NaturallySavvy's "Top Ten Reasons to Avoid GMOs"

A few days ago, I found myself reading a list entitled "What's So Bad About GMOs? Top Ten Reasons to Avoid Them" (archived here). I first stumbled upon NaturallySavvy.com when they were demonstrating the "toxic" properties in tampons by performing an experiment worthy of a 3rd grade science fair project, in efforts to scare the bejezuz out of you and convince you that their organic femcare products were much better.

I'm going to look over this Top Ten List and figure out if there's any truth to it. I've always tried to have a positive tone in what I write, but I'm pretty sure I'm going to fail miserably today.

(NOTE: I started writing this post back in November, soon after half of the people where I worked had gotten laid off, including myself. Yes... #ScientistsArePeople who get laid off, in this case due to corporate restructuring. Needless to say, I had a lot of pent up rage, so this was probably a healthy way to funnel all that energy. In retrospect, the post seems a bit rage-y, but I'm still going to go ahead and publish it, in the hopes that someone will look for an article debunking the NaturallySavvy piece. If you're not in the mood to read snark, stop reading after bullet #1. Consider yourself warned.)

Where's the syringe in the corn??
Or the creepy scientist that always hovers over GMO corn?

1. Are they safe? The article from NaturalSavvy says that although seed developers claim that GMOs have met safety requirements, "long term studies haven't been done on their impact to the human body." Seed developers are not the bodies that claim that GMOs have met safety requirements. The FDA, USDA, and other regulatory bodies are. Just because the writers at NaturallySavvy feel that long term studies are needed doesn't make it so. In the past, I've reviewed why long term human studies are difficult to conduct. Briefly, since GMOs are substantially equivalent to their non-GMO counterparts, there is generally no mechanism by which there could be an impact on the human body. Tests for allergenicity are conducted to ensure that the protein that is introduced is not an allergen. Most people expect GMOs to be tested like drugs, but drugs are designed to cause a change in the human body. Since drugs are altering something in humans, it's important to know the side-effects that they may cause and whether or not they're causing the anticipated effect (i.e. is it better than placebo). In contrast, GMOs are designed to be equivalent to their non-GE counterparts. GE crops which ARE designed to impact human health, such as vitamin-A enriched rice (i.e. Golden Rice), should be tested in humans.

2. Known health risks: The article from Natural Savvy states: "What we do know is that when genetic modification happens, genes are forced to express certain traits (including pesticides). To do this, the scientists "turn on" all the gene's components, which can mean releasing allergens that would normally not be expressed in a non-GMO variety. Experts like Jeffrey Smith suggest this is directly related to the rise in health issues." For the first time in this blog's history, I will ask: "WTF??" What does that string of random, science-y sounding words even mean? To express certain traits, scientists turn on all the gene's components? And somehow turning on "gene components" means that this would release allergens? And then the article has the major cojones to say that Jeffrey Smith, a person with no scientific training, is an "expert"?? In case you aren't familiar with my blog's history, I spent over half a year reading the section on Health Risks from Jeffrey Smith's website and failed to find a single one that was true. Anyway, I can't debunk this because that word salad is actually verbal diarrhea of the Chipotle variety. 

3. Heavy use of toxic pesticides and herbicides: The article claims "By design, genetically modified seeds require pesticides and herbicides." That is inaccurate in the sense that some genetically modified crops designed to withstand herbicides. At the same time, no GMO requires herbicides: farmers can technically choose not to apply any. Most importantly, there are GMOs that have nothing to do with pesticides/herbicides, such as the Rainbow papaya, which was designed to be resistant to the ring-spot virus, and saved Hawaii's papaya industry. And what about the Innate potato, which resists bruising and browning and will consequently cut back on food waste? Transgenesis is a method used to generate crops and lumping all the crops generated with the technique into a single category is disingenuous. It is important to note that there are non-GE crops made to resist pesticides as well, such as Clearfield seeds (made through mutagenesis) or SU canola (made by gene editing).

4. Pesticides and digestive health: The article claims that pesticides "negatively impact the gut bacteria of humans" and points to Jeffrey Smith's movie as a evidence. A movie does not evidence make. Show me the data. Unfortunately, documentaries are a narrative and are not peer reviewed. The film makers can choose to portray only one story/perspective in that narrative, and as such, they are often highly biased.

