GMO Shortens Life Span by Michael. This shirt design was submitted to Atrium in the No GMO t-shirt design challenge.

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.

As shown in the picture below, DNA is tightly packed in each cell. It’s wrapped around proteins called histones, then coiled into the familiar X chromosome shape. The amount of DNA per cell depends on the species, but each cell has about 9 feet of DNA in it. Since each meal contains tens of millions of cells, you eat about 7 to 10 miles of DNA at each meal!

Cells to DNA. Image from Michigan State University.

There are a lot of DNA extraction recipes out there, but there are a few essential steps. The DNA must be freed from the cell membrane and the membrane of the nucleus. Then, the DNA needs to be separated from the membrane bits, proteins, and other cellular parts. Finally, the DNA needs to be precipitated, or brought out of solution by becoming a solid instead of being dissolved in the solution.

Supplies:

• Source of DNA. Fruit, especially banana or strawberries, works great because they have a lot of DNA per cell. Onions have a lot of DNA per cell too, but make for a much less pleasant smelling DNA extraction than berries or bananas.
• Detergent, such as shampoo or dish soap. Clear detergent is better so dye doesn’t cover up the action.
• Coffee filter to remove proteins, cell membrane parts, and other cellular gunk from your DNA solution.
• Table salt to precipitate proteins and carbohydrates.
• Ethanol to precipitate the DNA. Rubbing alcohol is ethanol, preferably 95%.
• A plastic sandwich baggie.
• 3 cups.
• A plastic teaspoon.
• A test tube or narrow glass like a shot glass.
• Toothpick.

Safety note: if you are tempted to taste the DNA, just remember that there is shampoo and rubbing alcohol in there and that these things are generally not good to eat! DNA itself, though, is perfectly safe – we eat it in every meal.  Really want to eat DNA? Check out these instructions for building an edible model.

*Just in case you were wondering, the contests aren’t vetted by Threadless, they are run by a separate site, Atrium. This was important for me, because I rather like Threadless, but I prefer to avoid patronizing companies whose publicized ethical stance I disagree with.

While claims about “micro-fungi” are too extraordinary to even consider until extraordinary proof is provided (and preferably replicated by another lab and peer reviewed), Don Huber’s claims that Roundup (specifically the active ingredient glyphosate) weakens crops by binding minerals in the soil seems to have at least some merit, at least enough to be taken seriously and examined further.

Over the years since Roundup Ready (RR) crops have been released, independent researchers have conducted many studies to determine whether there is a specific problem with some crop varieties with the RR gene, with all crops with the RR gene, or with glyphosate itself. Overall, the research shows that there may be some concern about glyphosate reducing availability of some minerals when the soil is deficient in those minerals. The research hasn’t found a problem with the RR gene itself.

It is important to note that the stack of peer reviewed papers indicating glyphosate to be a problem with disease or yield is much smaller than the stack indicating there is no problem. We must look at the entire body of evidence, not just cherry pick one or a few papers, in order to get a clear understanding of what’s really happening. Happily, extension experts from multiple universities have summarized the research for us, but if you want to look for yourself, PubMed is a great place to start.

Claims of interactions between glyphosate and minerals

In February of 2010, Dr. Huber appeared in an article by Martha Ostendorf titled Are We Shooting Ourselves In The Foot With A Silver Bullet? in No-Till Magazine along with Bob Streit, an agronomy consultant in Iowa. That article is no longer available from the No-Till Farmer website, but thankfully a Biofortified reader found another source (linked from the article title). Another article written by Huber at about the same time is Ag chemical and crop nutrient interactions. In these document, a lot of claims are made that aren’t consistent with the majority of peer reviewed research on the subject.

Since 2010, Dr. Huber has continued publicly claiming that glyphosate binds up minerals in the soil, making the minerals unavailable to crops and increasing susceptibility to disease (specifically fungal disease), thus decreasing yields. He spoke to the Innovative Farmers Association of Ontario in March 2010, one of many talks he’s given on this topic. In February 2011, he gave a talk in Des Moines at a seminar organized by the same Bob Streit and Amie Brandy. Dr. Huber has published some peer reviewed studies to back up his claims as well.

Dr. Huber is not the only scientist that has found interactions between glyphosate and minerals. Back in 2007, Barney Gordon published some research in an industry newsletter indicating that glyphosate treated soybeans may require manganese fertilizer for optimal yields: Manganese Nutrition of Glyphosate-Resistant and Conventional Soybeans. Of course, this research was used inappropriately as “evidence” that genetic engineering reduces yields, but that’s another story.

Dr. Gordon and Dr. Huber’s work has been used eagerly by fertilizer companies and organizations that promote fertilizers to encourage farmers to apply minerals to their crops. For example, see Glyphosate and Micronutrients by Jim Halbeisen of Growers Mineral Solutions and Missing Micro Nutrients by Larry Reichenberger of ProfitPro (who sells liquid fertilizer).

Dr. Huber has published directly in fertilizer promotion materials, such as the Fluid Journal (sponsored by the Fluid Fertilizer Foundation): What About Glyphosate-Induced Manganese Deficiency? Dr. Gordon’s Manganese Nutrition of Glyphosate-Resistant and Conventional Soybeans was published in Better Crops which is run by the International Plant Nutrition Institute which encourages use of a variety of fertilizers.

Response from extension

Understandably, farmers have been actively pursuing more information from extension agents as soon as they hear about a possible decrease in yields with glyphosate use. University extension has responded with multiple documents and presentations to help guide farmers using known research and by conducting additional research. Extension agents have a unique ability to bring research directly to farmers and other people near the university and can quickly conduct field tests to help farmers make science-based decisions.

In February of 2010, Iowa State University Extension produced a great overview of the research that includes analysis of some papers of which Dr. Huber was a co-author: Glyphosate-Manganese Interactions in Roundup Ready Soybean by Bob Hartzler, Extension Weed Specialist and Professor of Agronomy. He concludes that manganese uptake varies depending on which soybean variety is being used, not on whether or not the RR gene is present. He also concludes that while it is known that glyphosate will bind to soluble manganese, this is only a problem in manganese deficient soils.

In November of 2010, Bob Hartzler released Glyphosate Interactions with Micronutrients and Plant Disease, with the conclusion:

Due to the complexity of the processes that occur within the root zone, it is impossible to completely rule out negative effects of glyphosate on mineral nutrition or disease development in GR crops.  However, results from field research and our widespread experience with glyphosate on GR crops for over a decade do not indicate widespread negative impacts of glyphosate on these factors.

In April of 2010, University of Minnesota Extension put out a short commentary that also discussed Dr. Huber’s claims: Roundup and Manganese for Minnesota Soybeans. Extension agent George Rehm conducted experiments in Minnesota and found that additional manganese was not needed due to adequate manganese in Minnesota soils. The April commentary was actually a followup to a xpost about manganese from January of 2010, Magnesium In Minnesota, that attracted some critical commentary from none other than Bob Streit.

In January of 2011, Ohio State University Extension released a presentation (Flash needed) by Robert Mullen, extension specialist and associate professor, summarizing their work on this subject: Manganese / Glyphosate antagonism? Their research shows that applying manganese to soy does increase the concentration of manganese in plant tissues, but did not find that glyphosate caused decreases in yield or manganese. Adding manganese can cause yield increase or yield decrease depending on environment, specially soil type. They did find that soil type and pH causes significant differences in manganese uptake.

In February of 2011, Dr. Huber’s colleagues at Perdue University Extension put out a paper titled Glyphosate’s Impact on Field Crop Production and Disease Development that seems to be in direct response to the flurry of blog posts and “news” articles about Roundup that were spurred by Dr. Huber’s recent letter. While they don’t mention Dr. Huber directly, they do cite and express concern about articles that are credulous about Dr. Huber’s claims regarding glyphosate and plant and animal disease. They conclude:

Overall, the claims that glyphosate is haing a widespread effect on plant health are largely unsubstantiated. To date, there is limited scientific research data that suggest that plant diseases have increased in GM crops due to the use of glyphosate. Most importantly, the impact of these interactions on yield has not been demonstrated. Therefore, we maintain our recommendations of judicious glyphosate use for weed control. We encourage crop producers, agribusiness personnel, and the general public to speak with University Extension personnel before making changes in crop production practices that are based on sensationalist claims instead of facts.

This isn’t the first time that Dr. Huber’s colleages have attempted to do damage control in response to “greatly exaggerated” reports by Dr. Huber about minerals and glyphosate. In April of 2010 Dr. Huber’s colleagues at Perdue University Extension released Glyphosate – Manganese Interactions and Impacts on Crop Production: The Controversy, referring interested persons to Iowa State University Extension. They state that high pH, high organic matter soils cause manganese to be less available to the crop whether or not glyphosate is present.

Update: Extension agents are still working to correct what they see as misinformation spread by Dr. Huber. Anne Dorrance, expert in soybean pathology and extension agent at Ohio State has a 14 March 2011 article in Ag Professional: Glyphosate Effects on Soybean Diseases. She directly assesses the claims that glyphosate use has increased incidence of disease, backed up with literature and her personal experience.

Have you seen any other extension or other articles by professional agronomists on this topic? Let us know and I’ll include them here.

Consider the data, not the source

I have read some claims that university researchers can not be trusted because many universities accept some grants from agricultural companies. Specifically, some bloggers have claimed that the Purdue extension agents’ scientific integrity is compromised, which is something that I think needs to be addressed, especially when it is clear that fertilizer companies and foundations are so eager to use Dr. Huber’s research. Potential conflicts of interest go every which way.

Purdue, like Iowa State and every other university, has strict standards of scientific and professional ethics. In addition, the amount of research funding granted by companies is small compared to funding from other sources. For example, at Iowa State, publicly available detailed reports of funding show that the research being conducted with corporate funding are far from the majority of funding and that most grants are extremely specific in scope. While there are isolated examples of inappropriate conduct of public universities regarding private companies or company interests, that is no reason to denounce every employee at every public university.

