Minggu, 05 Januari 2014

When the sheeple get lost in a sea of noise about GMOs, good investigative journalists can provide a clearer view of the truth


Amy Harmon at the NYT reports the evolution of a GMO crop ban in Hawaii, and the difficulty of internet research on the issues in a sea polluted with misinformation:

...Like some others on the nine-member [Kona, Hawaii] Council, Greggor Ilagan was not even sure at the outset of the debate exactly what genetically modified organisms were: living things whose DNA has been altered, often with the addition of a gene from a distant species, to produce a desired trait. But he could see why almost all of his colleagues had been persuaded of the virtue of turning the island into what the bill’s proponents called a “G.M.O.-free oasis.”
“You just type ‘G.M.O.’ and everything you see is negative,” he told his staff. Opposing the ban also seemed likely to ruin anyone’s re-election prospects.
Yet doubts nagged at the councilman, who was serving his first two-year term. The island’s papaya farmers said that an engineered variety had saved their fruit from a devastating disease. A study reporting that a diet of G.M.O. corn caused tumors in rats, mentioned often by the ban’s supporters, turned out to have been thoroughly debunked.
And University of Hawaii biologists urged the Council to consider the global scientific consensus, which holds that existing genetically engineered crops are no riskier than others, and have provided some tangible benefits.
“Are we going to just ignore them?” Mr. Ilagan wondered.
Urged on by Margaret Wille, the ban’s sponsor, who spoke passionately of the need to “act before it’s too late,” the Council declined to form a task force to look into such questions before its November vote. But Mr. Ilagan, 27, sought answers on his own. In the process, he found himself, like so many public and business leaders worldwide, wrestling with a subject in which popular beliefs often do not reflect scientific evidence.
At stake is how to grow healthful food most efficiently, at a time when a warming world and a growing population make that goal all the more urgent.
Scientists, who have come to rely on liberals in political battles over stem-cell research, climate change and the teaching of evolution, have been dismayed to find themselves at odds with their traditional allies on this issue. Some compare the hostility to G.M.O.s to the rejection of climate-change science, except with liberal opponents instead of conservative ones.
“These are my people, they’re lefties, I’m with them on almost everything,” said Michael Shintaku, a plant pathologist at the University of Hawaii at Hilo, who testified several times against the bill. “It hurts.”...

More @ A Lonely Quest for Facts on Genetically Modified Crops - NYTimes.com:



Kamis, 02 Januari 2014

Tanzania: Tensions over Genetically Modified Crops | Pulitzer Center


Published October 17, 2013
FINNIGAN WA SIMBEYE
DAR ES SALAAM, Tanzania — A typical Tanzanian family will not pass a day without eating ugali — a stiff porridge made from ground corn, somewhat like Italian polenta.

Would Tanzanians eat ugali if the flour came from genetically modified corn?

Tension over that question is tearing at the country, with scientists insisting the answer should be “yes,” while GM foes say, “No way!”
Most of Tanzania’s corn is grown by smallholder farmers who typically plant seeds from traditional varieties and rely on natural rains. But the rains have failed them. The country’s 44 million people suffered severe droughts in 2003, 2005 and 2011. Millions needed food handouts to survive.
Beyond drought, local scientists say this basic crop also is threatened by climate change, disease and pests.
Genetic modification could help overcome those problems, scientists say. The technology has been adopted by more than 17 million farmers in other countries.
Under current government regulations, though, Tanzanian scientists cannot conduct field trials with GM plants. And farmers cannot cultivate any crop developed with the new biotechnology.
Alois Kullaya is one of several local scientists who are urging the government to relax the regulations. He is principal agricultural research officer at Mikocheni Agricultural Research Institute and also Tanzanian coordinator of a research consortium called Water Efficient Maize for Africa.
“We have finished confined laboratory trials from genetically modified seeds in 2009, but until now we can’t conduct field trials because of restrictive liability regulations, which means that all this research goes to waste,” Kullaya said....

Tanzania: Tensions over Genetically Modified Crops | Pulitzer Center:

H/T Mark Lynas on Twitter

Global Poverty Rates and Economic Growth -- Growth (not Greed) is Good


Roger Pielke's blog highlights an important insight: Growth is good:
Quote:
The figure above comes from a recent, excellent paper by Martin Ravallion, The Idea of Antipoverty Policy, which shows a dramatic acceleration in the reduction of global poverty since 1950,