In the past I've written on the topic of GMOs and the gut microbiome, and have reviewed several papers on the topic. None of the papers point to negative health impact. But don't let that get in the way of the outstanding evidence in the movie!

I'm losing all hope for this Top Ten list from Naturally Savvy...

5. Cancer: The top ten list from Natural Savvy states: "Both pesticides and GMOs have been connected with an increased risk of certain types of cancer. There are additional health concerns too including reproductive issues, autism and even heart disease." The reference in that statement is to a news article from 2012 that covers the publication of a scientific article which has since been retracted due to its inherent crumminess and republished elsewhere. Many scientists and organizations have written about the notorious Seralini study, which was a 2-year feeding study on rats claiming that the GM feed and low levels of glyphosate cause tumors and other health impacts. Despite claims from activists that the findings from the paper were ignored or that institutions were paid off to refute the paper, Seralini's paper led to several in-depth reviews and studies (see information here from the EFSA and information here about the GRACE project).

As for the sentence about alleged reproductive issues, autism, and even heart disease: no, no, and what???

6. Environmental impact: Naturally Savvy claims: "GMO crops and their companion pesticides and herbicides wreak havoc on the environment including polluting air, water and soil. Glyphosate—marketed by Monsanto as the herbicide Roundup—is in effect, an antibiotic, which can destroy soil quality and thus impair the plant's nutritional value as well." You know, all the farmers that I've spoken to say that they keep buying GM seed year after year because it destroys their soil quality and consequently, the crops. They don't care if the crops have lower yield due to the soil that's been destroyed. They just want to leave their mark in the world by contributing to the environment's demise.

Seriously, how is it possible that this article has 15K facebook likes??

7. Superbugs and superweeds: Naturally Savvy claims: "Despite the claims that pesticides and GMO crops can relieve farmers of crop-destroying insects and plants, the opposite is showing to be true. Farmers in the Midwest are now battling superbugs and superweeds resistant to pesticides. They're damaging crops and farm equipment and costing the farmers more money in having to apply heavier doses of toxic pesticides." Pesticide and herbicide resistance is not unique to GMOs. It's evolution in action. There's even a paper describing how pulling weeds by hand can give rise to superweeds. Thinking that GMOs are to blame for pesticide/herbicide tolerance narrows the scope of the issue and deters efforts of finding genuine solutions to the problem. But hey, let's not let facts get in the way of NaturallySavvy's top ten list!

8. Patent issues: "At the core of the GMO industry is the corporate ownership of seed and seed patents. Companies like Monsanto are notorious for suing small farmers for saving seeds or if GMO crop drift pollinates on their land." Farmers moved away from saving seeds quite some time ago, primarily due to hybrid vigor, meaning that the seeds that farmers buy perform much better than the seeds they replant, and it's not just for GMOs. Additionally, farmers have plenty of options on the market. If they do not like the contracts that biotech companies such as Monsanto make them sign, then they can find different seeds. Monsanto has taken farmers to court for having broken this contract. Additionally, such contracts are not unique to GMOs, and farmers have been sued by companies other than Monsanto for replanting non-GMO seeds. As for lawsuits due to "GMO crop drift" pollination, I rebut your pure and utter BS with this lawsuit: OSGATA vs Monsanto, where Organic Food and Seed distributors together with anti-GMO activists tried to invalidate several of Monsanto's patents due to the possibility of a lawsuit due to inadvertent contamination. You read that correctly. Organic Food and Seed Distributors took Monsanto to court. When the judge asked them for evidence that Monsanto might sue them for inadvertent contamination "The appellants concede that Monsanto has never specifically alleged that they infringe its patents, nor threatened suit against them. Nevertheless, the appellants contend that in light of Monsanto’s evident history of aggressive assertion of its transgenic seed patents against other growers and sellers (144 suits and 700 settlements), they must assume that if they infringe those patents, they will also be sued—even if they only infringe inadvertently." Just to make that absolutely clear, Organic Food and Seed Distributors could find no evidence that Monsanto has threatened to sue them due to inadvertent contamination, and based their entire case (which was thrown out) on the possibility that Monsanto might sue them.