Instead of smearing the names of extension employees and researchers, we should examine the veracity of their work. We need to consider the data available. The identity of the source needs to be known in order to determine if a person has relevant expertise. We can look at the source to get a feeling for how much skepticism we need to apply. Go too far beyond that, and we get dangerously close to ad homs.

The story has been picked up by many bloggers, including Jill Richardson, and even made an appearance on Reuters. I haven’t seen any posts dedicated to a critical analysis of the letter, instead there is a rush to assume that it is correct, despite the lack of citations or other evidence provided for the extraordinary claims in the letter. The story is often accompanied with horrific pictures of dead fetal calves and the words “Emergency!” and “Danger!” Are we really all in danger? The claims in the letter bring to mind Carl Sagan’s famous statement: “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Let’s investigate the claims and determine whether enough evidence is provided.

“This organism appears NEW to science!”

In the letter, Dr. Huber claims that there is a never-before-seen pathogen that is caused by or exacerbated by either glyphosate containing Roundup herbicide or the widely used glyphosate resistance gene. The letter opens:

A team of senior plant and animal scientists have recently brought to my attention the discovery of an electron microscopic pathogen that appears to significantly impact the health of plants, animals, and probably human beings. Based on a review of the data, it is widespread, very serious, and is in much higher concentrations in Roundup Ready (RR) soybeans and corn—suggesting a link with the RR gene or more likely the presence of Roundup. This organism appears NEW to science!

Right here in the first paragraph is Extraordinary Claim #1. Dr. Huber is claiming that a single pathogen can “significantly impact” the health of corn, soy, and animals. Not impossible, but extraordinary evidence is required to back up the claim because known pathogens are generally very host specific, whether they are bacteria, virus, fungus, or parasite. A corn pathogen will not infect soy. A human pathogen will not infect cows. In cases where a single pathogen will affect multiple species, it affects groups of very similar species, not corn and cows.

What evidence does Dr. Huber provide for this extraordinary claim? None, actually. Just more extraordinary claims that seem to get more and more extraordinary with each paragraph.

Extraordinary Claim #2 is that the “organism is only visible under an electron microscope (36,000X), with an approximate size range equal to a medium size virus. It is able to reproduce and appears to be a micro-fungal-like organism. If so, it would be the first such micro-fungus ever identified.” He leaves us with far more questions than answers. What characteristics, exactly, cause him to compare this claimed pathogen to a fungus? How could it be possible to have a fungus so small? Where are the pictures? How big is the claimed organism and what does it look like? What is the evidence that it is reproducing? What other tests have been done to confirm its existence?

Fungi and viruses – not at all similar

Fungi have some special characteristics that make them easily identifiable. First, fungi are eukaryotes, meaning that they have complex cells with structures enclosed in membranes called organelles, along with plants and animals, but unlike bacteria which lack organelles. Eukaryotic cells range between roughly 10 and 100 micrometers (μm) long. Second, fungi have some characteristics that make them unique compared to other eukaryotes. Like plants, they have cell walls but unlike plants, those cell walls contain chitin instead of cellulose. At minimum, if we want to call something a fungus, it needs to have organelles like other eukaryotes and needs to have those unique cell walls.

Eukaryotic cells are many times larger than viruses. "Scanning electron micrograph of the surface of a mouse cell infected with murine leukemia virus. A large number of virus particles are shown in the process of budding." By R. MacLeod via The Free Dictionary.

Viruses are completely unlike eukaryotes or bacteria. They have a wide range of shapes but all look quite different from eukaryotic or bacterial cells. Viruses are little more than some nucleic acid surrounded by a protein coat, allowing them to be much smaller than cells, at a range of roughly 0.01 to 0.1 micrometers (μm). Even the largest virus is much smaller than the smallest eukaryotic cell. In fact, viruses are smaller than the any of the organelles inside a eukaryotic cell.

Saying that something is a “micro-fungal-like organism” as small as a virus just doesn’t make any sense. Of course, there’s been other strange things discovered, things that defied existing biological knowledge. Maybe this thing is from space, transported on meteorites. Who knows!? If it is true, then Dr. Huber and colleagues would undoubtedly be lauded for their amazing discovery. But this extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence and Dr. Huber provides none.

Electron microscopy – it’s not easy

Series of images of a snowflake taken by USDA researchers. Click the pic for larger images.

When I worked for the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) in Beltsville, MD as an undergraduate, I had the opportunity to use an electron microscope to look for viruses in plant tissue samples. Our goal was to identify plant pathogens before plant material got shipped all over the country. The normal procedure was to wait a pre-determined period of time to see if a plant would show symptoms, but if we could ID viruses before symptoms showed we could save a lot of time. Unfortunately, the technique didn’t pan out, at least while I was working there, because the experts weren’t able to find a technique that allowed them to accurately ID viruses with electron microscopy.

Electron microscopy is very touchy, with many things that could go wrong. Strange artifacts or errors in the images can be introduced by the processing a sample must undergo before viewing, by less than perfect use of the instrument, and by the instrument itself. Consider this series of images of a single snowflake taken at increasing magnification with an electron microscope. As the magnification goes up, the likelihood that meaning could be ascribed to a random bump also goes up.

Paul Vincelli, Professor of Plant Pathology at
University of Kentucky and member of the American Phytopathological Society (APS), has expertise in plant pathogens including viruses and fungi. He has commented on the post Scientists warn of link between dangerous new pathogen and Monsanto’s Roundup by Rady Arnada indicating that he has seen the claimed “micro fungus” research himself. He said he has spoken with another researcher that has seen the electron micrographs, who concluded that the supposed “micro fungus” is actually just artifacts and that “detailed molecular data were needed before concluding that the structures observed were actually organismal.” Hopefully Dr. Huber plans to relase the images soon so additional experts can examine them. You have to wonder why the images haven’t already been released.

Pathogen presence

Extraordinary Claim #3 is that the claimed pathogen “is found in high concentrations in Roundup Ready soybean meal and corn, distillers meal, fermentation feed products, pig stomach contents, and pig and cattle placentas.” Why is this extraordinary? There is no control information provided.

We need to know what are the relative concentrations of the claimed pathogen in corn and soy plants grown in identical conditions, preferably in multiple environments of the following categories so we can isolate the effects of the Roundup Ready gene and of Roundup:

1. Roundup Ready plants that are treated with Roundup
2. Roundup Ready plants that are weeded by hand or other non-chemical method
3. non-Roundup Ready plants that are genetically similar to the Roundup Ready plants that are weeded by hand or other non-chemical method (negative control)

Without these comparisons, saying “high concentrations” is meaningless. We also need to know the relative concentration of the claimed pathogen in animals fed these different plant samples under strictly controlled conditions. We also need to know how the presence of the claimed pathogen was determined and whether it was confirmed with any additional tests, such as nucleic acid or protein analysis.

Similarly, the claim that the “organism is prolific in plants infected with … sudden death syndrome (SDS) in soy, and Goss’ wilt in corn” also requires comparison to uninfected plants with and without Roundup and the RR gene. Dr. Huber continues: “The pathogen is also found in the fungal causative agent of SDS (Fusarium solani fsp glycines).” Found in? As in inside the cells? How do you know? Again, where are the pictures?

Cattle, swine, and horses (oh, my)

French dairy cows. Are these ladies luckier with their calves than American cows? Image by Meg Hourihan via Flickr.

Extraordinary Claim #4 is that there has been “escalating frequency of infertility and spontaneous abortions over the past few years in US cattle, dairy, swine, and horse operations. These include recent reports of infertility rates in dairy heifers of over 20%, and spontaneous abortions in cattle as high as 45%.” For comparison, the expected rate of spontaneous abortion in dairy cattle is about 2-5%, according to Virginia Cooperative Extension’s Abortions in Dairy Cattle and West Virginia University Extension’s Abortion in Dairy Cows and Heifers, and the expected successful insemination rate is 50% or higher with proper technique.

Don’t you think that if the rate of spontaneous abortion in livestock was skyrocketing that we’d have heard about it earlier? We’d see a huge spike in the cost of meat and dairy if farmers had to artificially inseminate their sows and cows an increased number of times to succeed in a pregnancy and if a high rate of those pregnancies resulted in late spontaneous abortions. What about the relative rates of AI success and spontaneous abortions in countries that use glyphosate and RR crops vs those that don’t? Shouldn’t we see major differences?

Dr. Huber claims that the “micro-fungus” has been detected “in a wide variety of livestock that have experienced spontaneous abortions and infertility. Preliminary results from ongoing research have also been able to reproduce abortions in a clinical setting.” How was the claimed pathogen detected? With “laboratory tests”, of course! Unfortunately, zero explanation is provided of what these tests are, how or where they were conducted, etc.

Anecdotes aren’t sufficient evidence to justify policy changes

We are provided with an anecdote: “450 of 1,000 pregnant heifers fed wheatlege experienced spontaneous abortions. Over the same period, another 1,000 heifers from the same herd that were raised on hay had no abortions. High concentrations of the pathogen were confirmed on the wheatlege, which likely had been under weed management using glyphosate.”

Likely? This single word causes me to seriously doubt that a scientist wrote this letter. This anecdote is clearly not a scientific study because there are no controls and there is no confirmation of whether the feed did or did not have Roundup residues or the mysterious claimed pathogen present. To make conclusions based on a single situation we don’t even have details on is irresponsible at best. It is even more irresponsible to call for changes in national policy based on an anecdote.

