Plant Biotechnology as Time Travel?

(This post first published on Science 2.0, 8/29/12)

In the last few months there have been two examples where we have seen brand new biotech crops that are tolerant to relatively old herbicides. It feels a little bit like time travel.  Dow AgroSciences is developing 2,4-D tolerance trait for corn.  That is an herbicide which was first released in 1946.  Monsanto is developing a dicamba tolerance trait. That herbicide was first commercialized in 1967. Both have recently moved to the USDA comment period stage for their regulatory status.

Ok, going back 46 or 67 years isn't as exciting as traveling through space and time in, say, Dr. Who's Tardis (above), but it is an interesting phenomenon for agriculture.

As a 57-year old, I'm gratified that technologies of my general vintage are still relevant for agriculture.  But what is the deal?  Why are we talking about such old products?  What does this tell us about biotechnology, chemistry, and science in general?  I'd say several things:

• Plant biologists are practical realists who anticipated resistance issues
• A more diverse weed control "Toolbox" is always a good thing
• Some old chemistry is actually very good chemistry
• Its hard to find good, new herbicides

Plant Biologists Are Practical Realists Who Anticipated Resistance Issues

In a bit of  "time travel" of my own, I recently found a clipping from the 10/24/1996 Wall Street Journal that a friend had snail-mailed to me as people did in those days.  It was a very comprehensive article about the first big year of biotech commercialization, and it included the following passage:

 "...some scientists worry that chronic use of these types of crops might hasten the evolution of even tougher insects and weeds."  

That was something already being discussed in the mainstream press in'96.  Weed scientists anticipated glyphosate resistance development in weeds well before that. This is because, as biologists, they understood that some weeds have become resistant to almost all control strategies over time.  That is just the biology of putting a selection pressure on a diverse genetic base.  The dicamba resistance trait story is a good example of this sort of awareness in action.

One of those scientists, Dr. Donald Weeks of the University of Nebraska, began looking for a solution long before there was really a problem in farmer's fields.  I first heard about his work seven years ago, and by that time he had already identified a gene from Pseudomonas maltophila which could allow rapid metabolism of dicamba, engineered it into soybeans, and demonstrated that it conferred tolerance in the field. This took many years of effort which was followed by years of additional work by Monsanto after they licensed the technology from the University. Monsanto has also collaborated with BASF, the German agricultural chemical company, to develop new formulation technology for the old herbicide to deal with its volatility issues.

There has been much written on the blogosphere implying that glyphosate tolerant, "super weeds" are some unexpected and terminally detrimental down-side of biotech crops.  Fortunately both the academic and business entities involved with agriculture understand the perennial struggle with weeds, and have been proactively innovating to respond.

A More Diverse Weed Control "Tool Box" Is Always A Good Thing

Last week I emailed several prominent weed scientists and herbicide resistance experts to ask what they think about things like the dicamba and 2,4-D resistance traits.  I promised that I wouldn't quote them individually specifically to see if they would want to express concerns that might be controversial.  They all said that these new herbicide resistance traits are potentially good options to add to a more sophisticated weed management system.  They acknowledged that there are some weeds already resistant to each herbicide and some limited cross-resistance between them, but their bottom line was that these could be valuable new tools for growers if used properly.  The grower community has a good appreciation of the need for new tools.  There are also plenty of warnings being sounded about the need to be careful not to mis-use the new options.  In these cases, the tool box is being expanded by allowing existing herbicides to have new uses.

Some Old Chemistry Is Actually Very Good Chemistry

There are scores of products from the pre-EPA era of dicamba and 2,4-D that have either been banned or voluntarily withdrawn from the market as we have made great advances in both the environmental and health risk assessment of chemicals.  These two products are from the short list of "survivors" of this process, which means that they have been repeatedly scrutinized and still found to be acceptable.  Both have low mammalian toxicity.  The fact that they are still useful herbicides also suggests that they have not, like some chemistries, selected for resistance too fast in too many species.  These are essentially old work-horse chemicals that have proven their value.  They are long-since off patent, but both have volatility issues that have since been addressed by new formulation technologies.  Even so, no company has a lock on these markets, so their upcoming use is not an example of a biotech trait that provides any biotech company with a monopoly on the sale of a related, chemical product.