Ravallion makes two observations based on the graph (of which he notes, "Neither observation has been made before to my knowledge"):
The middle of the 20th century saw a marked a turning point in progress against poverty globally. Figure 2 plots two series for the $1 a day poverty rate, from Bourguignon and Morrisson (2000) and Shaohua Chen and Ravallion (2010). There is a long list of data problems in these sources and their comparability. However, these are the best estimates we have, and the comparability problems are unlikely to alter two key observations from Figure 2: First, the incidence of extreme poverty in the world is lower now than ever before. While there have been calls to end extreme poverty at various times during the last century or so, they are surely now more credible than ever. Second, the time around 1950 saw a turning point, with significantly faster progress against extreme poverty.
More @ Roger Pielke Jr.'s Blog: Global Poverty Rates and Economic Growth:


Genetically Modified Domestic Product is $350 billion in revenues, or about 2.5% of GDP-- synthesis blog

Rob Carlson is good for providing the bottom line on synbiology:
Quote
GMDP
As I announced during a Congressional Briefing in November, the total 2012 U.S. revenues from genetically modified systems, hereafter the Genetically Modified Domestic Product (GMDP), reached at least $350 billion, the equivalent of approximately 2.5% of GDP, up from $300 billion in 2010. For comparison, according to IHS iSuppli, the 2012 globalrevenues for the semiconductor industry amounted to $322 billion. Remarkably, assuming a 2011-12 GDP annual growth rate of 2.5%, the two year, $50 billion increase in GMDP accounted for almost 7% of total U.S. GDP growth.
Due to differences in regulatory structure, financing, and, consequently, pace of development and commercialization across the industry, the GMDP naturally breaks down into the sub-sectors of biotech drugs (biologics), GM crops, and industrial biotechnology...

More @ The U.S. Bioeconomy in 2012 reached $350 billion in revenues, or about 2.5% of GDP. - synthesis:


Natural GMOs Part 188. Red Queen Redux. Jungle Chemical Warfare Battle for Survival May Yield the Rain Forest’s Diversity

Image, Tenial, Copyright expired.
Carl Zimmer explains the jungle chemical warfare story:
...Plants are not helpless victims, however. They have evolved a staggering variety of defenses. Some grow cups of nectar on their leaves to attract sugar-hungry ants, which also attack insects feeding on the leaves. Some plants defend themselves by sprouting hairs. “To us they seem soft and fuzzy,” Dr. Coley said, “but to a small caterpillar with a soft belly, they can be more like meat hooks.”
The most impressive defenses in tropical plants are invisible, however. A plant may pack each of its leaves with hundreds of kinds of insect poisons. Those toxins can make up half the dry weight of a tropical plant leaf.
As farmers know all too well, insects can evolve resistance to pesticides. A similar evolution plays out in tropical forests, where insects can disarm many of the chemicals that plants use against them.
Of course, plants in temperate regions face attacks from insects, too. But Dr. Coley and Dr. Kursar argue that those plants are more adapted to the bigger threats they face, from the bitter cold of winter and other environmental challenges. In the tropics, plants enjoy a balmy climate year-round. While the physical environment poses less of a threat to tropical plants, it makes insects a bigger danger. They can grow faster in the warm, moist climate; without killing frosts, they can produce more generations each year.
The tropics have thus become host to an arms race. Each species of plant is evolving defenses against its enemies, which evolve counterdefenses in turn. This arms race would explain why tropical plants have become so loaded with toxic compounds...
More @ Battle for Survival May Yield the Rain Forest’s Diversity - NYTimes.com:

About On Tropical Forests and Their Pests
Phyllis D. Coley, Thomas A. Kursar
Science 3 January 2014: Vol. 343 no. 6166 pp. 35-36 DOI: 10.1126/science.1248110

Key Quote
"Evidence from several lineages of tropical trees and shrubs shows that closely related species have diverged in defenses while differing little in nondefense traits (9–12). This supports the Red Queen hypothesis (13), which states that antagonistic interactions between hosts and their pests lead to natural selection for beneficial adaptations and counter-adaptations in both groups. Because herbivores are continually evolving counter-adaptations to plant defenses, plant defensive traits should evolve faster than adaptations to a more static abiotic environment."

References and Notes

1. S. J. Wright, Oecologia 130, 1 (2002).
2. C. Baralotoet al., J. Ecol. 100, 690 (2012).
3. D. T. Palowet al., Funct. Ecol. 26, 1144 (2012).
4. B. E. Sedioet al., J. Ecol. 100, 1183 (2012).
5. X. Liuet al., Funct. Ecol. 27, 264 (2013).
6. E. G. Leighet al., Biotropica 36, 447 (2004).
7. D. W. Schemskeet al., Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 40, 245 (2009).
8. J. X. Becerra, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 104, 7483 (2007). The impact of herbivore–plant coevolution on plant community structure
9. T. A. Kursaret al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 106, 18073 (2009). The evolution of antiherbivore defenses and their contribution to species coexistence in the tropical tree genus Inga
10. B. E. Sedio, thesis, University of Michigan (2013)
11.  J. X. Becerra, K. Noge, D. L. Venable, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 106, 18062 (2009). Macroevolutionary chemical escalation in an ancient plant–herbivore arms race
12. P. V. A. Fineet al., Ecology 94, 1764 (2013).
13. L. Van Valen, Evol. Theory 1, 1 (1973).
14. M. R. Servedioet al., Trends Ecol. Evol. 26, 389 (2011).