Let’s consider this anecdote more closely. Glyphosate has been used as a herbicide since the 1970s. The amount of glyphosate use has increased with glyphosate resistant crops, and the amount of other herbicides used has decreased, at least until glyphosate overuse caused weeds to develop resistance (but that’s another story). As the use of Roundup and other glyphosate products has been increasing steadily, and crops that have been grown in fields that were treated with glyphosate have been being fed to livestock more and more over the years. If there is a link between glyphosate use and the rate of spontaneous abortions in livestock, then we should see a linear correlation between the two. In other words, the spontaneous abortion rate should be steadily increasing as glyphosate use has steadily increased.

Now let’s look at the two types of feed. Dr. Huber claims that 0% of heifers fed hay had abortions while 45% of heifers fed wheatlage (not wheatlege) had abortions. The wheat may or may not have been “under weed management using glyphosate”. Since there are zero genetically engineered varieties of wheat (Roundup Ready or otherwise) we know that the wheat itself was not sprayed with glyphosate because without the resistance gene it would die. Instead, glyphosate may have been used before the wheat was planted or along the edges of the field. Is this enough glyphosate to cause spontaneous abortions? If it was, then there would be a lot more abortions in livestock.

Can we think of anything else that may have caused the claimed abortion rates? Yes. Going back to the extension documents Abortions in Dairy Cattle and Abortion in Dairy Cows and Heifers, we learn that there are multiple causes for increased number of spontaneous abortions in cattle, including undiagnosed genetic abnormalities, heat stress and infection by certain types of viruses, bacteria, and parasites. Feed contamination with a variety of types fungi that produce toxins can also cause abortions in cattle, especially when the cattle are otherwise immunocompromised by things like stress or disease.

This anecdote can be easily tested by having two groups of randomly selected cattle fed feeds that are identical and grown under identical conditions except one has been under weed management with glyphosate and the other was weeded by hand or other non-chemical means.

Who is Don Huber?

We need to examine Dr. Huber’s experience and positions so we can determine whether he has relevant expertise to be discussing both the extraordinary claims made in this letter and his more reasonable claims that glyphosate could have an effect on mineral uptake and disease resistance. Unfortunately, the letter doesn’t lend him much credibility, assuming that he did indeed write it.

The letter is signed “COL (Ret.) Don M. Huber, Emeritus Professor, Purdue University, APS Coordinator, USDA National Plant Disease Recovery System (NPDRS)”. Dr. Huber retired in 2006 or 2007. He is listed as a faculty/staff member at Purdue but I wasn’t able to find a bio or CV page on the Purdue website (or indeed a bio or CV elsewhere, either, but that may be due to of all the blog posts re-posting the letter that may be pushing other results back more pages than I’m willing to sort through).

The NPDRS is a program called for in Homeland Security Presidential Directive Number 9 in 2004 “to ensure that the tools, infrastructure, communication networks, and capacity required to mitigate the impact of high consequence plant disease outbreaks are such that a reasonable level of crop production is maintained in the US.” It was “a cooperative effort of university, industry, and government scientists sponsored by The American Phytopathological Society (APS) and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).”

As far as I can tell, the last activity of NPDRS was in 2008, and their list of recommendations on the USDA page is a broken link (the correct link is here). Dr. Huber completed work on late wilt of corn for NPDRS and was the chair for that project, but is not listed as the coordinator of NPDRS and I could find no mention of him being the coordinator of the APS side of the partnership. Instead, Kent Smith, a USDA employe, is listed as the contact person for NPDRS. Don Huber is not listed as an employee of the USDA at this time.

Dr. Huber is a member of the Emerging Diseases and Pathogens Committee of the American Phytopathological Society (APS). He served as President of the APS North Central Division in 1988, and has served on other APS committees throughout the years, but does not currently hold any leadership positions with APS that I was able to find.

What work has Dr. Huber done?

Photo of Dr. Huber from a 2010 article in No-Till Magazine.

A search on PubMed for DM Huber results in 11 papers (one of which is not this DM Huber), including these two most recent listings:

1. Thompson IA, Huber DM, Schulze DG. Evidence of a Multicopper Oxidase in Mn Oxidation by Gaeumannomyces graminis var. tritici. Phytopathology. 2006 Feb;96(2):130-6. PMID: 18943915
2. Thompson IA, Huber DM, Guest CA, Schulze DG. Fungal manganese oxidation in a reduced soil. Environ Microbiol. 2005 Sep;7(9):1480-7. PMID: 16104870

I don’t know why PubMed has such paltry results. Web of Science provides 115 results for DM Huber in the Life Science category. None of the papers have any mention of a “micro fungus”. The two most recent are probably the most meaningful for this discussion. Each has been cited 9 times (mostly by the authors themselves).

1. Zobiole LHS, de Oliveira RS, Huber DM, et al. Glyphosate reduces shoot concentrations of mineral nutrients in glyphosate-resistant soybeans. Plant and Soil. 2010 Mar;328(1-2):57-69.
2. Johal GS, Huber DM. Glyphosate effects on diseases of plants. European Journal of Agronomy. 2009 Oct;31(3 SI):144-152.

Long story short, assuming that at least half of the 115 papers in Web of Science are actually this DM Huber (at least some belong to a DM Huber at the University of Cincinnati), we can say that he is a well published scientist that has published relevant subject matter in some fairly reputable journals for his field, including Phytopathology as recently as 2007 which has an impact factor of 2.2 (out of 5) according to Journal Citation Reports (not great, but not bad, either). Dr. Huber appears to have relevant and recent expertise on the subject of the effects of glyphosate on mineral uptake and disease resistance.

Next steps for “micro fungus”

The claimed “micro fungus” may indeed be a never before seen pathogen, perhaps a virus. At this time, however, there is not enough evidence to require action. More data needs to be collected in well designed experiments that needs to then be subjected to peer review.

Peer review is the “checks and balances” of science. A team of researchers writes up a report of their experimental design and results and submits it to a journal. Before it is published, it is reviewed by a team of scientists who evaluate whether the experimental design is sound, whether the conclusions are supported by the data, whether the statistics were done properly, and so on. Peer review isn’t perfect for multiple reasons, but as of now it is the best form of quality control for scientific research that we have. For a very good discussion of what peer review means to scientists, see Does peer review mean the same to the public as it does to scientists? This is just one part of an excellent discussion of peer review in Nature that should be required reading for every scientist as well as anyone even slightly interested in what scientists do and how to interpret science: Nature’s peer review debate.

Getting a paper through the peer review process is a necessary part of science validation, in part because of its rigid requirements that go above and beyond what one might put in a letter or a blog post. For one scientist’s first person experiences with peer review, see From blog to Science (thanks to Mary M. for the referral). Avoidance of the peer review system indicates that a researcher knows that their work won’t pass muster.

It is through the peer review process that extraordinary claims can begin to accumulate enough evidence to become accepted. There are plenty of examples of researchers who had extraordinary, some would say impossible, claims that have been proven to be true. Here are two of my favorite examples:

Susan Lolle claimed to find some examples of non-Mendelian inheritance in the plants she was studying. It looked like the seeds were “remembering” what type of environment their parents were in, which seems impossible! Other scientists tore her papers up, and pretty much openly laughed at her. She persevered, kept doing more very well designed experiments, and eventually convinced other scientists she had something. Now we understand that epigenetics is a way that DNA can “remember” environmental conditions. It’s a very exciting and still very strange new field of genetics.

Stanley Prusiner claimed to have isolated the cause of mad cow disease, claiming it was a protein that was misfolded that caused other proteins to also misfold. Like Lolle, Prusiner sounded crazy. How could this be possible? Through perseverance and hard scientific evidence, Prusiner proved that he was right and eventually won the Nobel Prize in medicine.

Any scientist who thinks they’ve find something extraordinary can either give up or persevere. If I found something that was unexpected in a preliminary experiment, I’d redo it first. If the same thing resulted, I’d talk to statisticians and experts in the field, make sure my experimental design was top notch. If I still got the strange result then I’d find a well respected scientist in the same field and ask their lab to redo the experiment or at least part of it to make sure it wasn’t just my lab coming up with the weird results. If it then was still happening, it’d be time to publish an impressive paper in Nature or Science with my well respected colleague as a co-author.

Not following this sort of path is a major shortcoming for a lot of scientists who have found unusual things. For whatever reason, there seem to be a lot of examples of scientists finding results about genetic engineering that go against established science that don’t bother going past that initial finding. The example that first comes to mind is Arpad Pusztai. Why didn’t he work on much better experimental designs before going to publish? Why didn’t he talk to some experts in plant studies so he could have had the proper controls? He took his preliminary results from some poorly designed studies and then ran with it and now people wonder why his work isn’t taken seriously. If Dr. Huber wants to be taken seriously with his “micro fungus” claims then he needs to emulate Lolle and Prusiner, not Pusztai.

Conclusions

This letter makes very little sense both in its sheer existence and in its details. Why would a reasonably well published scientist suddenly throw away everything we know about the scientific method to make claims about biologically impossible organisms with no evidence? Why is so little evidence presented and why is the evidence that is presented given as anecdotes instead of hard science? Most importantly, why would he make claims without going through the peer review process to ensure that his claims would be at least vetted by his peers?

Multiple sites have claimed to have spoken with Dr. Huber to confirm that he did indeed write this letter, but I remain skeptical that an experienced scientist would have released something so unscientific. Someone with as much experience as Dr. Huber should know that his fellow scientists (as well as government agencies) would require at least some proof before acting on extraordinary claims. Fred Gerendasy at Cooking Up a Story, wonders if the letter is a fraud. Perhaps the letter is real and he knew that no one with any knowledge of biology would accept the claims, but also knew that many non-scientists would latch on to claims that confirmed their own biases without question.