Its Hard to Find Good, New Herbicides

It has been 22 years since I was directly involved in the discovery process for new, synthetic agricultural chemicals, but I know how much research investment it takes to find those leads.  Recently, I have been amazed at the number of new fungicide and insecticide classes that have been found which are amazingly "soft" from both an environmental and health perspective. I'm impressed with what the discovery companies have accomplished here.  There have been some new herbicides discovered over those years, and even of late, but not nearly as many as with insecticides and fungicides.  It just seems to be difficult to find new herbicides.  In any case, this is one of the reasons that old standards like dicamba and 2,4-D still need to play an important role in practical weed control.

Conclusion

So, it is a fascinating scenario that chemistry from the 1940s to 1960s might become an even more important part of weed control decades later.  The significant challenge of feeding a growing and economically advancing world population requires on-going research in many fields.  It also requires the all important role of the grower who ultimately integrates a wide range of tools to improve productivity and sustainability of the farming enterprise.

You are welcome to comment here and/or to email me at savage.sd@gmail.com

Tardis image from Duncan Hall (Cradlehall)

reade more... Résuméabuiyad

6 More Reasons To Vote No On California Prop 37

I’ve posted a blog about why GMO labeling is basically illogical.  If you take the time to read the actual proposition, there are at least six more reasons that proposition 37 on the California ballot this fall is a really bad idea that voters should reject.  

1.    This is asking for something that is a great deal harder than it sounds.

Almost all GMO crops are commodity grains.  To understand what labeling these crop ingredients means means, think of a river.  When it rains, little rivulets of water begin to run off of the ground, and then combine into small creeks.  These combine to make streams that eventually combine to make a river. By the time the water is in the river, it is so mixed that you could never know which drop came from where. The commodity grain industry is much like that river.  Many fields are harvested using the same harvesters and grain wagons (see first image above). That grain then goes either to a grower's silo or to a local elevator, which combines the harvest from many farms and fields.  

The grain is later moved in things like 110-car freight trains or giant barges or ships, which again mix various sources. Along that path, some of the grain is processed into ingredients for human food, while most of it goes to animal feed. 

Along this complex, but highly efficient path, there is so much mixing (“co-mingling” in grain-speak) that a question like, “did this come from a GMO or non-GMO field,” is impossible to answer.  In all those steps, keeping GMO and non-GMO grain separate is inefficient (e.g. different harvesting equipment, partially filled trucks, dedicated bins, paperwork…).  That makes it costly.  It would also be very difficult to prevent a little bit of onetype of grain out of the other because a little can be left behind in a harvester, truck, bin, etc.  In theindustry that is known as “adventitious presence.”

The 0.5% threshold specified in the legal text of prop 37 would be highly problematic from a practical point of view. Considering that biotech traits are used in a very large percentages of the soybean, corn, canola and sugar beet crops, it makes much more sense to allow something that has been expensively segregated to be labeled “non-GMO,”as is already the case. 

2.    This initiative would create a field day for lawyers.  If this initiative is passed, anyone who wants to can take acompany to court if they think they are selling unlabeled GMO foods.  They don’t need to go to any governmentagency with oversight  - just straight to court.  There don’t have to be any damages in question.  The courts are also allowed to award the accusing party compensation for courtcosts and for the costs of investigating the food in the first place.  Given the practical challenges described above, this initiative would create a thriving litigation industry for exactly the kind of lawyers who wrote this proposition in the first place.

3.    This initiative would effectively restrict the use of the marketing term, “natural.”

Any foods which are even minimally processed (e.g. milling of wheat to make flour) cannot be marketed as “natural” under this potential law unless they are either specifically tested for GMO status or come from a highly segregated channel complete with an audit trail and sworn affidavits.  That would even be true for foods made from crops that don’t even have commercial, biotech traits.  Thus, unless a food is certified Organic (specifically exempted in this initiative), it becomes expensive and legally risky to call it “Natural.”  Arguably, the marketing term “natural” is over-used, but the answer to that isn’t to create an uneven playing field through a proposition that is promoted for a completely different reason.

4.    It will be virtually impossible to fix any unintended consequences of this law.  This initiative is designed to be difficult to change.  It says that if any part is stricken in the courts all the remaining sections are in force.  Even worse, it requires that any changes require a 2/3 majority in both houses of the legislature –something that is highly unlikely based on the extreme polarization of California politics.  If we pass this initiative, we will likely be stuck with it no matter what expected, or unanticipated problems it creates.

5.    This is another example of the California initiative system being gamed by special interests from out of state.  It is common for special interests to use the Californiainitiative system by paying people to collect signatures and then buying advertisements.  This has nothing to do with the original concept of a grass-roots, citizen-driven process.   In this case the major fundingcame from the notorious food-fear merchant, “Dr.” Mercola, and also from some of the Organic food companies that employ distorted, negative descriptions of non-Organic food topromote their products.  It was also driven by activist lawyers who stand to gain financially.  The initiative is being promoted as a common sense requirement for consumer benefit.  Common sense should actually drive California voters to follow the money.

6.    It is worth asking, “why do farmers like these crops so much?” There is a bit ofa spoiled child flavor to statements like, “hey, I’m the consumer so I shouldget any information that I want.” We who actually depend on farmers for something as non-optional as foodshould at least ask, “why are GMO crops so overwhelmingly popular with any group of farmers with who has ever been given the opportunity to grow them?”  Farmers that manage to stay in business in that risk-laden enterprise do so by making rational economic decisions.  Biotech crops are something that has made good business sense for them, and by extension, a less costly and more reliable food supply for consumers.  If this initiative has the disruptive effect on the food system that its writers are hoping, we may discover the downsides of ignoring the interests of people on whom we depend.

 If you are a scientist, you can add your name to a petition against proposition 37 that has been organized by university and foundation researchers.  Its not just industry scientists (like myself), who are opposed to prop 37.  Its people who understand the science and its benefits.


You are welcome to comment here or to email me at savage.sd@gmail.com

Credits:

Corn combine image from bohnsack

ship image from 62518797@NO4

Train image from RoyLuck

Silos image from spiesteleviv

reade more... Résuméabuiyad

GMO Foods: To Label Or Not To Label?

(This post first appeared on Science 2.0, 8/21/12)

This fall, California voters will be asked to vote on Proposition 37, a law which would require that all foods including “GMO Crop ingredients” be labeled as such.   There are many reasons that this isn’t a good use of governmental authority for mandatory food labeling.  A look at historical logic and precedents for labeling, and at the misleading messages this initiative would foster, should inspire Californians to reject it at the ballot box.

Labeling for a Known Hazard

If a food is hazardous to some consumers, but not others (e.g. peanut allergy), then it makes sense to require that it be labeled to protect that minority.  If a food contains something generally hazardous, but difficult to immediately remove from the food supply, it makes sense to label those foods as well (e.g. trans-fats for which labeling was required after 2006).   If a particular GMO crop were to be found to be hazardous to certain people, or people in general, the appropriate response would to ban the use of that particular trait nationally, not to label it at a state level.  No such hazard has been documented for dozens of biotech crops crop traits over 16 years of extensive commercialization, so “hazard” has never been a reason to require labeling of a GMO crop. 

Labeling For Lack of Safety Studies

The proponents of Proposition 37 argue that because the FDA does not require a set of specific human safety studies prior to commercialization, consumer need to be warned. Considering the diversity of biotech traits, it does not really make sense to specify a particular battery of safety studies.  They would really need to be varied on a trait-by-trait basis.  The opponents of these crops imply that these foods are thus, untested when it comes to safety.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Both the companies that produce the crops, and a wide range of independent researchers, have studied GMO crop safety for years.  Highly qualified scientific panels have reviewed those data and consistently concluded that these improved crops represent no unusual risk compared to crops improved by traditional methods. Indeed, "Nature" seems to make similar genetic modifications.

Ironically, the largest single contributor to the pro-labeling effort is the internet “health advisor,” Dr. Mercola whose $800,000 donation was funded by his thriving, natural supplement business.  There is very little regulatory oversight for that multi-billion dollar supplement industry in terms of required testing either human safety or product efficacy.  When it comes to safety testing, GMO crops are far more intensively scrutinized than something like Dr. Mercola’s supplements.