See also previous GMO Pundit posts: 






BLINDSIDED is OUT!

Today is the day! I officially have two novels out in the world and a series published (okay, a duology) and all that stuff. I'm quite excited for TRANSPARENT fans to be able to read the rest of Fiona's story, and I hope they enjoy it.

Ever since Hot Key Books approached me last January and asked me to write this sequel, I've felt incredibly lucky. By then I had accepted that, even if I'd always felt like there was more to Fiona's journey, I wouldn't get a chance to write it. I had made peace with that. So to suddenly be told that I'd get to finish what I started felt like a gift. A difficult gift, but a gift nonetheless.

Since BLINDSIDED was kind of a "surprise" in my career, I have to admit this day is much less stressful than my debut in May 2013. It feels like icing on the cake in a lot of ways. And how can you be worried about some extra frosting?

Maybe it's also that second books are less pressure—at least for an author who is not a bestseller or even close and has no expectations to be so (it's probably different if you're the author of a very popular series). I wrote this book for the people who already love TRANSPARENT, you know? And since there were no ARCs and little publicity in the US (different in the UK), I admit it has been blissfully low-key, with few early reviews to derail my confidence like with my debut.

BLINDSIDED has lived up to its title at almost every stage. Surprises around every corner! So I don't quite know what to expect now that it's out in the world, but by now I'm assuming it won't be anything predictable. That's kind of exciting.

***

You can order BLINDSIDED though these venues:

Amazon
Book Depository
IndieBound
The King's English (If you order online or call 801-484-9100 today, I can sign and personalize your book at my signing tonight and they will ship it to you!)


There will be TWO signings in January for BLINDSIDED: 
BLINDSIDED Launch Party:
January 2, 2014
The King's English
Salt Lake City, UT.
7PM
(If you want to pre-order a signed copy—or you can't get there and want a signed copy—call the store at or.)

Southern California Signing—With Kiersten White and Shannon Messenger!
January 23, 2014
Oceanside Barnes & Noble
Oceanside, CA
6PM

Rabu, 01 Januari 2014

20 GMO questions: Animal, vegetable, controversy?

A journalist doing honest research. Nathanael Johnson at Grist does a good summary :

This is a slightly unusual end-of-the-year list. Instead of a selection of the best or worst news over the year, this is simply a bullet-point summation of what I’ve learned about GMOs in 2013.

When I started this series, I proposed to cut through the debate by finding the facts that both sides agree upon. I also proposed to do this (back in July) “over the next few weeks.” Ha. Not only has this taken me much longer, I’ve also learned that this controversy has turned into something resembling trench warfare, where the two sides refuse to agree on anything, lest they give up an inch of their hard-won position. So I don’t expect everyone to agree with the list below, but I do expect that reasonable people on both sides will concede (if only under their breath) that the bulk of the evidence leads to these conclusions.

As I’ve dug into this over the past six months, I know I’ve provided more detail than all but the most fascinated readers really wanted. In this list, therefore, I’ve aimed for brevity. If you want more nuance I’ll include links to the longer stories, which, in turn, contain links to even more technical scholarly articles, not to mention a detailed dissection of my every sentence in the comments.

Regulation

I’ve heard that GMOs are totally unregulated, is that true?

Nope. In the United States, GM food is regulated by the USDA, the FDA, and the EPA. The FDA process is technically voluntary, but every creator of GM food has opted to jump through those hoops, so it’s voluntary in name only. Genetically engineered foods are regulated much more heavily than many other new technologies, including other modes of genetically modifying crops, like mutagenesis.

Caveats: The regulatory process is not transparent — you can’t just go on the web and look up the tests that have been performed. And non-food plants may escape regulation, as was the case in this instance.

More nuance here.

Academic freedom

Do the big seed companies prevent scientists from doing research on their patented plants?

They used to. Not anymore. I’ve been asking university scientists if they’ve run into restrictions, but the system seems to be working.

More nuance here.

Are there dangers for scientists working on genetically engineered plants?

Yes. Anyone who challenges an accepted paradigm — like the consensus that genetic engineering is basically safe – will come under attack (see Copernicus, Galileo, and Thomas Kuhn). On the other hand, there are huge rewards for anyone who is able to overturn a paradigm...

Continues @ 20 GMO questions: Animal, vegetable, controversy? | Grist: