Genetic Maize

In the midst of literature review for a long, complicated post on gene flow between maize and teosinte (yes, this is how I spend my Saturday nights / Sunday mornings, thanks), I came across the following article in Science Daily from 12 October 2000: Gene Barrier In Corn May Boost Trade, Environment.

Working with teosinte, a wild cousin of maize, a University of Wisconsin-Madison scientist has found a molecular barrier that, bred into modern hybrid corn, is capable of completely locking out foreign genes, including those from genetically modified corn.

“This technology can potentially solve the problem of contamination of regular hybrid corn and organic hybrid corn by any genetically modified organism (GMO) during the growing season,” says Gerrish. “This technology could also allow a farmer to grow both types of maize crops and maintain a market segregated product.”

Using traditional breeding methods, the genetic barrier is being transferred to hybrid corn and testing quantities of seed should be available through seed companies in 2002, Gerrish says. Commercial quantities for planting by farmers are possible by the year 2003, he says.

How exciting! Does anyone know more about this? What is the status of the research? Has this trait been bred into any corn hybrids and used successfully to grow transgenic and non-transgenic maize side-by-side?

Dr. Jerry Kermicle. Image from his UW-Madison profile page.I looked for papers by Jerry Kermicle, Professor Emeritus of Genetics at UW-Madison, on Web of Science, PubMed, and Google Scholar. I found a few articles, including one similar to the SD story in EMBO reports (pdf), but no peer-reviewed articles exploring the potential of the incompatibility trait. I also looked for Steve Gerrish, the extension agent listed in the SD article, without luck. I was able to find the patent application: Cross-incompatibility traits from teosinte and their use in corn.

So, what is this? Another case of an over-exuberant press-release? Is this just another version of male-sterility? Am I just tired and missing something?

Note: If you read the SD article, you will see two mentions of insecticidal toxins and monarch butterflies. Just in case you didn’t already know, there is no danger to monarch butterflies from the Bt toxin in pollen. USDA ARS has put together a nice fact sheet about this.

Missing Limb. American Bullfrog, Fairfield County, Ohio, July 16, 2001. Brandon Ballangee © 2009 greenmuseum.orgAnother mystery of science has been solved, which gives me hope that the origin of CCD is only a little research away, or perhaps just a flash of inspiration. Strangely, the only coverage of this discovery that I could find is at the BBC Legless frog mystery solved, even though mysteriously deformed frogs have been found all over the world. Since the late 1980s, frogs have been found with missing legs, additional legs, and other deformities (actually, hideously deformed frogs have been found much earlier than that, but the numbers seemed to increase in the late 1980s). Various causes were suggested, but most people were convinced that the cause was chemical in nature.

Amphibians, due to their moist porous skin, are particularly good at absorbing chemicals like pesticides from the environment, so the theory made sense even though there wasn’t any specific proof. Of course, environmentalists rallied around the deformed frogs as an excuse to demonize agriculture. In 1990, the chemical hypothesis was at least partially disproven. An ingenious yet simple experiment by Stan Sessions showed that the presence of small foreign bodies (whether resin beads or cysts caused by a parasite) could cause the growth of extra limbs. The most likely scenario is that over-fertilization of agricultural fields in the late 1980s led to fertilizer running into streams and wetlands. The extra nutrients contributed to larger than typical amounts of algae, on which grazed larger than typical numbers of snails. Those snails are the primary host of trematodes, some species of which carry out part of their life cycle in frogs, and those trematodes caused the deformities. In 2008, Jason Rohr (with Sessions and others) showed that four common pesticides play a role as well. Each seemed to have a negative effect on trematode larvae (which should benefit frogs) but also caused tadpoles to be more susceptible to infection, even though the pesticides (tested at maximum expected exposure levels) did not affect mortality directly.

So, the environmentalists were partially right – agriculture and pest control are partially to blame, although not in the way that was initially assumed. Happily, over-fertilization is less common today (at least in the US) – fertilizer application rates now more closely match what the plants actually need (partially because fertilizer costs have been increasing), and some pesticides are being replaced with genetically engineered crops (hopefully this will be improved upon in the future). Studies on the relationships between human activities and ecosystems strengthen the need for more research into alternatives in agriculture and pest control.