Labeling Because Other Countries Require It

One argument for requiring labeling has been that places like Europe, Japan and China do so.  First of all, most of the ingredients in the US, human food supply that come from GMO crops (corn starch; high fructose corn syrup, soybean, cotton seed or canola oil…) have always been supplied from different crops in other regions (potato or rice starch, beet or cane sugar, sunflower, peanut or rapeseed oil…) so there are actually very few GMO labeled foods in those countries.  They import massive amounts of our GMO crops for animal feed, but that is not labeled.  Second of all, the scientific review panels in these other countries have come to the same conclusions as those in the US.  They find no reason to doubt the overall safety of GMO-based foods.  It is just that politics trumps science in those political systems.  That is certainly not something we should imitate.

Labeling Because It Is A Consumer’s “Right to Know.”

Bits of information do not actually become “knowledge” unless they can be placed into a meaningful context.  We have a historical example of this with the mandatory food composition labeling that has been required in the US since 1990.  The calorie, protein, fat, carbohydrate and vitamin content of foods could theoretically be useful information that consumers could “know.”  Unfortunately, when Congress passed the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990, it never actually funded the education part (imagine that).  For most consumers, the information on food products is not part of a functional knowledge-base that could guide their food decisions.  Instead, they are left to be influenced by the advertizing messages and ever-changing food fads that shape our “marketing of non-existence” food culture.  Proposition 37 does not include any sort of official educational component,. It would just mandate that a bit of information, “contains ingredients from crops modified by genetic engineering” be attached to many foods.  The contextualization of that information will be heavily influenced, not by any sort of balanced presentation, but by a range of activist groups, aggressive organic marketers, and fear-based marketers like Dr. Mercola.   This will not be anything new as these groups have been flooding the internet with hyperbolic warnings for more than a decade.  One might think that there would be a statute-of-limitations on saying that “the sky is falling.”  It is not at all surprising that Mercola and others would like the opportunity to ramp up the level of societal fear with the help of the “information” supplied by California law.  (By the way, Dr. Mercola has not just promoted fear of GMOs.  He has been a conduit for anti-vaccination activists and even for a “doctor” with the theory that all cancers are fungal infections.  His consistent message is, “Be afraid! Buy my products”).

Labeling As A Way To Track The Effects of GMO Foods

Another argument that Prop-37 supporters make is that labeling will allow us to better track or detect any issues with these foods.  Other than the fact that there is no obvious mechanism for that to happen, there is another major problem with the argument.  Foods purchased in restaurants would not be labeled under Prop-37.  Considering that on average people eat about half of their meals out, and that many mostly eat out, this idea of tracking falls apart.  The other implication of this exemption is that the information on grocery items (which will be cast in a scary light by Mercola et al), will not be seen in restaurants, including those that serve fast food, fried in GMO vegetable oils and sweetened with GMO corn-based sweeteners.  Making home meals sound scary and restaurant meals sound safer hardly sounds like a smart message to be sending to a population with an obesity problem.

Labeling To Allow Some Consumers To Avoid GMO Foods

Some people may never trust the scientific/regulatory consensus.  That is OK, but those folks don’t really need to force mandatory labeling for everyone else.  They always have the option to buy Organic, which decided not to use GMO long before it was even an option.  These folks also always have the option to buy products that are sold as or even certified as non-GMO – something that is allowed already.  Anyone can also learn a few simple rules based on the limited number of crops that are GMO in the first place. Here are the simple rules: If the product has ingredients that are derived from Corn, Soy, Cotton, Canola, or Sugar beets, just assume it is probably includes biotech varieties since farmers of those crops overwhelmingly choose those option.  Right now, the only fresh market GMO crops in the US are papayas from Hawaii (virus resistance developed by Cornell University that saved the crop), and some sweet corn. In the rare case of another biotech crop being added to this list, there is always plenty of official notice and press/blog coverage. 

Labeling to Allow Consumers to Intentionally Choose Biotech Improved Foods

Within a few years there may be some biotech-based, non-browning apples on the market, but they will be voluntarily labeled as such because it is a positive consumer feature and because that value chain is amenable to full identity preservation down to the sticker on each fruit.  This is the most logical form of GMO crop labeling, and there are no regulatory or legal barriers to such labels.

