Genetic Maize

Margaret Fulton, Australian food commentator, has brought the debate over genetically modified foods to a new low. Instead of focusing on any of the many valid problems of GM, she said:

They’re going to control the world. We thought Hitler was a bad fella … these guys could show him a thing or two – and they’re creeping up on us quietly without guns or anything like that, but the poison is there.

The longer the GM debate went on, the likelihood that someone would invoke the big baddie approached 1 and has now been met. The comparison just doesn’t make any sense.

Happily, the great GM debate is now over. According to Wikipedia, a corollary of Godwin’s Law is that “once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically ‘lost’ whatever debate was in progress.”

That was easy. <wipes hands>

Ok, enough of the silliness, I won’t actually stoop to Ms. Fulton’s level. There are plenty of real issues to discuss.

(more…)

Photo by Yvan leduc via Wikipedia.

There is so much information out there on Colony Collapse Disorder. Wouldn’t it be nice if someone summarized it in one place? Kyle Bailey, undergraduate in biology at Iowa State, has done just that. The following, posted with permission, is an up-to-date review of CCD research. It includes information from a variety of sources, from fact sheets to peer-reviewed journal articles.

Introduction

Honeybees (apis mellifera) are the primary pollinator available to agriculturalists in the United States. This makes them a critical part of US agriculture.  Crops such as “almonds (82% of the world’s supply and 100% dependent on interstate pollinators); apples; cherries; blueberries; broccoli; carrots; cranberries; cucurbits like cucumber, melons, squash, pumpkins, and gourds” (Stankus 2008) are heavily reliant on honey bees for pollination.  Traveling hives provided by commercial apiary services pollinates many of these crops.

A current epidemic, called Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), affecting honeybee hives throughout the US threatens the apiarist industry.  In the US during 2006-2007 29% of beekeepers reported some loss to CCD with some losing up to 75% of their stock (Winfree, Williams, Dushoff, et al).  CCD is characterized as a mysterious loss of worker bees in the hive.  There are no corpses to be found as the bees apparently wander far from the hive to die.  The hive generally has sufficient food stores to maintain the population.  The hives also generally still have undeveloped brood stock.  The new brood (as well as the queen) is of course doomed without any adult workers present to care for them and they soon die.  Because the bees travel far from the hive there are no bodies to necropsy and attempt to determine a cause (Stankus 2008).

This paper will explore the US economic and agricultural impacts of pollinator loss, and recent research into the causes of and potential solutions to CCD.

(more…)

In the Iowa State University Memorial Union

Hello! I’m Anastasia Bodnar, a second year PhD student at Iowa State University. My major is “Interdepartmental Genetics”, an interdisciplinary program that allows me to work in a variety of fields, including plant breeding, biotechnology, and nutrition.

When I’m not in the lab or the field, I write about the science, ethics, politics, economics, etc of genetically modified plants at my blog Genetic Maize. I’m also a contributor at the blog Clashing Cultures where the interactions of science and religion are explored by people from different faiths and different scientific backgrounds. As of now, I’ll also contribute to Biofortified, writing about my favorite topic, plant genetics, and how this field affects the world around us. I’m very exciting to be working with some of my favorite bloggers on this project. I just hope I can find time to do it all!

Genetic engineering is such a complex topic, one that people (both proponents and opponents, scientists and lay people) oversimplify far too often. It is rarely correct to make a blanket statement about “all GMOs”. For example, I think most of us would agree that herbicide resistant crops created by a large corporation are fundamentally different from the flood tolerant rice created by a scientist with public funds and freely distributed to small farmers in developing countries. These two have different ethical, environmental, safety, social justice, and intellectual property issues, just to name a few. It is unfair, unscientific, and possibly unethical to lump together all products produced by genetic engineering. It is also unfair to lump genetic engineering with what is known as conventional agriculture. Some genetically engineered plants might be more suited for large commercial farming, while others are scale neutral and could fit in well with a variety of farming techniques, including organic. I hope that I can elaborate on these ideas through my posts here at Biofortified.

My major professor is Paul Scott, a USDA researcher in ISU’s Agronomy Department. Manju Reddy is our collaborator in ISU’s Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition. I have three main projects that all aim to improve the nutritional qualities of maize. You can read more about the projects after the cut. (more…)

Over the last few weeks of the election season, there was a lot of talk about “spreading the wealth”, with the McCain/Palin campaign more than implying that this was a bad thing. While I agree that many government programs need serious overhauls, there is one use of tax dollars that should not be looked down upon. Spending on basic research benefits everyone.
The editors of Nature examined how spending on science is the best way to climb out of a recession and to set the stage for future growth in Danger and Opportunity. Science spending, in the form of international collaborations, may also be the best way to create better relationships between countries.

With an economic crisis of unknown proportions looming, more emphasis on science and innovation — not less — will be crucial to achieving a sustained recovery.

Let’s hope that the president elect is up to the task, able to convince Congress and the American people that science is worthy, not a waste.

Nature editors (2008). Danger and opportunity Nature, 456 (7219), 141-141 DOI: 10.1038/456141a

The idea that GMOs are causing people to commit suicide is very compelling. But is it true?

A study released by IFPRI (International Food Policy Research Institute) in October says there is no connection between Bt cotton and farmer suicides in India. IFPRI “seeks sustainable solutions for ending hunger and poverty”, so it makes sense for them to investigate any possible links between Bt and farmer suicides. Bt Cotton and Farmer Suicides in India: Reviewing the Evidence examines every aspect of the problem, concluding that farmers in India do have very real issues pressing upon them, but Bt is not to blame for their choice to commit suicide.

The report is through, but written in language that lay people can easily follow. I encourage you to read it for yourself. To me, the most interesting part was titled “The Bt Cotton Controversy: The Institutional Context”. This section listed the actual causes of farmer distress, and once we identify the real problems, we can start talking about real solutions. The biggest problem seems to be education. Farmers have access to new technology but little if any information on how to use it to maximize benefit. (more…)