Still, the problem of the missing limbs was not resolved, and Sessions continued his research on amphibians. In the meantime, “ecological artist” Brandon Ballengee was observing amphibians in the wild for his art. Ballangee collaborates with scientists, working with them in field research to create art that engages the public in environmental issues. He became interested in the deformed limbs and wondered if they might be due to predators.

Ballangee and Sessions worked together to test this hypothesis by placing various predators in cups with tadpoles. Only dragonfly nymphs took the bait, biting off the hind legs of developing frogs (the developing front limbs are protected by the tadpoles’s gill chamber). The cause of frog deformities therefore, is natural, though man-made chemicals aren’t helping. I expect that the plight of the bees will be similar – natural causes, exacerbated by things like miticides in the hives.

Sessions, S., & Ruth, S. (1990). Explanation for naturally occurring supernumerary limbs in amphibians Journal of Experimental Zoology, 254 (1), 38-47 DOI: 10.1002/jez.1402540107

Rohr, J., Raffel, T., Sessions, S., & Hudson, P. (2008). Understanding the net effects of pesticides on amphibian trematode infections Ecological Applications, 18 (7), 1743-1753 DOI: 10.1890/07-1429.1

Carrotmob is a startup company that unites consumers and businesses with common goals, enticing a business to do something environmentally or socially responsible with the reward of shoppers. I think it is a wonderful idea, or at least one that appears to be newsworthy, as their actions have appeared in rags like Time and The Guardian. On a more individual level, I’ve always been a fan of “voting with my dollar”. When I eat at a non-chain restaurant that serves local produce, I’m essentially saying “your practices are more in line with my ethical principles” and at the same time telling the places I choose to avoid that they are not. Similarly, I choose products that have ingredients and standards I agree with. I know that the parent company isn’t 100% in line with my ideals, but that isn’t as important as telling the company what sorts of products I will buy and which I will not by voting with my dollar. For example, I choose GreenWorks products from Clorox, even though I won’t buy most of their other products. Not everyone has time to hand make their bath products or to preserve food, and not everyone has access to small businesses that do these things. I am lucky to have Prairieland Herbs about an hour away, but that’s an hour away, so I only go occasionally with a friend as a luxury. I can bike to the HyVee (grocery store) and pruchase items that aren’t quite as awesome as those at Prarieland Herbs, but that are reasonably good and still conform to my ethics. This obviously isn’t fool-proof (particularly for me because I want products that were produced with low or no pesticides which means organic, but that don’t specifically say GM-free, which is rare now-a-days), but I think it’s a logical way to interact with corporations in our capitalistic democracy. That’s why I was so confused by an AlterNet article that was emailed to me by a Iowa State Associate Scientist affiliated with the Sustainable Agriculture department a while ago (it’s clean out the blogging inbox time). The theme of Burt’s Bees, Tom’s of Maine, Naked Juice: Your Favorite Brands? Take Another Look — They May Not Be What They Seem is that evil corporations bought all of the wonderful little brands that used to be your favorite, but you’re not allowed to buy them any more because they are evil. The author laments the loss of these brands in amusing ways:

Upon first meeting someone, I can usually tell a quite a lot about them by the contents of their bathroom. The brand I see most often behind medicine cabinets of people I consider to be environmentally conscious is Tom’s of Maine. What Tom’s says to me about the person is that they are willing to spend a little bit of extra cash in order to take proactive steps to help green the Earth. Well, no more. My bathroom assessments will never be the same. Tom’s of Maine is owned by Colgate-Palmolive, a massive, tanklike company with an estimated 36,000 employees and revenue of approximately $11.4 billion. Its big products include: Ajax, Anbesol and Speedstick. I am only left to wonder, is Trader Joe’s, popularly known to showcase Tom’s of Maine in its hygiene department, just as much in the dark about all of this as I have been? Or is Joe’s simply another conduit for big corporate products?