Conclusion

Mandatory food labeling should be reserved for well-documented public health needs and should be linked to viable public education efforts.  It shouldn’t be something designed to enrich fear-based marketers or to give people a false comparison of at home and restaurant foods.

You are welcome to comment here or to email me at savage.sd@gmail.com

Classic California License Plate from WoodysWorld1778

            

reade more... Résuméabuiyad

This Is Your Food Supply On Climate Change

(this post was first published on Sustainablog on 8/11/12)

OK, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I think that this year's climate extremes are linked to human-caused climate change.  We might not really have the definitive answer on whether that is true for 20 years, but I would like nothing better than to be proven wrong about the linkage I'm making today.  From a global food supply perspective, the effects of weather on 2012 food production is problematic no matter what its cause.  As bad as it seems, it might just be a "shot over the bow" relative to what me might expect in the future. The unfilled corn cob pictured above is a relatively decent example of what the US corn crop is yielding this year.

How Hot Is It?

This isn't just about low rainfall.  There is a recent graph about temperature extremes on the NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency) site that is striking. The 2012 difference from average is off the chart!

When it is both hot and dry, our dominant, rain-fed crops suffer the most.

It Isn't Just A US Drought

Yes, we have a massive drought in the US unlike anything we have seen for decades.  But there are also drought issues with wheat in Russia and excessive rain issues with crops in Western Europe that could ruin some of their harvest with mycotoxin contamination.  Ironically, the last season in Australia was better than many for their wheat crop which means that there is less low quality wheat going into the feed market that has been important for Chinese and other Asian meat production in recent years.

What ever this year's weather represents in a climate change context, it has been problematic for the global food supply.  The FAO (UN Food and Agricultural Organization) tracks the prices for various foods in international trade and generates a "Food Price Index" each month.  I've been blogging about this for a couple of years, but the new data released on August 9th is disturbing - particularly the data for cereals (wheat, rice, corn, soybeans,etc).  See the graph below

The red line is for the period 2010-12 and in the 30th month of that cycle we are seeing a 17% increase in one month - a steeper climb that was even seen in the 2007-9 price spike (green line).  This rise was seen even before the full magnitude of the US drought was known.  I shudder to think what the index will show next month.  The 2007/8 spike has been linked to a great deal of political insecurity and even credited as a driver of the "Arab Spring."  Hold on to your hats to see what this new price spike will mean.

Of course the impact of these high food trading prices depends on how dependent a country is on imports and how much of family income is spent on food.  There is an excellent new site from the Economist which compares countries around the world in terms of their food security and food spend.

I'll say it again.  This certainly looks like the sort of climate extreme and related food supply impacts that we would expect from climate change.  I both hope to be around in 20 years and to be proven wrong about my belief that "this is our global food supply on climate change."

You are welcome to comment here and/or to email me a sdsavage@sprynet.com

Drought damaged corn image from grifray

reade more... Résuméabuiyad

A Note To Rachel Carson On The 50th Anniversary Of “Silent Spring”

What looks like it might be an original copy from 1962

Dear Ms. Carson,

On this, the 50^th anniversary of the publication of your book, “Silent Spring” I’d like to tell you about the remarkable legacy of your book.  Many things have transpired over the last five decades that would give you considerable satisfaction. Unfortunately, I must also explain to you why many people today don’t understand how profound those changes have been.

Your Positive Legacy

The biggest change since 1962 has been in our societal appreciation of the need to carefully evaluate the environmental and health attributes of chemicals that we use for the control of agricultural pests or the vectors of human disease.  Whole new fields of science have developed to understand such risks (environmental toxicology, environmental science to name two).  Whole new regulatory bodies (Environmental Protection Agency, EPA) and processes (chemical registration) have been instituted to translate those risk assessments into sound policy.  DDT, which was central to your 1962 warning, is long-gone, as are scores of other, old pesticides that cannot meet high, modern, safety standards.  Billions of dollars have been invested in the discovery, testing, and introduction of new, low-risk pest control methods and practices. The net effect of all of this is that not only are our springs well-accompanied with bird songs, we also enjoy a safe, affordable and diverse food supply beyond anything one could have imagined in 1962.  I’m sure that when you took the risk of publishing your book, you hoped that it would initiate this sort of positive change, and that is certainly what has happened.