See what I did there, NaturallySavvy? I provided an original source that is relevant to the argument.

9. Corporate protection: "Earlier this year, the U.S. government passed a bill nicknamed the "Monsanto Protection Act." In essence, it grants biotech companies immunity from the courts, even if a judge determines it's unlawful to plant GMO crops, the companies can do it anyway." It's a scientific fact that if you add "Monsanto" to anything, it becomes 1048 times scarier. How do I know this? Well, truthiness is on my side and my gut tells me so.

You know what? I'm not even going to bother with this one, since the act already expired. If you're curious about it, read this article that goes over the legislation.

10. Prolific presence: "Whether or not GMOs are safe has yet to be determined, yet every day, millions of Americans eat them unknowingly due to the lack of labeling requirements. Are you a lab rat? Don't you at least have the right to know what you're eating?" You know what, NaturallySavvy? I think that your readers have the right to know when they're being deceived. Because when the leading scientific organizations in the world state that GMOs are no more risky than traditionally bred crops and when the scientific literature overwhelming supports the relative safety of GMOs, then a scientific consensus is formed. You're trying to scare your readers into buying whatever organic, non-GMO nonsense is for sale on your site. And no. I'm not a lab rat, any more than you're a lab rat for eating organically grown pluots. How long were those tested? Pluots have genes from plums AND APRICOTS!!! That's NOT natural! It took scientists decades to make pluots because these frankenfruits don't happen naturally. Don't you have the right to know what variety of pluots are in your organic Kashi? Oh, the horror!!! WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!!

And NaturallySavvy? Despite having infinite combinations of scary words at your disposal and the ability to interject science-y words to give your list the aura of truthiness, your outline of arguments #1 and #10 on your list are the same. You should consider having a serious chat with the author of the piece. Wait... The author is also the Founder and "Chief Passionista" of your company??

No comment...

GMO labeling arguments are not exclusive to GMOs

When discussing labeling, there are many different reasons to want GMOs labeled: some people want to know if something's a GMO because they want to avoid pesticides, some people want to avoid food produced by Monsanto, etc. The issue with every single argument is that it's never exclusive to GMOs. I made the following infographic to outline the more common labeling arguments I've heard, as well as a non-GMO example that matches the criteria set out for that argument. This expands on my Facebook post (you can follow me on my new page!)

Click on image for full size

1) GMOs are made in a lab (i.e. they are not "natural"): this also holds true for many polyploids, such as seedless watermelons. Many mutagenic crops are also made in a lab (to learn more about different crop modification techniques, see this post). So if "unnaturalness" is one's reason to label GMOs, then many other non-GMO crops, include many that are accepted under the USDA's organic label, should also be labeled. 

2) GMOs use herbicides: many argue that GMOs made to resist "toxic" levels of herbicides should be labeled. The toxicity of the herbicides and the amounts used are a subject for a separate post altogether, but when it comes to labeling, there are mutagenic, non-GMO crops that are also made to resist herbicides, particularly Clearfield crops made by BASF which resist imidazolinone herbicides. So if labeling proponents want crops that use herbicides to be labeled, many non-GMOs will have to be labeled as well.

3) GMOs are patented: as I've outlined in the past, many non-GMO crops, including decorative plants and crops approved for use in organic farming, are patented. For a partial list of patented crops, see here. So wanting GMOs labeled to avoid patented crops should result in many, many non-GMOs being labeled, too. 

4) GMOs have genes from other species: not only do sweet potatoes have bacterial genes, but these were introduced using the same bacteria that scientists have harnessed when creating a new transgenic crop. At the same time, DNA from viruses are found throughout most genomes, including our own. 

5) GMOs are made by Monsanto: if you want GMOs labeled because Monsanto makes them, then some organic crops should also be labeled. Plus, what about all the GMOs that are not made by Monsanto? The non-browing Arctic Apple was made by small company in Canada.

6) GMOs make their own pesticides: all plants make their own pesticides. For example, wheat produces an insecticide known as DIMBOA (wheat is not considered a GMO). This post gives an overview of pesticides naturally produced by quinoa. 