Dr. Huber’s colleagues at Purdue have responded to his claims about glyphosate use and crop mineral uptake (which I describe in Does glyphosate restrict crop mineral uptake?), but they are conspicuously silent on the “micro fungus”. The absence of analysis of the “micro fungus” claims tells me that his colleagues are politely ignoring this bizarre outburst. I would have done so as well, if it wasn’t for the prolific repetition of the claims on blogs and even news sites. It’s long past time for us to apply the Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science to Dr. Huber’s claims. Hopefully this post will give some balance to the discussion.

What are these chemicals that plants produce? What are they for? For the answers to these and many more questions about plant secondary metabolites, check out the teaser below and continue on to read Marc’s full post.

Green potato with solanine molecule. Images from Simply Recipes and Wikipedia.

A discussion about the secondary chemicals naturally present in fruits and vegetables, indeed in most sedentary or slow moving forms of life on earth including fungi and sea sponges, usually is immediate cause for raised eyebrows and furtive glances, especially in non-scientific circles.

By secondary plant metabolites, I mean the chemical by-products that are produced by primary plant metabolism. Primary plant metabolism involves the essential chemicals of life i.e.; carbohydrates, proteins, fats and chlorophyll that are directly involved in plant growth and development.

Secondary plant chemicals were, up until recently, thought to be either plant waste products or defensive chemicals for example, solanine, which is an alkaloid present in that green potato skin that you have been told not eat since you were a child, with good reason, it’s a nerve toxin and at high doses can induce sickness or even death. A 160 pound adult would probably need to eat several pounds of green potatoes to experience symptoms of dry mouth, heart palpitations and possibly delirium, a higher dose could cause paralysis and even death.

Caduceus with DNA via Ancestry.com

Francis Thicke, agronomist and organic dairy farmer in Iowa, asks:

Do you think there are unanswered questions about the health effects of GE foods? I have heard GE critiques frequently contend that there have been very few feeding trials on the health effects of GE foods, and that in the feeding trials that have been done, the results have raised questions about the safety of GE foods.

For starters, what is your opinion on the case of Arpad Pusztai and the results of his GE potato feeding trials that abruptly got him fired. Has anyone ever replicated his experiment?

There are a lot of important things to discuss in relation to these questions. Since it is so important, I have a few guidelines to suggest. To make this discussion easy to follow, please be careful to use the “Reply” button next to each comment if you want to stay in the same line of conversation (there should be up to 10 levels of replies allowed), or scroll to the bottom to the comment box if you want to start a new line of conversation. If you are making a specific claim, please provide a source, preferably a reliable one such as a scientific journal, government or university website, etc. Lastly, please try to stay away from fallacies such as the ones listed here. If we stick with sound information, we’ll all learn a lot more from the discussion.

The  study that Dr. Thicke refers to is Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine (pdf) by Stanley W B Ewen and Arpad Pusztai. It appeared in the Lancet on 16 October 1999 after some controversy, alongside two commentaries: Genetically modified foods: “absurd” concern or welcome dialogue? (pdf) and Adequacy of methods for testing the safety of genetically modified foods (pdf).

Ewen SW, & Pusztai A (1999). Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine. Lancet, 354 (9187), 1353-4 PMID: 10533866

Alfalfa by TwoWings via Wikimedia Commons.

Alfalfa is an awesome plant that is quite unique among field crops. It’s a legume, which means it can fix nitrogen (meaning less nitrogen fertilizer needs to be added) as well as being one of very few perennial crops, which means it can be left in the field to grow year after year and keep being harvested. It’s roots can grow quite deep so it can be very drought tolerant. It produces a high quality forage for animals, and is especially great for dairy cows.

One problem with alfalfa is that, as it is left to grow for multiple years, weeds can accumulate and the alfalfa stand will need to be plowed under. Weeds can be controlled to some degree with harvesting at just the right time (before the weeds make seeds) but at some point that isn’t enough. Enter Roundup Ready alfalfa which can be sprayed with the herbicide glyphosate to control weeds while leaving the alfalfa healthy. It allows farmers to leave their alfalfa stands standing longer.

The sky is falling… ok, not really

Groups like Food Democracy Now are urging people to sign petitions against the deregulation of RR alfalfa, claiming it will “fundamentally undermine the entire organic industry overnight” (emphasis theirs).

These petitions are being promoted by some pretty heavy hitters, including Michael Pollan. He tweeted:

Time to weigh in: the USDA is about to rule on GMO alfalfa, a serious threat to organic dairy. [with a link to the petition]

All hyperbole aside, is Roundup Ready alfalfa really such a threat? Does it really have the potential to destroy all that is organic in one fell swoop?

The truth is, no, it’s not and no it can’t. There are some specific facts about the way alfalfa is grown and harvested that actually mean that organic alfalfa production won’t be affected at all, and other organic crops certainly won’t be affected (because they aren’t sexually compatible with alfalfa anyway!).

Jeff Fowle is a farmer and rancher in California who has been growing alfalfa for 30 years. Here’s what he has to say about it:

For those throwing out arguments against GMO alfalfa, it is very apparent that they have no understanding of the production of the forage. Here are two major points about alfalfa that need to be understood.

First, alfalfa is harvested multiple times each year, called a “cutting.” Depending on the region it is grown, a farmer can get anywhere from two cuttings in the far north, to twelve cuttings in areas of southern California and Arizona. Alfalfa is cut at the point when its total digestible nutrient (TDN) is at its highest, which occurs at a point when the plant is just starting to “bud,” or develop its flower. If alfalfa is cut when it has reached full maturity, it has poor feed value, is extremely course, does not retain leaf and is good for little more than bedding.

Second, depending on the region, an alfalfa stand remains productive, yielding at least six tons per acre, per year, for six to eight years and is then rotated out or inter-seeded with grass to maintain forage yield, orchard grass is common in our area. It is not inter-seeded with alfalfa, because by the second year, alfalfa plants release a natural inhibitor in the soil that prevents new alfalfa plants from establishing. It is for this reason that either grass is inter-seeded or the stand is plowed under and rotated to another crop for at least a year.

There’s more alfalfa goodness in his post Roundup Ready Alfalfa, Understanding Practices. I hope you’ll check it out!

Seed production has special challenges even without biotech

Now, that doesn’t mean that RR alfalfa doesn’t have any complications at all. As with many biotech crops, seed production is where people must take care.  A non-biotech seed production field must be isolated from a biotech seed production field and vice versa. And two non-biotech seed production fields of different varieties must be isolated from each other as well. This is because fields that aren’t isolated from each other will cross pollinate and the resulting seed won’t be “pure”, meaning it won’t all be of the variety that the seed producer wants and will not be able to be sold for as high of a price.

There are already very strict regulations on how seed is produced, including alfalfa seed. For example, check out the General rules for seed certification of the state of Washington. The rules ensure that seed is pure, free of genes from other varieties and free of weed seed.

Land requirements for the production of alfalfa seed crop are as follows:

1. Prior to stand establishment an alfalfa seed crop of the same kind must not have been grown or planted on the land for four years for the production of foundation or registered class or one year for the production of certified class; except two years must elapse between the destruction of dissimilar varieties, which are varieties that differ by more than four or more points on a dormancy rating scale as reported by the National Alfalfa Variety Review board.
2. Reseeding of an alfalfa seed field due to failure or partial failure of the first seeding may be done by referring to the guidelines in WAC 16-302-045(5).
3. Ditchbanks, roadways, etc. adjacent to a certified alfalfa seed field must be free of volunteer alfalfa and prohibited noxious weeds.
4. Volunteer alfalfa plants in the alfalfa seed field may be cause for rejection or reclassification of a seed field.
5. No manure or other contaminating materials may be applied during the establishment and production period of the alfalfa seed stand.

Isolation requirements for the production of alfalfa seed crop are as follows:

Alfalfa seed crop for certification must be isolated from all other alfalfa varieties or fields of the same variety not meeting varietal purity requirements for certification as follows:

Remember, all of these special land and isolation requirements have nothing to do with biotech, they exist to keep one variety of alfalfa from contaminating another. The requirements have been tested and shown to provide ample protection for  a seed production field. The same methods would have to be used if RR alfalfa was deregulated by the USDA, but it may be appropriate for longer distances to be required if research showed that pollen could travel greater than 900 feet. In fact, there have been quite a few experiments done to see if additional precautions are needed for biotech alfalfa compared to non-biotech. And the result is that yes, some additional precautions probably need to be taken.

How much distance is enough?

USDA Agricultural Research Service plant geneticist Daniel Z. Skinner in Washington state and Kansas State University alfalfa breeder Paul St. Amand worked together on a 3-year biorisk assessment study way back in 2001. The goal of the study was to make sure “that problems don’t arise from the accidental dispersion of transgenic alfalfa pollen to wild populations of alfalfa.” They found that bees can carry alfalfa pollen at least 2/3 of a mile.

The researchers recommend that producers consider changing their seed-production practices. They suggest placing bee colonies in the center of the alfalfa field instead of along the side and surrounding the field with flowering crops like birdsfoot trefoil or sainfoin so that bees would become covered with other pollen and no longer transmit alfalfa pollen if they leave the field. These practices are expected to limit pollen dispersal, but Skinner cautions that more testing will have to be done.

Another study from 2001 by researchers from Forage Genetics found that a distance of 2000 feet (0.38 miles) reduced transgene flow to 0.05% which is far under the 0.9% required by the Non-GMO Project and the European Union. In fact, the 900 feet required under current foundation seed guidelines reduced gene flow to 0.34%, also well under the 0.9% guideline, as shown in this graph.

Other studies have found that pollen traveled greater distances, up to 1.7 miles – the distance likely varies widely by location and climate so recommendations that don’t take location into account (like the blanket rules proposed by Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack) could lead to distances that were either too great or too small.

These recommendations, combined with other science-based recommendations about seed production can be used to ensure that the transgene in biotech alfalfa won’t be found in non-biotech alfalfa or in wild alfalfas.