Your Legacy Obscured

Unfortunately, there are some today who seem to have a vested interest in convincing us that your legacy has not been this positive. Whether it is to sell certain products or to garner attention or contributions, these voices continue to promote a “sky is falling” narrative. When you wrote 'Silent Spring,' you employed highly emotive language, vivid mental images, and a good degree of hyperbole.  Such over-the-top prose was justifiable because you had to overcome the deep-seated complacency of your age. Today, many groups continue to employ that same literary style when talking about food and agriculture issues.  By doing so, and by engendering unnecessary fear among consumers, they effectively deny people the confident enjoyment of life and food that would otherwise have been another part of your legacy. I am confident that you hoped to initiate change, not to inaugurate a perennial state of alarm.

A Prime Example of Your Positive Legacy

Each year the USDA conducts an extensive sampling and testing program for the American food supply.  It essentially serves as a “report card” for agricultural pesticide safety, both in the US and in countries from which we import foods.  What the report clearly shows is that consumers have no need to be concerned about pesticide residues on their food.  The extremely low levels detected are virtually all well below even the conservative tolerances set by the EPA and mostly millions of times below toxic doses.  These results speak volumes about the positive impact of your book. 

A Prime Example of Your Positive Legacy Denied

There is an organization called the Environmental Working Group (EWG), which takes that same set of data and quite effectively uses it to frighten consumers.  They do so by ignoring almost all the actual information in the USDA report.  They ignore that differences between chemicals as if we had learned nothing about what to look for in 50 years.  They ignore the actual levels detected as if we have forgotten the ancient Greek understanding that "the dose makes the poison."  Finally, they ignore the carefully set EPA tolerances as if over all these years, we have learned nothing about how to evaluate risk.  Unfortunately, their message is widely disseminated by a credulous press and believed by a great many consumers.

Real Environmentalism

Your book is widely credited as a major contribution to the development of the modern Environmental Movement.  That is, indeed, a very positive result of your influence. A strong segment of that environmental movement continues to make significant contributions to society.  That part of the movement acknowledges that there has been positive change that you helped to initiate and to which many entities have contributed over the years.  The segment of the Environmental Movement that effectively denies positive change does no service to your legacy.

You are welcome to comment here and/or to email me at savage.sd@gmail.com

'Silent Spring' book image from Sterling College

reade more... Résuméabuiyad

Consumers Should Get To Try The First Biotech Apples

There are some unique apples that could be coming to the market in the near future.  They will taste exactly like some familiar varieties, but their distinguishing feature will be that they won’t turn brown after they are sliced.  Scientists employed by a grower-owned fruit cooperative in British Columbia used genetic engineering techniques to turn off the genes for the enzymes that cause cut apples to turn brown (polyphenol oxidases).  These non-browning apples will be offered under the "Arctic Apple" brand.  Unfortunately, there are some groups who are actively trying to block this effort.  Let’s consider why consumers should get the chance to try these new apples.

A Real, Consumer-oriented Trait

Many have complained that biotech crops only benefit farmers, not consumers.  That is a false dichotomy.  When crops are more productive, easier to grow, or entail less risk for farmers that produce them, consumers get the benefits of a low cost, dependable food supply.  Still, it is refreshing to see a trait that is designed completely with consumers in mind.

Folks like Andrew Kimball of the Center for Food Safety, who routinely oppose all biotech crops,  have used their standard approach of coining a catchy, disparaging term.  They call these, "Botox Apples" with the implication that this is something with only a cosmetic purpose.  This entirely misses the point.  The appearance of food is extremely important to the enjoyable, multi-sense experience of eating (taste, smell, mouth feel and appearance).  Browning apples are not appealing. They also don’t taste so great.  Yes, you can treat cut apples with lemon juice, but that changes the flavor.  An apple that can be sliced and not quickly brown could be used in packaged salads, on salad bars, in packed lunches and in many other settings where this popular fruit is not used today.  It would be nice to be able to eat part of an apple and then finish it later.  Browning is not a "cosmetic”  issue. It is a consumer convenience and eating experience issue.  We should get to see if we like it.

How These Apples Stand Vs Other Standard GMO Crop Objections

Big Companies: This apple was developed without any involvement from “big companies.”  A private company mostly owned by fruit growers very frugally and patiently funded this research for many years.