Finally, there's the "right to know". But, again, what is it that you want to know? If you want to know what method was used to generate the crop from which an ingredient was derived, then why not mutagenic crops? Why not polyploids? Why not protoplast fusion? What is it about the method of transgenesis that has driven you to demand your "right to know" that didn't apply in the past for any of these other crop breeding methods? Feel free to comment below.

Updated on January 5th: The graphic had a typo, so I've swapped it with a corrected version.

The funding of science: public & private sector collaborations

Hi all,

There's been a storm in the science communication world over this article. In case you've missed it, several public sector scientists who are outspoken proponents of biotech crops have been targeted by anti-GMO activists, and have had their emails seized and read under freedom of information laws. The argument is that as public sector scientists, the public should be able to read their emails and know if they have been cooperating with private sector businesses (i.e. Monsanto). One of these scientists is Dr Kevin Folta.

Dr Folta has superstar status in the GMO world. I've emailed him a handful of times and each time, I've been painfully nervous. Saying that he has been a target of anti-GMO activist activity is putting it lightly. He has constantly disavowed receiving any sort of funding from Big Ag. The article I posted at the beginning outlines that the emails uncovered that he received 25K from Monsanto, which Dr Folta says was used for outreach activities, and that he had travel expenses covered when doing public communication. This has raised a veritable poopoo-storm in anti-GMO groups, who are claiming that Dr Folta personally received 25K from Monsanto.

As you may know, I'm currently doing R&D in assay development for a private company completely unaffiliated with Ag. I do hands-on work and I've been back at the bench for almost 2 years now. But before that, I used to work more closely with customers, representing their voice and concerns during product development. So I want to provide a brief explanation on why and how a private sector scientist such as myself needs to collaborate with public sector scientists, and vice versa. I think that this relationship is extremely difficult to understand unless you're in this area of work, so I hope to provide a little bit of insight. I also hope that other scientists in the private and public sector speak up about this to educate the public, and if you need a platform, I'm making my blog available for it.

As a company goes about developing a product, at some point it needs to start generating data outside of the company. There are several reasons for this: a) the company wants to put the product through its paces to make sure that it works well in different settings and environments, b) it wants to generate marketing material to sell the product. No matter how much data you generate within the company, it doesn't carry nearly as much weight as data generated by someone from outside the company. Sometimes it also has to do with samples/materials: if you're developing an assay for a disease, where are you going to get the patient samples to make sure your product works? A public sector scientist would be interested in such a collaboration because if the product DOES indeed work, then the scientist could get a very good publication out of it. How the product is provided, the timeline, the reagents, funding (if any), how the data will be shared, etc. are all decided and agreed upon in advance between the groups, and much of it depends on the type of collaboration (whether it's a trial, a beta test, or a pre-commercial agreement).

If such a collaboration does lead to a publication, it is common that someone from product development will be listed as an author on the paper. If not, the company's role in the collaboration is outlined in the funding sources. In my experience, I have not seen a scientist get personally paid for such a collaboration, but that is not to say that it would not happen.

There are other types of collaborations: sometimes a public lab will contact a product developer to find out if a certain application of a technology is possible. If the company thinks that it might be, a collaboration might be set up following the same principles outlined above.

In my experience, the times in which a public scientist actually gets paid by a private company is when they are engaged as an expert or as a consultant. I worked on a project designing an assay where we hired a few people from the public sector, who were experts in that particular field, to help with the assay design and provide us with guidance.

Could the public sector scientists have conducted the research and done the work on their own? Possibly. But it costs a lot of money which the public lab may not have, a lot of internal knowledge about how the product works which the lab may not have, and other resources which may not be accessible to them.

Another very common practice in the industry is conferences and seminars organized by a company to allow clinicians and scientists to share their research into products or applications of a product. Of course, companies will try to select speakers that are pleased with the performance of the product, but in no way do they control what is said. I actually helped organize one such seminar while my sales-rep was on maternity leave. Of the speakers invited to attend, I gave them the option of sending me their slides so that they were pre-loaded or bringing their own laptop. Most chose to bring their own laptop, so I didn't even see the slides that the speakers were going to use until the day of.

In no shape or form did the speakers get coached. In fact, one of the speakers mentioned that he preferred a product from another vendor for one of the applications he spoke about. All the speakers were offered reimbursement for their travel expenses getting to and from the seminar.

Why would a scientist accept to speak in such a forum? First, the scientist gets to share his or her research with a very broad audience. Second, many individuals in that audience are working with the exact same products, so they can discuss and offer recommendations to one another. Why would a company sponsor such an event? It allows scientists to better understand a technology or assay which they may not be familiar with. Hopefully, the scientists will come up with ideas on how they could use that assay in their research, or will walk away impressed enough with the applications that they'll consider using it. It's a risk. If scientists aren't pleased with the product, make no mistake about it: they will tell everyone.

In addition, private industry sponsors many other "marketing" type activities. For example, a company might sponsor a coffee break at a conference, sponsor the printing of conference material, sponsor an evening mixer at a conference, etc.

Do I think that these activities cross some sort of line and are "bribes" of some sort or that they could buy a scientist's opinion on a topic? Absolutely not. If you think that's the case, then you do not know how expensive it is to run a lab. Check out VWR.com to get an idea of how much common reagents, plasticware, and equipment costs.

At the same time, I am fully aware that I design assays for evidence-based people with little brand loyalty: if I build something that sucks, no one will use it. Unlike a sports team (who can lose for years, but still have a sell-out crowd), a consumer electronics brand (who can make a product that isn't as good as a competitor's), or a clothing brand (who can make a delicate piece of clothing that you have to dry clean if  you want to wear if more than one time), if it doesn't work, if it doesn't do its job, then customers will go elsewhere.

That's my personal experience as a private sector scientist working with the public sector. My guess that much of it applies to many other companies and segments of the biotech world.

Dr Folta has clarified that he received money from Monsanto for his public outreach efforts and that this has been spent organizing talks, coffee, and getting to and from the places he speaks. His critics have said that this just highlights that he's been lying for all these years after constantly disavowing that he doesn't receive money from "Big Ag". In case it needs to be said, there's a difference between funding someone's research and funding someone's outreach activities. Think about it this way: if Monsanto had organized the session, bought the coffee, and Dr Folta had simply showed up, given a talk, and then walked away, would you think that he was "bought"? So what's the difference? Or better yet, if Dr Folta held a seminar for students to teach them how to use Excel, and Microsoft sponsored the event, would you have a problem with it? My guess is "no".

Public research scientists struggle to get their funding. One of the main reasons (if not THE main reason) I didn't go into the public sector was because in grad school it seemed that most of my prof's time was spent securing grants. That didn't seem like the life I wanted to lead: I wanted to DO the science, not just sit down and write about it. If we want our public scientists to be completely detached from the private sector in their funding, in their outreach activities, in their conferences, in their seminars, in college campuses (including infrastructure such as arenas and stadiums), then we need to provide them with more public funds. And how do we do that? We increase taxes. There's pretty much no way around it.

Whether or not we increase taxes and better fund our public scientists, there's one thing that bears repeating: science is science. Regardless of who you are, where you work or who funds you, if your data sucks then your data sucks. If your data's awesome then your data's awesome.

One final thing: as I've been following the story of the US-Right to Know's actions against biotech advocates, I've thought at many points in time "I'm so happy I'm in the private sector and don't have to deal with this. If I were one of those scientists, I'd probably just quit engaging with the public." And that's probably what the aim of these Freedom of Information requests is: to exhaust our public sector scientists to the point that they just collapse. A public sector scientist running a blog similar to mine would be way more effective because, in the public's perspective, private sector scientists are considered less ethical. So support public sector scientists, donate to their granting/funding agencies, and call out US-RTK in their efforts which are nothing short of a witch-hunt.

The double standard in the GMO debate

As a scientist who writes about GMOs, I get called "shill" on a fairly frequent basis. Sometimes, the mere fact that my twitter handle is "BioChicaGMO" is enough evidence for a person to call me a shill

My Twitter Handle seems to be my undoing

(as an aside, the reason why I went with BioChicaGMO is because BioChica was taken, and since the spouse suggested that I start a twitter account to promote my blog, I thought it made sense. I'd probably choose something different if I were to start all over again. BioChica was my Xbox GamerTag. I used to play fairly frequently before the kid came around.)

