTL genomic region, revealed that it carried three ethylene response transcription factors (ERF) and demonstrated that one of the ERFs, designated Sub1A, was up-regulated rapidly in response to submergence. Xu and Ronald further demonstrated that overexpression of Sub1A conferred robust tolerance to submergence in genetically engineered plants ( Xu. et. al., 2006). This work revealed an important mechanism with which plants control tolerance to environmental stress and set the stage for in-depth molecular-genetic analyses of Sub1A-mediated processes”

Also see: GMO Rice Wins Humanitarian Award

bookmark_borderGMO Rice Wins Humanitarian Award

Posted on by admin

by Daniel Brouse

WASHINGTON, DC — Although social media is full of unsubstantiated claims about GMO’s, the truth is: there is no evidence that GMO’s are harmful. In fact, quite the contrary. For instance, there are specific breeds of tomatoes, potatoes and carrots being grown for their additional health benefits.

Such a beneficial crop, Golden Rice, has just won a humanitarian award. Not only is Golden Rice more nutritious, it is also less harmful to the environment. There are numerous health benefits including β-Carotene providing vitamin A to children. The environment would also see a positive impact in many parts of the world from Golden Rice. Because the rice is more nutritious, less of it needs to be consumed. In addition, a healthy population is much less taxing on the natural resources.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office stated, “Despite current interventions, vitamin A deficiency is the leading killer of children globally (2-3 million annually) and also the leading cause of childhood blindness (500,000 cases annually). Most cases arise in Asia where the staple food eaten by 3.5 billion people daily, white rice, lacks vitamin A sources typically found in meat and leafy vegetables. These deaths and blindness are preventable.

Golden Rice was genetically enhanced to provide a source of vitamin A for people subsisting mainly on rice. Professors Potrykus and Beyer invented the technology after a decade of research, and have worked with Dr. Dubock since 2000 to donate it to the resource poor in developing countries. Patenting the technology allowed the inventors to partner with Syngenta on commercial projects in return for support of their humanitarian objectives to make Golden Rice available free of charge to those in need. Local Golden Rice varieties are currently being developed by public sector institutions in Bangladesh, China, India, Indonesia, Philippines, and Vietnam, with a target cost no more than white rice.”

In a statement, Golden Rice said, “The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) have announced the winners of the 2015 recipients of the Patents for Humanity Award, among them the Golden Rice Project.

Patents for Humanity is a USPTO program that recognizes patent owners and licensees working to improve global health and living standards for underserved populations. The program advances the President’s global development agenda by recognizing private sector leaders who bring life-saving technologies to those in need, while showing how patents are an integral part of tackling the world’s challenges.

The award has been bestowed upon the Golden Rice Project, in particular to Prof Ingo Potrykus, Prof Peter Beyer, and Dr Adrian Dubock. Dr Dubock will attend the official award ceremony on 20 April 2015, accompanied by the Golden Rice Humanitarian.”

Unfortunately, many of the countries most in need of Golden Rice have laws against importing rice; however, the Pacific Trade Partnership could help save millions of kids… annually.