A few questions to the author before I progress to my point: How many people’s bathroom cabinets do you see upon first meeting them? Wouldn’t the people be more environmentally conscious if they used simple baking soda for tooth brushing rather than expensive products that require packaging? Why pick on Anbesol – do you know of any locally produced oral pain remedies that work anywhere near as well? Are you really so naive as to not know that Trader Joe’s is actually a huge corporation in it’s own right? Ok, now that I’ve gotten that off my chest… I’ll stick with the Tom’s example because it’s a good one. I just don’t understand what the problem is, and that might very well be why I often have difficulty communicating with people who are anti-capitalism. Local and small is nice, but I think it is very significant that a huge corporation like Colgate-Palmolive would find Tom’s to be lucrative enough to make an offer, purchase it, and mass market the products. The result is that many many more people have access to a relatively natural alternative that hasn’t been tested on animals. Granted, there is little transparency that a small company has been purchased by a larger one. It isn’t usually on the products, or if it is there, the print is small. Sadly, they have to do this because so many consumers that consider themselves organic or natural are very superficial in their determination of what is worthy. Tom’s website does have their parent company disclosed in their FAQs, along with an assurance that nothing has changed (aside from their ability to reach into more stores). It would be entirely different if Colgate purchased Tom’s, changed everything behind the scenes, but continued to sell it as if nothing had changed. Some companies simply slap on a “natural” sticker – I think we can all agree that is wrong – but that isn’t the case in these friendly take overs. The shining quality of capitalism is that producers follow the demands of customers. It’s a lot easier to work with the system than to fight it. People demand organic, natural, fair-trade… and they get it! I particularly think it is fabulous that Hershey’s owns Dagoba. With all of the money (power) that Hershey’s wields, they can push this sustainable fair-trade bone-char-free chocolate into places that it wouldn’t have been found before. Consumers that have access can then choose Dagoba over a normal Hershey’s bar. People can choose Burt’s Bees over more chemical laden bath and body products, Kashi over the dyed and sugared alternatives… the result is exactly what a conscious consumer wants! Well, if that conscious consumer is like me, caring more about the people who grow the chocolate, the watersheds that have less pesticides running into them, the animals that do not suffer in unnecessary tests… but thinks “evil capitalism” is a cliche that we should put to bed.

How do you improve crop yields without actually improving crop yields? Control rodents that are eating grain in the fields.
This is exactly what Dr. Loretta Mayer and her graduate student Heidi Miers intend to do with a chemical called VCD (4-vinylcyclohexene diepoxide), commonly used in tires, polyesters and plastics. VCD basically degrades ovaries, similar to how the ovaries degrade during menopause – hence “mouseopause”. Simply place VCD bait stations in fields, rodents eat the bait, then the female rodents are unable to reproduce.
Most rodenticides are horrible chemicals that cause painful deaths and are equally horrible when accidentally consumed by humans. Any method that removes these chemicals from the environment should be strongly considered. Another possible application of VCD would be cheap, humane control of animals like cats, dogs, and deer. This would allow for population control of these animals without expensive sterilization or repeated birth control treatments, and without inhumane and costly slaughter and disposal of unwanted animals.
It all sounds great, but I have a lot of qualms about the actual implementation of this research! First, what if endangered rodent species eat the bait? It could lead to extinctions. What if the tablets dissolve and release VCD into the water that is then used by locals for drinking and cooking?  What if children or adults are not properly educated about the bait stations and then eat the bait? What if women hear about what the bait does and eat it on purpose? There are a lot of potential problems.
Even though I think there are very real concerns involved with this work -  I don’t think the research or implementation should be stopped – there just need to be very strong safeguards along, as there should be with any chemical or technology that will be released into the environment. The potential gain of 10% more rice harvests may outweigh the risk of the VPD being consumed by non-target organisms. What do you think?
Source: Discovery Could Help Feed Millions via Newswise.

As I write this, I munch on organic blue corn chips and homemade pico de gallo, made with purple peppers from Small Potatoes Farm (along with heirloom tomatoes and flat leaf Italian parsley and with a glass of local wine from Summerset Winery, yum!). Why choose blue and purple? Anthocyanins, of course. These natural plant compounds are nice to look at, and there is a lot of evidence that they have protecting health qualities for those who eat them, protecting us from diseases like cancer, diabetes, and obesity. So, what do we do to make sure that people can get recommended amounts of anthocyanins?

Anthocyanin-rich berries are delicious but expensive and only available during certain times of year. Most people do not seek out red cabbage or brightly colored heirloom varieties of veggies like carrots and cauliflower. In the US, the most frequently eaten vegetables are potatoes, lettuce, and tomatoes. Purple tomatoes exist, but heirloom tomatoes have issues like splitting and little time till spoilage. This is fine if you buy them at the farmer’s market and eat them the next day, but is not suitable for things like pasta sauce production (cans and bottles are where most people get their RDA of tomatoes, but it turns out they are healthier that way!). Varieties like Cherokee purple, while awesome, don’t produce anthocyanins throughout the fruit.

(more…)