Hey spouse, after you finish reading this, let's play a round of Portal. It's been a while.

Anyway, getting back to the main point of this article, the sector of biotech I work in has nothing to do with agriculture, and biotech is a huge umbrella term for many, many sectors. In the different websites I write for, I've tried to be as transparent as possible and have made my LinkedIn profile public. Accusing me of being a shill for Ag is equivalent to accusing an organic apple farmer of being a shill for McDonald's because they're both in the food industry. The shill-gambit is used very often in topics surrounding biotech, such as vaccines or GMOs, and it's a shame because it doesn't really help support any argument.

However, in reading many articles about GMOs, I'm always struck by the double-standard that exists when it comes to financial motivations. Why is Dr Mercola as popular as he is, when he sells supplements promoted in his articles? How isn't that a conflict of interest? Or take, for example, the Institute for Responsible Technology: its founder writes an article about gluten allergies and GMOs, with the only evidence being material from the website itself, and then encourages you to buy items that they recommend.

It's a guarantee that I'm funded by GMO related corporations!

The Non-GMO Project is another example, and I'm going to highlight this by following the story of Dr John Fagan, a molecular biologist who became part owner of a company named "Genetic ID" around 1998. Genetic ID is a company that does DNA testing to determine if foods contain GMOs. Genetic ID is also one of a handful of labs that is used by the Non-GMO Project for its certification process, and is a "Non-GMO Project Approved Lab". Therefore, the greater the customer demand for non-GMO certified products, the more money flows towards Genetic ID and towards its owners.

The Non-GMO Project's website has a lot of information geared to highlight the value of a GMO-free diet. For example: "a growing body of evidence connects GMOs with health problems, environmental damage and violation of farmers’ and consumers’ rights", or "Most developed nations do not consider GMOs to be safe", or "The long-term impacts of GMOs are unknown, and once released into the environment these novel organisms cannot be recalled." There are no references or citations provided for any of these statements, so their validity cannot be assessed. If you visit the website's section on GMO Science, it points you to a document entitled "GMO Myths and Truths". The website explains this document by stating that it's "an evidence-based examination of the claims made for the safety and efficacy of genetically modified crops. This 2014 document is prepared by the preeminent researchers and scientists: Michael Antoniou, Claire Robinson, and John Fagan."

I just want to pause here for dramatic effect, and to make it clear that the author of the scientific document that the Non-GMO Project provides is the same guy that owns one of the labs that the Non-GMO Project uses for its DNA verification process.

The article was about Autism and GMOs and how there's no evidence
suggesting that eating GMOs causes ASD. But it doesn't matter because
apparently I'm funded by Monsanto.

I reviewed the first chapter of GMO Myths and Truths a long time ago and the rest of the chapters I've slowly debunked, although not as directly. The document embodies "Gish Galloping" which basically consists of throwing so much information and so many references at a person that they could never debunk your argument. Instead of providing 1-2 references that encapsulate an argument, 50 references are provided most of which don't really support the argument being made. I've been sent the document several times in the course of my discussions on GMOs, particularly on Twitter. If you scan through "GMO Myths and Truths", you may be stunned by the seemingly overwhelming evidence against GMOs and you might freak out, and that's what the document is intended to accomplish. But if you peel back the document's polished, shiny exterior and look at it in depth, you'll see that most statements are hypotheticals of things that might happen. There's a difference between what's possible and what's probable. Is it possible that I might get struck by lightning while getting bitten by a hammer-head shark? Sure. Is it probable? Not really. So many, many statements made in GMO Myths and Truths are presented as possibilities, yet the probabilities are never addressed. And I'm sorry, but any document that supports Seralini's study loses all credibility.

The person never did come back to resume our chat... 