If that 0.05% isn’t enough to satisfy, there always exists the possibility that non-biotech alfalfa seed production areas can be designated by local or state governments, similar to the ban on canola (biotech or not) in Oregon to protect seed production of sexually compatible crops like broccoli as I described in Sugar beet biology (in the section Distance as mitigation strategy).

The solution to coexistence between biotech and organic isn’t running around like Chicken Little or crying wolf. The solution lays, as usual, in sound science guiding seed producers and farmers to make sound decisions.

For further reading on alfalfa and transgene flow, including specific discussion of what Monsanto and Forage Genetics are working on to avoid gene flow, see Seed production issues for genetically enhanced alfalfa (2004) by Shannon Mueller, University of California Cooperative Extension. Also see the Environmental Impact Statement (2010) the USDA conducted on RR alfalfa as well as other USDA documents on the subject.

Closed tomato flower by Rupert Brun via Flickr.

Imagine that you own a small business selling heirloom seeds. Your most important (and profitable) seeds are from a special open pollinated tomato variety that you painstakingly bred under over the past decade by hand crossing other heirloom varieties and selecting the best of their offspring. These tomatoes are everything a tomato lover dreamed of – the perfect red color, soft yet firm texture, sweet yet flavorful taste, and they have high yields to boot.

You’ve carefully transitioned your farm to organic and received your organic certification last year, so your seeds are in even higher demand than usual. Last year, you had far more requests for these special seeds than you could meet, so this year, you planted hundreds of tomato plants, planning to harvest all the seeds to dry and sell the following year to your tomato-hungry customers.

The weather is perfect, the flowers are maturing and about set pollen… and disaster strikes.

What’s the disaster? It could be any number of things. Farming is risky. There could be a few cold nights that cause the pollen to die before many fruits are pollinated. There could be a sudden flood that washes away half or more of the plants and stresses the rest. There could be a plague of locusts that destroy the plants. There could be an outbreak of a rare virus that affects the young fruit…

Or it could be your neighbor.

There are countless situations where neighboring farms can negatively affect each other. Even if everyone is as careful as can be, accidents happen. Here are just four examples to consider.

Missprayed pesticides 1

Pesticide being applied to tomato plants, image from the North Carolina State University Department of Environmental and Molecular Toxicology.

While you’ve transitioned to organic, your neighbor hasn’t. He’s having a heck of a time with spider mites on his plants and uses Orthene spray in an attempt to stop them from decimating his crop. Unfortunately, he risks spraying on a windy day. As soon as you see the sprayer, you run over to stop him, but the damage is done. Orthene has been sprayed over half your plants. Orthene is not an allowed substance according to US organic certification standards. If you’re in the United States, you’ll keep your organic certification, because you didn’t use the pesticide and your separation distance between your field and your neighbor’s was more than adequate, providing he doesn’t spray on a windy day. Still, you wonder if you should tell your customers about this incident. You wonder if there’s any legal action you can take against your bumbling neighbor for his improper pesticide use.

Missprayed pesticides 2

Your neighbor has a pretty nasty weed problem. You’ve tried to convince him to use a cover crop to keep weeds down between seasons, but he’s set in his ways. The conventional seed dealer in town convinces him to use the long-lasting herbicide Bromacil to wipe out the weeds. That’s not a problem, because you have planned for appropriate distances between his fields and yours. He decides to go all out and hire a plane to spray his field, but the pilot is a little young and accidentally sprays a few rows of your tomatoes. Now, not only do you now have a non-approved pesticide on your land that can stay in the soil for as long as two years, you have dead tomato plants. You’re fuming, of course, and have to figure out who to hold accountable.

Unfortunate hybrids 1

Bee pollinating a tomato flower by oceandesetoiles via Flickr.

Imagine that your neighbor also grows tomatoes. You notice that there are unusually large numbers of pollinators moving from his field into yours. You begin to grow concerned that your flowers are being fertilized by his pollen. You know that many of the resulting seeds won’t be of your special variety but a hybrid between yours and your neighbors. You might still be able to sell the seeds, but you know that the resulting plants won’t be what your customers expected. The taste may be different, the color may be different, many other traits could be affected. If you sell them without telling your customers what to expect from the seeds, especially your repeat customers, you know they’ll give you bad reviews and your business could decrease dramatically. If you tell your customers what to expect, you know you need to lower your seed prices, because the seeds are no longer for your special variety. Either way, you lose financially and your reputation suffers. You start to wonder if you can sue your neighbor for damages.

Unfortunate hybrids 2

You notice pollinators moving from the neighboring field into yours. In this scenario, your neighbor isn’t another farmer but university land – an experimental farm – where researchers from the state university grow who knows what. You heard a rumor that they’re growing GMOs over there so you investigate further by asking a friend in the ag department. Sure enough, you find out that there’s a researcher working on virus resistant tomatoes who has a permit to plant in the field this year. She had mesh cages over her plants and then released bees inside them so the plants could be pollinated. Usually the cages are secure, but for whatever reason, some of her cages were knocked over. The bees escaped, went looking for more flowers, and yours just happened to be the closest. The researcher’s experiment is ruined, and your plants may have been pollenated with her pollen!

Whose fault is it?

These are just four of many possible situations where a neighbor could affect a neighbor. In some cases, blame is clear, while in other cases, there really isn’t anyone to blame but the accidental forces of nature. Even when blame is clear, it’s not always easy to determine the damages, if any, owed to the person who has been harmed.

These neighborly problems aren’t even isolated to farms. The interactions between nature and humans are everywhere. What would you do if your neighbor’s unkept yard produced dandelions that blew into your yard? Can you sue him for the cost of the effort it will take you to remove the dandelions from your yard? What if your neighbor’s dog spreads kennel cough to your dog? What if your neighbor’s potato salad at the community picnic sickens everyone who tasted it?

At least when it comes to farming, there needs to be protections for both farmers who are the victims of an accident and who those who are the accidental perpetrators. There also need to be regulations that are reasonably written so farmers who are the victim of an accident don’t loose certification for speciality labels like organic.

Update: This post of hypotheticals was inspired by two very real recent events. First, in the US, the USDA is currently under discussion of GE alfalfa and how to find ways for co-existence of GE and non-GE alfalfa. Second, a farmer in Australia allegedly had his organic certification taken away due to GE canola volunteering on his land and plans to sue his neighbor. While there are certainly some issues of co-existence with any crops (GE, organic, or otherwise), it is clear that the zero acceptance policy of many proponents of certified organic farming with respect to genetically engineered crops is going to be the biggest problem for co-existence for a long time. There is hope though, as expressed by Secretary Vilsack in his Open Letter to Stakeholders to Urge GE and non-GE Coexistence. He concludes:

The rapid adoption of GE crops has clashed with the rapid expansion of demand for organic and other non-GE products. This clash led to litigation and uncertainty. Such litigation will potentially lead to the courts deciding who gets to farm their way and who will be prevented from doing so.

Regrettably, what the criticism we have received on our GE alfalfa approach suggests, is how comfortable we have become with litigation – with one side winning and one side losing – and how difficult it is to pursue compromise. Surely, there is a better way, a solution that acknowledges agriculture’s complexity, while celebrating and promoting its diversity. By continuing to bring stakeholders together in an attempt to find common ground where the balanced interests of all sides could be advanced, we at USDA are striving to lead an effort to forge a new paradigm based on coexistence and cooperation. If successful, this effort can ensure that all forms of agriculture thrive so that food can remain abundant, affordable, and safe.

Like it or not, sliced apples that don’t brown are in demand. Many children and some adults have hard time biting into whole apples. In addition, there is much convenience in being able to eat one slice at a time, no matter where you are. Some companies are producing sliced apples treated with a chemical solution to keep them from browning, and you can find them in some schools and in places like McDonald’s and Subway restaurants, but that has its own complications, including what some say is an off-taste and additional plastic waste.

A Canadian company has developed apples that won’t turn brown, which has the potential to solve this problem and get more people eating an apple a day. In this post, I’ll discuss the chemistry behind browning and the science behind non-browning fruits and vegetables.

The enzymatic reaction that turns apples brown within minutes is a major problem for home cooks and professional chefs alike. Just Google how to stop an apple from turning brown and you’ll get 2,770,000 results, including a pretty cool at-home apple browning experiment guide (pdf) by the Australian Institute of Food Science and Technology.

Phenol is the simplest of all the phenolic compounds.

Why do apple, potatoes, avocados, peaches, and many other fruits and vegetables turn brown when cut or bumped?

Phenols are a whole category of compounds found naturally in a lot of foods. Most plant phenols are fine for humans to consume and some even seem to have anti-cancer properties and slow aging, but some are toxins, some may cause cancer, and many do things like reduce the absorption of iron from food. The enzyme polyphenol oxidase catalyzes a variety of reactions among phenols. Polyphenol oxidase oxidizes phenolic compounds into quinones and then links the quinones into pigments that make the surface of light colored produce look brown. There are actually a whole family of polyphenol oxidases that each work on slightly different molecules, and each plant, animal, or bacterium may have many different genes for different types of polyphenol oxidases.

Dr. Anne Marie Helmenstine describes the chemistry behind the prevention of apple browning on About.com:

The reaction can be slowed or prevented by inactivating the enzyme with heat (cooking), reducing the pH on the surface of the fruit (by adding lemon juice or another acid), reducing the amount of available oxygen (by putting cut fruit under water or vacuum packing it), or by adding certain preservative chemicals (like sulfur dioxide). On the other hand, using cutlery that has some corrosion (as is seen with lower quality steel knives) can increase the rate and amount of the browning by making more iron salts available for the reaction.

Frank and a large Pink Lady apple. The apple was beautiful and delicious, but would have browned terribly if it had been prepared in advance for a fruit tray, salad, or similar fresh use.