"Foreign Genes:" There are no "foreign genes" in Arctic Apples.  All that is different about them is that certain apple genes are "turned off."  Most genes in cells of an apple or any other organism are turned off most of the time.  The genes to grow roots or leaves are turned off in apple fruits just as our genes to develop the features of an eye are turned off in all the other parts of our body.  The scientists that developed the Arctic Apple simply used a natural mechanism to turn off the genes that make the enzymes that turn apples brown when they are cut.

Labeling: Some people are concerned about unlabeled GMOs.  It is actually quite easy to know and even to avoid GMO foods if someone is so inclined, but in this case, the apples will be explicitly branded as GMO. In an industry like apples, "identity preservation" is a completely feasible and normal practice (there is a PLU sticker on every fruit or at least on every clamshell).  Those who want to try the Arctic apples can easily do so, and those who don't can easily make other choices.

What About Organic Growers? Could these apples “contaminate” organic apples and threaten their certification?  Not unless someone works really hard to do that.  Apple trees are not grown from seeds (like virtually all fruits).  If you plant the seed from your favorite apple (say a 'Fuji'), the tree you will grow will not be a Fuji.  It probably won't even have decent eating apples.  For thousand of years, people have known that if you find a fruit that is good, you need to propagate it from cuttings or buds, not seeds.  These are grafted onto rootstocks that have been selected for pest resistance and in most cases for dwarfing so the trees don't get too tall to safely pick.  Actually, to get a good crop, growers need to make sure that the bees that visit each tree have typically gotten pollen from some other variety of apples, even crab apples, because otherwise fruit set is less likely.

There is a small chance that a bee will carry pollen from a GMO apple to a few flowers in an organic block.  A few of the seeds in those organic apples might be pollinated with the GMO pollen.  Only a small part of the seeds (the embryo) in those apples will have that extremely minor change.  Apple seeds shouldn't be eaten.  They contain compounds that can generate cyanide - a rather potent poison.  Consumers routinely discard them.  Only if someone really, really wanted to, could they even document the "contamination."

Organic has always had the rule that if unapproved pesticide residues were found on organic crops, they would still be certified organic as long as it was unintentional on the part of the grower (e.g. spray drift).  The organic certification system never actually tests for this, but the precedent is clear.  If it is minor and unintentional is isn’t an issue even for produce you eat after paying the organic premium.  Why would this be different for a silenced gene that only has a context in ripe fruit, that is present in a rare apple seed embryo in a seed that is logically discarded?

Who Is Opposed To The Commercialization of the Arctic Apple?

A predictable list of anti-GMO groups like the Center for Food Safety are opposed to these apples. This time they have had to reach for objections, but their stance is no surprise.  What is not entirely surprising, but disturbing, is that there is opposition from groups of regular apple growers.  I've worked with the apple industry on many occasions over the past two decades, and I have a great deal of respect for these folks.  I can understand what is behind their reaction, but I would like to challenge these friends to step back and think about the ramifications of their swift, negative reaction.

Brand Protection

Technology opponents have long known that they have the most leverage if they can threaten an entity with a valuable consumer brand with potential, controversial attention.  The apple industry is concerned that even though the Arctic apples would be clearly labeled as such, activists could smear the entire apple industry “brand” and make consumers afraid that they might be eating something the don’t want.  (Would activists seek to threaten the livelihood of uninvolved farmers to achieve their goals?  Absolutely.)

Remembering the "Alar Controversy"

There is certainly history behind “brand” concern by apple growers and marketers.  Back in 1989, an edition of the popular news show, "60 Minutes" raised concerns about a purported carcinogen that was being sprayed on apples and which was disproportionately represented in children's diets because they drink lots of apple juice.  The science behind the carcinogen issue turned out to be completely bogus, but that didn't prevent a huge decline in consumer consumption of apples.  I'm sure there are plenty of folks left in the apple industry who remember the lesson that truth isn't any sort of certain protection against "brand damage" by disinformation.

What is The Apple "Brand?"