Anyway, John Fagan is one of the authors of this document. The elegance of it is quite admirable: scare the bejeezus out of people about what's in their food by producing a "scientific" document with all the right words and language, thereby increasing the demand for non-GMO verified products. In fact, John Fagan is the Executive Director for Earth Open Source who put together the "GMO Myths and Truths" document and several other similar publications. The organization's goal is to "restore the open source roots of the food system – collaboration, transparency, and shared knowledge and resources – to help feed humanity, increase equity, support self-reliance and foster healthy ecosystems."

The success of an entity such as the Non-GMO Project relies on pressure from groups such as GMO-Free USA to persuade companies into believing that the Non-GMO Project label will be of value to their customers. With systematic and well-coordinated campaigns against companies, non-profit groups such as GMO-Free USA and GMO Inside have managed to convince companies to create GMO-free products: Similac recently announced that it was making GMO-free formula, General Mills decided to take the GMO-free plunge with Cheerios, and Hershey's has decided to go non-GMO. GMO-Free USA also shuns GMO-free labeling if the certification isn't through the non-GMO project. And guess who is on the board of advisors for GMO-Free USA?  John Fagan.

Nothing that John Fagan has done here is illegal. Nothing here is different from what many other companies out there are doing. I write this to highlight the double standard that exists when it comes to GMOs: if I had written this exact same story, replacing Dr Fagan with an executive at Monsanto, and if the organizations listed advocated for biotech, I'd like you to think of the outrage that would exist as a consequence.

They're onto me! They've discovered that I've taken
the Secret Oath of Scientists

Well-designed studies that receive industry funding are discarded because of their "ties to ag", but a poorly designed study that receives funding from non-GMO organizations is ethical, and if flaws in the design are pointed out then it's considered to be a "smear campaign" orchestrated by shills. Last week, I got a comment asking me about the Environmental Working Group's (EWG) dirty dozen: every year the EWG puts together a list of fruits and veggies that have the highest amount of pesticide residue, and advises people to eat the organic version of these. The EWG's methods have been found to be flawed, and there's no evidence that eating the organic version of the fruits and veggies on their list is "healthier". Additionally, EWG receives funding from the who's who of organic companies including Organic Valley, Stonyfield Farms, Earthbound Farms, and Dr. Bronner Soaps. I consider this a double-whammy: 1) no science to back them up and 2) funding from groups that benefit from their scientifically-questionable publications. Again, replace the characters in this story with a company against whom you may have a bias. Let's use Coca-Cola as an example: let's imagine that Coca-Cola gives funding to a non-profit who puts together a glossy brochure comparing caffeine free products between different companies. There's no difference between Sprite and 7-Up, but they claim that caffeine free Coca-Cola has less caffeine than caffeine free Pepsi, and they recommend buying Coke. The difference is 2 parts per billion, but that's not in the glossy publication or in the press release. What would you think? Would your spidey senses start tingling? I assume that it would. So explain to me what the difference is between this hypothetical scenario and what the EWG actually does with their dirty dozen?

The double standard here is mind-boggling.

I'm going to quote from an article that I wrote a while back on a related topic: "The truth is that universities do not have a litmus test to measure your ethics. Companies do not have a sorting hat to determine if your moral standards are a proper fit. As such, there are unethical individuals in both areas. More importantly, there are many individuals with a clear sense of what is wrong and right. Science is science. Crummy science can be produced in publicly funded labs. Amazing studies can be published by individuals affiliated with an industry. There are many examples of both."

Fair enough... But this person should also look at who sponsors Seralini.

So whatever criteria you use to determine if someone is a shill should be applied across the board. Whatever criteria you use to determine if a study is scientifically sound should be used universally. Whatever standards you use to determine if an organization should be trusted should be applied to all groups, whether it's GMOanswers or Non-GMO Project. I can tell you that I've never received a penny for anything I've written related to GMOs, nor do I have a side business that benefits from what I write. I wonder if the authors of "GMO Myths and Truths" can say the same.