All of the methods to deter browning have some effect on taste or texture, which is sometimes ok, sometimes not, depending on what you plan to do with the apples. If you’re baking a pie, or putting apples in a salad, a little lemon or salt probably doesn’t matter, but if you’re preparing apples for a fruit tray for guests to savor with cheese and wine, any apple contaminants are unacceptable.

Okanagan Specialty Fruits, a Canadian fruit breeding company in Summerland, British Columbia, has developed a way to keep apples from browning without the need for special heat or chemical treatments. How did they do it? The short story is that they silenced the gene that makes the polyphenol oxidase enzyme so that the enzyme is no longer produced. No enzyme, no browning.

As for the details, we don’t have many. If you’ve read any of the “news” articles about these apples, you know that lots of the stories are short on science and short on facts. The company isn’t telling much on their website*, and hasn’t published any peer-reviewed papers on their process (probably because they don’t want anyone to steal their ideas), so we’ll have to wait until the APHIS risk assessment for petition 10-161-01p is made public.

Until then, the AP article by Shnnon Dininny gives an important clue. USDA asked to approve GMO apple that won’t brown is pretty well researched and includes quotes from Neal Carter, president of Okanagan Specialty Fruits. Ms. Dininny writes: “the company licensed the non-browning technology from Australian researchers who pioneered it in potatoes.” Before I get into the details of how polyphenol oxidase was silenced in potatoes (and apples), there are some things that I apparently have to address, based on comments on this AP story on Grist and elsewhere. Here we go:

THE APPLES HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH MONSANTO.
THE APPLES HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH POTATOES.
THE APPLES ARE GOING TO ROT THE SAME AS ALL APPLES ROT.
THE APPLES ARE DIGESTED THE SAME AS ALL APPLES ARE DIGESTED.
THE APPLES HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH MONSANTO.

Sorry for yelling, but people just aren’t getting it, despite Ms. Dininny’s excellent reporting. Here’s hoping this post helps a little. On to the details.

RNA can bind to itself and form a "hairpin loop", creating double stranded RNA. This structure is key to RNA interference.

I think the Australian researchers that Ms. Dininny referred to are from CSIRO (the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, which is Australia’s national science agency), but they haven’t published anything specifically about polyphenol oxidase silencing either. They have published a lot of papers about their efforts to use RNAi, though, which leads me to believe that the gene for the polyphenol oxidase enzyme was silenced in the non-browning apples with RNA interference – RNAi for short.

RNAi is an amazing technology that can be used to shut off genes using the natural mechanisms that exist within a plant (or animal, fungus, etc). Karl has a great explanation of ”RNA that Interferes” in his post Cotton like Candy and other excellent explanations can be found elsewhere, such as on the Naked Scientists site, so I won’t go over it again, except to point out that RNAi is used by organisms as a defense against viruses that carry their genetic material as double stranded RNA. RNAi just uses that natural defense mechanism to effectively shut off a gene, and doesn’t require the addition of any new genes.

RNAi can be used to change characteristics in existing plants, such as turning off the genes in onions that make you cry, turning off the genes in wheat that make gluten (great for people with celiacs disease!), and turning off other allergens (such as in peanuts and apples). RNAi can also be used to add new characteristics in plants such as nematode resistance or virus resistance (both of which have been done in multiple species). It’s a very versatile tool that I expect we’ll see much more of as researchers and companies figure out new ways to use it, assuming that people can stop freaking out and actually take the time to learn what it’s all about.

Of course, shutting off a gene can cause unintended effects.

For example, a study by Cornell researchers in potato that used RNAi to reduce expression of polyphenol oxidase found that the plants also had reduced disease resistance (Thipyapong, 2004). Polyphenol oxidases seem to play a role in helping plants protect themselves and recover from disease. Note that this experiment reduced the expression of all polyphenol oxidases, not just one, and they used a constitutive promoter that is always on in all tissues. An earlier study, also from Cornell, used a tuber specific promoter so the polyphenol oxidases were turned off only in the potatoes, not in the rest of the plant, and the researchers didn’t find any adverse affects on disease resistance or anything else (Bachem, 1994).

Sometimes the unintended effects of genetic engineering can be very positive. The J. R. Simplot Company has also created reduced browning potatoes using RNAi. In a study that evaluated their potatoes compared to wild-type potatoes, the RNAi potatoes were found to have not only reduced browning but french fries made from the potatoes also tasted better, smelled better, and had greatly reduced accumulation of acrylamide, a toxin naturally produced in potatoes and other foods during high temperature cooking (Rommens, 2004).

Will these non-browning apples have negative unintended effects, positive unintended effects, or both? The truth is, we don’t know yet due to the lack of information coming from Okanagan Specialty Fruits. We’ll just have to wait for that APHIS risk assessment for petition 10-161-01p to see the details of the non-browning apples, but we have a hint in the review Plant Regeneration and Transformation in the Rosaceae (pdf, Rosaceae is the family of plants that includes apples):

Multiple years of field testing of this material confirmed the stability of the non-browning phenotype and have identified no negative impacts on horticultural traits, or on resistance to diseases and insects when grown under field conditions. The non-browning technology developed at [Okanagan Specialty Fruits] has been incorporated into a new enabling platform that: (i) eliminates the selectable marker, (ii) removes all interfering [intellectual property], (ii) uses only plant derived gene sequences and control elements, and (iv) improves the efficiency of gene silencing. Plants arising from this series of transformations are now entering field trials.**

Fruit tray by Tim Inconnu via Flickr.

Remember that fresh fruit tray that this post started with? Which would you prefer – apples treated with chemicals or heat, apples bred to brown a little more slowly, or apples engineered to silence the enzyme that causes browning?

I know what I’d choose for my lunches and for fruit platters that I’d present to my friends and family. Here’s hoping that these apples make it through the regulatory hurdles and lawsuits by activist groups, are planted by a farmer nearby, don’t get uprooted or otherwise destroyed illegally by activists, and make to my table.

.

Aldwinckle H, Malnoy M (2009). Plant Regeneration and Transformation in the Rosaceae Transgenic Plant Journal (3 (Special Issue 1)), 1-39

Bachem C, Speckmann G, van der Linde P, Verheggen F, Hunt M, Steffens J, & Zabeau M (1994). Antisense Expression of Polyphenol Oxidase Genes Inhibits Enzymatic Browning in Potato Tubers Bio/Technology, 12 (11), 1101-1105 DOI: 10.1038/nbt1194-1101

Helmenstine AM (2005). Why Do Cut Apples Turn Brown? About.com Chemistry. Accessed 1 Dec 2010.

Rommens CM, Ye J, Richael C, & Swords K (2006). Improving potato storage and processing characteristics through all-native DNA transformation. Journal of agricultural and food chemistry, 54 (26), 9882-7 PMID: 17177515

Thipyapong P, Hunt MD, & Steffens JC (2004). Antisense downregulation of polyphenol oxidase results in enhanced disease susceptibility. Planta, 220 (1), 105-17 PMID: 15300439

* If anyone from Okanagan Specialty Fruits reads this, it would probably be useful to have a little more info on your website. I know intellectual property is important, but some information is needed. You’re going to have rampant rumor and fear mongering no matter what, but additional info would really help people like me to do a good job of reporting the science. Also, using the trade name Arctic for these apples might not have been the best choice, in my opinion, because it brings to mind anti-freeze genes that we all know get people really freaked out (to anyone else reading this, no, non-browning apples have nothing to do with fish genes, anti-freeze, or anything like that at all).

** This information was from a seminar given at the 1st International Symposium on Biotechnology of Fruit Species, 1-5 September 2008 in Dresden, Germany by J Armstrong and N Carter titled “A new addition to the buffet”. Unfortunately, the text is nowhere to be found. The conference’s website didn’t have any presentation texts and it’s not available on Web of Knowledge either.

A diverse diet, made up of a variety of grains, beans, vegetables, fruits, and animal products is the best way to get all the essential macro and micro nutrients.

Over at Agricultural Biodiversity Weblog, Jeremy has been critical of information coming out of the First Global Conference on Biofortification. He wonders if the organizers and attendees were/are too focused on a techno-fix rather than on diverse diets as a solution. This being a conference on biofortification, we talked about biofortification a lot, and it could be argued that biofortification is a techno-fix, whether by breeding or biotechnology.

However, we talked about a lot more at the conference, including supplementation and fortification, diverse diets and education, cooking and farming methods. To say that diverse diets were ignored would be incorrect. That obviously isn’t getting through in the materials coming out of the conference through the organizers or media, which is a problem.

If we polled each conference attendee, I think most if not all would say that a diverse diet for every human on the planet is the ultimate goal. Many of the sessions addressed this specifically, getting into the details of how diet and nutrition are intertwined. Here are just three examples:

Percentage of funds spent by families on different items before and after a 50% increase in food prices. The red and green blocks represent high-nutrient foods from plant and animal sources. Image from Howie Bouis's plenary talk at the Global Conference on Biofortification.

For example, Merideth Bonierbale, of the International Potato Center, described how consumption of some potatoes that are high in vitamin C but low in iron can assist with absorption of iron in other foods for low-income people in rural areas of Peru.

Mark Failla, Professor of Human Nutrition at Ohio State, talked about  how cooking methods can change bioavailability of nutrients. Pro-vitamin A in cassava is more bioavailable in fufu than in gari, possibly because the high temperature used in roasting gari breaks the nutrient down. Because pro-vitamin A is fat soluble, adding oil helps make the vitamin more bioavailable, but even the type of oil can make a big difference.

Howarth Bouis, Director of Harvest Plus, in his plenary The Five Big Challenges, reminded us that the percentage of the diet that has the most vitamins isn’t grains but the leafy greens, animal products, etc. When the price of grain goes up, consumption of nutrient rich foods goes down, because the grains provide more calories per dollar. The people buying these foods might still have full stomachs but the nutrients aren’t there. Ideally, people would be able to buy those nutrient rich foods and eat a diverse diet, but we know that’s not what is happening out there, especially when food prices are high.

Why vitamins and minerals matter

While starvation due to lack of food is a problem that certainly needs attention, malnutrition due to lack of vitamins and minerals has gone virtually unnoticed. The hidden hunger of malnutrition affects an astonishing 1 in 3 people worldwide, according to the Micronutrient Initiative. Lack of key micronutrients, especially in the first 1000 days of life (from conception to the second birthday), results in adverse effects to cognitive and physical development as well as a reduction in immune function. Those key nutrients include iodine, vitamin A, iron, zinc, and folate.

The sad truth is that, in many places, whole generations of people are growing up with brains and bodies that aren’t what they should be. How can we expect these people to find ways to bring themselves, their families, their villages, and their countries out of poverty? The truth is, they can’t, or at least the task is far more difficult than it would be for people who weren’t malnourished. This is the real tragedy of malnutition. If we can find ways to deliver nutrition to this generation’s mothers and their young children, those children will grow up strong and smart, and able to fight off disease as they should be. If we can improve the nutrition of just one or two generations then they will be able to make change for themselves and those around them, including those who do not have enough food. We need to help these people receive adequate nutrition through any methods that are appropriate for the situation. The goal is not just a healthy diet, but a self-sufficient healthy diet.

What can we do?

Impoverished people aren’t getting the nutrients they need because they don’t have access to a diverse diet, often because they can’t afford to purchase anything but grains. The long term goal is to enable people to have access to a diet that includes vegetables, fruits, and animal products. That will take global, regional, and national efforts to increase incomes for the poor. These changes are obviously something we all want to do but also obviously something that is going to take a very long time. While we work on reducing poverty, we can make nutritional improvements to the foods people are eating. In the mean time, there are a lot of people who are getting enough calories but who can’t afford nutrient dense foods.

Can we improve staple foods to meet more of the nutritional needs of the people eating them? The answer is, in a lot of cases, yes. In the developed world, we have fortified foods, including iodized salt, iron and folic acid fortified flour. These interventions have been successful in eliminating deficiencies of those nutrients. Similar efforts have worked in the developing world, but rural areas, distant from roads, have not received the benefits. Another problem with fortified foods is that they do add to the cost of the food, which doesn’t work well for rural or urban poor who can’t afford even a few extra pennies. Some government fortification initiatives have worked, but require constant monetary input.

Another option for nutrient delivery is supplementation as pills, shots, vitamin packets that can be added to foods, or food products like Plumpy’nut. These can be very effective in certain circumstances, such as for disaster relief, or while longer-term fortification programs are being initiated. But they have some significant drawbacks, including the requirement for frequent delivery of often perishable products, low acceptance rates by the people who might benefit from them, side effects like nausea, and health problems from over-supplementation. And again, rural people often don’t have access to such products.

What can we do for those people in rural areas who don’t have access to fortified foods? Most people in rural areas farm, even if only a small plot of land. Can they farm more diverse foods? In some cases, yes, depending on soil and rain and other factors. In some cases, the people are lucky if they get a few potatoes or cassava or a few ears of corn or stalks of rice out of the ground, and adding additional crops isn’t possible. One of the speakers at the conference said that many farmers in developing countries only produce enough food for part of the year, and must purchase the rest (I unfortunately don’t remember who said this). If we can put the ability to accumulate more nutrients in the seeds themselves (or cuttings, in the case of potatoes and cassava), then those few staple foods can be that much more valuable nutritionally.

Biofortified crops

Biofortified crops have many advantages over fortified foods or supplements. First, the nutrients can be packaged in biological molecules are easily absorbed by the body yet recognized by the body so over-consumption (within reason) won’t result in overdose of the nutrient. Second, the seeds only have to be distributed once, if they are non-hybrid varieties, and each generation the seeds will still have increased nutrients. If they are hybrids, the seeds can be distributed via existing seed distribution channels (if they exist – obviously hybrids would not be a good solution where there is no way to purchase or otherwise obtain seed each year). Finally, the improved seed can be bred or engineered to contain not only improved nutrients but also disease resistance, stress tolerance, and other traits that will help the plants be more productive without additional inputs. The same is true for plants propagated by cuttings or tubers, but even more so because each plant is clonal so there is no chance of genetic drift reducing nutrient content or other traits.

Biofortified and otherwise improved plants would allow farmers to have a higher income due to greater yields, as well as providing nutrients to allow the farmer’s family to be strong and healthy. Biofortified crops have the potential for big impacts on urban and non-farming malnourished persons as well. If all someone can afford is a bowl of rice or a little corn for arepas, and biofortified varieties are available, then their food dollar can go much further nutritionally. Biofortified crops aren’t just useful for people in the developing world, either. We in the developed world often don’t get the nutrients we need despite access to a diverse diet, fortified foods, and supplements.

Of course, biofortification isn’t without problems. For example, there are unique economic issues that could arise. There is potential for biofortified varieties of a crop to be considered more valuable than non-biofortified varieties, so the biofortified food would actually be more expensive, just like the fortified food can be more expensive. This would benefit farmers but wouldn’t help non-farmers. However, unlike fortified food, after some time, the seeds could be passed from farmer to farmer until most of the available food is biofortified, so the price differential would no longer be there. Another option would be for a country to make rules about new seed varieties, such as saying that they must contain certain levels of a nutrient, so that over time all seed would be biofortified.

Moving forward

Ideally, biofortified crops would be developed in ways that would benefit small farmers in developing countries the most. There are many issues to consider but I think there are two that are the most important.

Golden Rice, just another improved rice strain, yet it has a great potential to cover micronutrient needs of rural, rice-based societies. Photo from Goldenrice.org.

First, the traits must be developed with the intent for free distribution to those who need it most. Governments and non-profit organizations like Harvest Plus are doing good work, but partnerships with corporations have a lot of potential. Golden rice (set to debut in 2012 with enough pro-vitamin A to meet nutritional needs with regular rice consumption levels) is the first example of a public-private partnership, although because it was the first, securing a humanitarian license wasn’t quite as smooth as it could have been.

Now, there is evidence that corporations see value in such partnerships, and the process is much smoother. The method being pursued by the Gates Foundation and Monsanto with Water Efficient Maize for Africa (PDF) could be used as a model for new public-private partnerships. They plan to distribute improved seed with the water efficient trait to low income farmers at no cost, while relatively wealthy farmers may be required to pay for the seed.

Second, the plants must come with education. In Kenya, for example, education of the health benefits of orange sweet potato over white sweet potato has been key to acceptance. One way to distribute information that was discussed at the conference is to train one trusted person in each village who will then be able to disseminate the information. If a foreigner just drops off some stuff, whether it’s seeds, medicine, or anything else, without information, the items might not be accepted.

I think it was Denis Kyetere, Director General of the National Agriculture Research Organisation in Uganda who said – imagine an African villager walking into your neighborhood and telling you what you need to do to be healthy, to exercise and eat more vegetables. Would you listen to an outsider? We don’t even listen to our doctors, but we might listen to a friend.

Community based education has been shown to work. One example is Living Goods, an Avon style service that provides life-saving medicines, supplements, condoms, and more at a low cost. Education comes along with the products. The “Health Promoters” who sell the goods are members of the community so are much more likely to be trusted.

The Center for Food Safety has a “new” document to bring to the discussion: an opinion (pdf) written by the National Marine Fisheries Service regarding a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers proposal about ocean net pens to raise finfish off the coast of Maine that was written in 2003. CFS talks about this letter in a blog post titled Newly Disclosed Government Documents Conclude GE Salmon Pose A Critical Threat To Marine Environments. Let’s just say there’s a few errors in the reasoning found in the blog post and indeed all over the GFS site about genetically engineered fish. Here, I’ll go over the blog post (I’ll let our excellent commenters take a look at the rest of the site) and discuss some of the errors.

The post opens with:

Adding a new twist to the controversy over genetically engineered (GE) salmon, the Center for Food Safety (CFS) revealed today that, in recent hearings on transgenic fish, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) knowingly withheld a Federal Biological Opinion by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) prohibiting the use of transgenic salmon in open-water net pens pursuant to the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA).

Is this fish crying? Maybe she read the CFS blog post.

The problem is that the opinion wasn’t about genetically engineered salmon. It was about the risks of any ocean farmed salmon, with a fairly small amount of discussion of transgenic fish (less than 3 pages of a document totally 101 pages, with a full 61 pages of text). Is this opinion relevant to the application by Aqua Bounty to raise transgenic salmon in two very specific land based facilities? Perhaps. Here’s everything the report says about transgenic fish:

page 27 Transgenic salmonids are prohibited at these facilities [referring to a list of permitted ocean pen fish farms]. Transgenic salmonids are defined as species of the genera Salmo, Oncorhynchus and Salvelinus of the family Salmonidae and bearing, within their DNA, copies of novel genetic constructs introduced through, recombinant DNA technology using genetic material derived from a species different from the recipient, and including descendants of individuals so transfected. This prohibition does not apply to vaccines.

page 34-35 [at the very end of the section Disease Factors, Predators, and Competitors discussing concerns of farmed salmon] Atlantic salmon and rainbow trout produced by the aquaculture industry (including non-North American strains and potentially transgenics) that escape from hatcheries or net pens also compete with wild Atlantic salmon.

page 74-75 [under the heading Transgenics]

The potential use of transgenic salmonids in the aquaculture industry has recently been identified as a possible threat to wild Atlantic salmon populations. Transgenic salmonids include fish species of the genera Salmo, Oncorhynchus, or Salvelinus in the family Salmonidae that bear, within their DNA, copies of novel genetic constructs introduced through recombinant DNA technology using genetic material derived from a species different from the recipient, and descendants of any individuals so transfected. Escaped, reproductively viable transgenic salmon could interbreed with wild fish. Research to develop transgenic fish for aquaculture increased through the 1980s and had advanced to the extent that, by 1989, production of 14 species of transgenic fish, including Atlantic salmon, had been reported (Kapuscinski and Hallerman 1990).