The apple industries of various states, provinces and regions have spent a fair amount on "brand building", but a general rule in the industry is that produce brands are really difficult to build. Think about apples and all the history behind that name!  The forbidden fruit in the Adam and Eve story has been, inaccurately, pictured as an apple.  The witch in the classic, Disney-enshrined story of Snow White used a poison apple.  This fruit has been commandeered as the symbol of a rather successful computing technology brand.  We have common sayings like "one bad apple spoils the whole bunch, " or "an apple a day keeps the doctor away."  The nature of the apple “brand” is something far beyond the marketing power of some farmers in BC.

A Marketing Lesson Not To Be Forgotten

There was a time, before the Alar scare, when the apple industry believed that it was competing with bananas and oranges for "share of stomach."  Apples were one of the few crops that were available in fresh form year-round.  The industry tried to define the "apple brand" as a Red Delicious of a given shape.  That whole strategy crashed in the Alar scare. Grower/shippers then broke out of that mold and market different apple varieties by name (Granny's, Fujis, Pink Lady's, Jazz, Jonagolds…).  What the industry and the retailers learned is that consumers are perfectly capable of deciding what they like and don’t like, and selecting it by name.  I would argue that this is the same thing that could happen with the Arctic apple if consumers are given the chance to try it.

A Plea To My Friends In The Apple Business

I almost never oppose grower opinion.  I remember Alar as vividly as many of you do.  I've seen what anti-GMO activists have been able to achieve in many instances.  I know it is a burden to be the first US/Canada crop where a new biotech option could be launched for consumers by growers.  It is never fun to be the pioneers.  But if you step back and think about how much of your industry depends on technology that consumers might not understand, is it good idea to give anti-science activists an easy win?

You Can Voice Your Opinion

The public comment period is now open to let the USDA know what you think.  They are already getting lots of comments from people who understand very little about these apples.  It would be great to balance that with more informed responses.  You can read more about this topic over on Biofortified.

You are welcome to comment here and/or to email me at savage.sd@gmail.com

Full disclosure.  I have no economic connections with the folks behind the Arctic apple.  I’d just like to see their product reach the consumer market.

reade more... Résuméabuiyad

Limited Encouragement In The Latest Release of the FAO, Global Food Price Index

Today, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations released it's monthly update on global food trade pricing.  The overall "Food Price Index" that combines all categories did decline slightly, but less than the previous month.  The index is still substantially higher than it was at a comparable period during the last cycle.

During June, the Cereal price index remained essentially flat, mirroring the trend from the previous cycle but at a new higher level.  There had been hopes that record grain planting for the 2012, US growing season would help to increase stores this fall and lead to significant price drops.  A troubling and spreading drought is developing in the American Midwest.  Without some timely rainfall during the key period of corn pollination there could be significant crop loss.  This possibility is  already leading to price increases for current and future US grains.  It is impossible to know yet whether this drought, and all the other weather extremes of this year, are the result of Climate Change.  Many climate experts believe that it is.

Meat prices increased dramatically in this cycle compared to the last one.  This is driven by increased demand from the huge new middle class populations in countries like China and India.  Meat prices are also linked to grain prices so it is no surprise that they remain unusually high.

Dairy prices, which had shown two months of significant decline, continued to drop, but at a slower rate.

Oils were down for June, but that has only just now reversed an upward trend that began seven months ago.

Sugar prices are not really linked to the same trends as the other commodities because tropical sugarcane production is less seasonal and much less tied to yearly planting decisions.

The Data Still Suggests That We Are In A New Food Supply Paradigm

Last year at this time, I began pondering whether this second, unprecedented spike meant that the global food supply has entered a new paradigm.  For decades price cycles fit that old saying: "The best remedy for high food commodity prices is high food commodity prices."  That meant that when prices went up, farmers would farm more or more intensively and inevitably produce enough new supply to bring the prices back down.  Farmers still respond the same way, but the effect of their efforts to produce more is having less impact.  Part of that is that global demand is higher than ever based both on population and standard of living.  Biofuels are a new part of the equation.  I also believe that we will be able to look back in a decade or two and say that Climate Change is indeed behind the heat, droughts, floods and pest increases that keep limiting production.  That is why I have argued that the "face of climate change" should not be polar bears.  It should be the poor families around the world that depend on global food trade and for whom these stubbornly high prices are a serious burden.

You are welcome to comment here and/or to email me at savage.sd@gmail.com

reade more... Résuméabuiyad