Transgenic fish produced for culture in marine net pens must be selected to survive under nearly natural physical and chemical environmental conditions. If they escape, therefore, it is likely that. a portion of them will survive. In a study by Sheela et al. (1999), transgenes were inherited in many progeny from transformed fish, as determined through DNA analyses and through expression of the reporter gene. If an introduced construct can find its way onto or into a chromosome before the first cell division of a newly-fertilized egg, all the cells in the developing organism, including future germ cells, will contain copies (Lutz 2000). The transmission of novel genes to wild fish could lead to physiological and behavioral changes, and traits other than those targeted by the insert gene are likely to be affected. Ecological effects are expected to be greatest where transgenic fish exhibit substantial altered performance. Such fish could destabilize or change aquatic ecosystems (Kapuscinski and Hallerman 1990).

In a study by Cook et al. (2000), growth-enhanced transgenic Atlantic salmon exhibited a 2.62- to 2.85-fold greater rate of growth relative to non-transgenic salmon, over the body weight interval examined. This study found that the transgenic experimental subjects possessed the physiological plasticity necessary to accommodate acceleration in growth well beyond the normal range for this species, with few effects other than a greater appetite and a leaner body (Cook et al. 2000). Because aquatic ecosystems function through complex interactions involving transfers of energy, organisms, nutrients, and information, it is difficult to predict the community-level impacts of releasing transgenic fishes that exhibit one or more types of phenotypic change (Kapuscinski and Hallerman 1990). At this time, more research is needed to identify the impacts that escaped transgenic salmon would have on natural populations and their habitat before use for commercial aquaculture is considered.

Research and development efforts on transgenic forms of Atlantic salmon and rainbow trout are currently being directed toward their potential for sea pen aquaculture. Emphasis has been placed on enhancement of growth and low water temperature tolerance through the transfer of genetic material from other cold-tolerant species, such as flounder. In 2002, the Food and Drug Administration received an application for approval to sell and possibly grow transgenic salmon in the United States for use by the aquaculture industry.

The prohibition on the Use of transgenic salmonids at existing marine sites off the coast of Maine (Special Condition No. 2) will eliminate the potentially adverse disease and ecological risks posed by the use of transgenic salmonids in aquaculture. The risk posed by a transgenic salmonid to wild salmon would be greatly affected by the specific gene manipulation conducted. Anyone proposing the use of transgenic salmonids in aquaculture would need to provide information on the methods used and the potential for genetic, fish health and ecological impacts on wild stocks. This information would have to be evaluated to determine the level of risk posed to wild Atlantic salmon stocks and a decision would have to be made as to whether that level of risk was acceptable or not. The use of transgenic salmonids will be prohibited under Condition No. 2 until such time as these risks can be evaluated.

A slightly better than superficial reading of this discussion of transgenic salmon reveals that the National Marine Fisheries Service is strongly recommending a ban on transgenic salmon in ocean pens due to concerns that the transgene will make the fish more fit than non-transgenic fish and that such a transgene would spread through natural populations if the accidentally released transgenic fish were reproductively viable. Anyone wanting to use transgenic salmon in aquaculture would need to provide clear information about the specific risks they may pose to wild salmon (which is exactly what Aqua Bounty did). I’m not sure if this recommendation was codified – if anyone knows, please provide that information in the comments.

CFS concludes something a little different:

“This adds further evidence that in fact GE salmon pose a serious threat to marine environments and is another compelling reason for the FDA not to approve the fish for commercial use,” said Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director of the Center for Food Safety.  “While the FDA applauded the company’s choice of land-based containment as responsible, it never revealed that it is illegal in the U.S. to grow genetically engineered salmon in open-water net pens.”

Is it actually illegal to raise transgenic salmon in open water pens? If it is illegal, is that relevant to a discussion of land based aquaculture? The differences between risks of ocean based compared to land based aquaculture are quite large, whether we’re discussing transgenic or non-transgenic fish. All ocean based aquaculture was determined by the same report to be quite risky to wild fish:

page 79 [Conclusion] Based on the close proximity of hundreds of fish pens to the GOM DPS [Gulf of Maine Distinct Population Segment] of Atlantic salmon, and the anticipated continued escapes, the best available scientific data and commercial information indicates that the continued operation of Maine aquaculture facilities poses a threat to individual wild salmon because escaped aquaculture salmon compete for food and habitat, disrupt redds, interbreed, thus disrupting breeding, feeding and sheltering of wild Atlantic salmon. Aquaculture facilities may also promote the transfer of disease and parasites to wild salmon, which may also adversely affect wild salmon.

The National Marine Fisheries Service thinks that the permit procedure and the special conditions the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers recommends will help mitigate the risk to wild fish. The special conditions (presumably applying to ocean pen aquaculture since that’s what the entire opinion is about) are:

(1) eliminating the use of non-North American strain Atlantic salmon; (2) developing containment management systems with loss control plans and audits; (3) marking aquaculture fish; (4) prohibiting the use of transgenic salmonids; and (5) requiring fish health certification before stocking alternative salmonids.

CFS thinks that this report means that transgenic fish are a great threat, but it’s clear that National Marine Fisheries Service thinks that all ocean pen aquaculture is a great threat. National Marine Fisheries Service seems to think that these conditions are enough to mitigate the risk, although I am skeptical. Anyway, the only thing that sets transgenic fish apart is that there are more unknowns, or at least there were at the time, when the literature indicated that fast-growing salmon would be better able to compete than salmon without a growth hormone transgene. Later studies have shown that the fast growing salmon have behavioral phenotypes that actually make them less likely to survive than non-transgenic salmon. For example, fast growing salmon are more fearless such that they are more likely to be eaten by predators.

An opinion (pdf) by the Environmental Protection Agency in 2001 on the same subject (whether there should be ocean pen fish farms allowed off the coast of Maine where there are a lot of wild salmon) says pretty much the same thing, with some of the text seemingly cut and pasted from the 2001 Environmental Protection Agency opinion to the 2003 National Marine Fisheries Service opinion.

Anyway, CFS thinks that since these two documents weren’t presented earlier, that must mean the FDA is keeping information from the public. Maybe, but it seems more like these documents weren’t relevant to the discussion of Aqua Bounty’s application for land based facilities rearing fish that are sterile 98% of the time or more (on average).

The CFS post concludes:

Conversations between NOAA and FWS staff in 2009 highlight a Swedish study that found that in simulated escapes, transgenic fish have a “considerably greater effect on the natural environment than hatchery-reared, non-transgenic fish when they escape.” The study further noted that genetically modified fish survive better when there is a shortage of food, benefit more than non-transgenic fish from increasing water temperatures, and can be more resistant to environmental toxins that may ultimately end up in consumers.

Why does’t anyone ever provide a proper citation? According to Web of Science, there were 2,044 papers about salmon published in 2009. Out of the subset of 28 papers that also included the word transgenic, I think the study they’re referring to is:

L. Fredrik Sundström, Wendy E. Tymchuk, Mare Löhmus, & Robert H. Devlin (2009). Sustained predation effects of hatchery-reared transgenic coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch in semi-natural environments. Journal of Applied Ecology, 46, 762-769 : 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2009.01668.x

This study didn’t mention toxins at all, or temperatures, but did find that transgenic fish with a growth enhancing gene ate more than non-transgenic fish, at least at first. After about two months, all fish were the same size (not significantly different sizes), including: non-transgenic fish, transgenic fish that were fed an amount of food that restricted them to approximately the same size as non-transgenic, and transgenic fish that were allowed to eat as much as they wanted. The reduced swimming capacity of the transgenic fish that were allowed to eat as much as they wanted led to higher ability of prey to swim away, leaving those prey for other fish. It wasn’t apparent from this study that transgenic fish would have a greater effect on the environment than non-transgenic farmed fish.

Finally, there wasn’t any mention in the Environmental Protection Agency or National Marine Fisheries Service documents about  risks of fish bred for specific traits such as fast growth to wild fish. The natural variation in salmon populations for size, growth rate, etc is pretty wide. It’s very possible that a breeding program could develop super salmon without any genetic engineering and those super salmon could potentially be a threat to wild salmon, particularly if they were farmed as reproductively viable individuals in ocean pens near by wild salmon populations. Perhaps this is covered by special condition 1: “eliminating the use of non-North American strain Atlantic salmon”? This is unlikely to have any real positive effect, since the problem of ocean farmed salmon escaping is that they spread a) disease and b) genes that are far less diverse than those in wild populations even when they are of the same strain. I stand by my previous assertion that both ocean farmed non-transgenic salmon and fishing of wild fish are a greater risk to wild salmon than transgenic salmon in land based facilities.

.

Hat tip to Mark Bittman (@bittman) for creatively tweeting about the CFS blog post:

FDA hid evidence about threats posed by genetically engineered salmon. Your tax $ at work: http://bit.ly/aYJGbl

I’ve been a strong advocate of Bittman’s work. He advocates a diet that is mostly plant based  for environmental and health reasons but allows meat as an indulgence. I have a lot of respect for his stepping out with this rare practical viewpoint. I love his How to Cook Everything Vegetarian and recommend it to everyone, especially if you’re not an experienced cook. But, I don’t love uncritical tweets. Mark, if you happen to read this, please, please consider some critical thinking material such as the Skeptoid podcast where Brian Dunning takes the listener through the process of claim, evidence, evaluation of claim.