I got 99 Problems but a GMO Ain't One

In the past, I’ve written a short list of problems that are attributed to GMOs, but are actually problems with modern agriculture. Well, I’m going to expand the list to “9 Reasons Why GMOs are Opposed that Aren’t Really About GMOs”, or as the spouse aptly entitled this post "I got 99 Problems, but a GMO Ain't One". But it's really only 9 problems. As I've written before, transgenesis, or the method used to make most GMOs, is a tool and it makes no sense to oppose a method with broad applications. It's like opposing electronics as a category because you don't like the fact that your Roomba chews up your computer cable (which is happening this very instant...) or that iPhones cost too much.  In fact, an article was just written in the NY Times about GMOs, and in the comments section, you'll see the reasons below being listed time and time again.

So, here we go.

9) "GMOs are patented". Yes, many of them are patented, but so are many non-GMO crops. Pluots didn't just drop out of the sky: someone had to work for years to develop those tasty treats, so there are patented varieties. Not all GMOs are patented: there are open-source GMOs, and there are also GMOs where organizations have worked with private enterprises to give away seeds on humanitarian grounds, such as Golden Rice. So using the "GMOs are patented" excuse makes no more sense than saying that you don't like electronics because Windows is under a copyright. 

8) "GMOs cause superweeds". GMOs that carry traits for herbicide tolerance can lead to weeds that develop tolerance to the herbicide, known as "superweeds", and I've reviewed this topic here. Superweeds are far from being an issue unique to GMOs, and even pulling weeds by hand can lead to weeds that look like the crop itself (known as mimicry). The issue of superweeds is a serious one, and this database tracks herbicide resistant weeds as they develop across different nations. Reducing it to a "GMO-specific" problem and severely narrowing the scope of the issue, deters the efforts of finding genuine solutions to the problem. So using the "GMOs cause superweeds" excuse makes no more sense than saying that you don't like computers because they can lead to electric shocks, when the issue is much broader in scope.

7) "GMOs are drenched in pesticides". Yes, pesticides (be they herbicides, insecticides, or fungicides) are used on GMOs, as well as any other form of modern agriculture unless it specifically states "pesticide-free". That includes the U-Pick farm I went to last week for cherry picking and the organic peach farm next to it. That includes the fields of corn that we drove by to get there. It took me a while to come to the realization that no form of agriculture is perfect. If we insist on going pesticide-free, crops will be lost which will increase costs to consumers and we will have to dedicate more land to get the same output. Pesticides are expensive. Farmers don't just decide to spray their fields with pesticide because they feel like it, nor do they "drench" their fields in it. There are laws and regulations on how much can be applied, and why on earth would anyone use any more than necessary when its use can cut from your profits? Here's an excellent post written from a farmer's perspective on the topic of pesticides and why they're used. PLEASE read it. Some GMOs are designed to resist pests so that pesticide doesn't have to be applied, such as the Rainbow Papaya which is designed to resist the ring-spot virus and saved Hawaii's papaya industry.

6) "GMOs are monocultures". When I was preggers, the spouse and I went on a road trip around California. I was miserable. I was one of those people who had morning sickness well into the 3rd trimester. Anyway, I was on medication to control it because I was losing weight, but the medication made me horribly drowsy. So the road trip ended up being more of a sleeping trip. Somewhere between Sequoia National Park and Fresno we drove through orange farms. And we drove. And drove. And drove. I don't know how long it was but it felt like every time I woke up, we were still driving by orange trees. And GMO oranges don't exist on the market. So yes, there are vast fields of GMO corn in places across the US, but there are also vast fields of non-GMO spinach and giant orchards of fruit. When I lived in Venezuela, we lived across from a valley that was a giant sugarcane farm. It was enormous and it belonged to the local sugar refinery. Every year, they'd harvest sugarcane about 3 times. It never changed, there was no crop rotation, and it just went on for miles. There's no GMO sugarcane. Monocultures can lead to crop resistant pests, and farmers are encouraged to rotate their crops from one year to the next so that this risk can be minimized. So, again, reducing the issue of monocultures to a GMO-specific one is highly disingenuous.

5) "GMOs are being made by Big Ag to line their pockets". Unless your problem is with making money in general, then this doesn't make much sense. Of course ag-businesses want to make money. Why would any corporate enterprise embark on a project where they think they'd lose money? Again, the "Big Ag" argument doesn't apply to all GMOs. Arctic Apples were developed by a small company up in BC, Canada that only had 7 employees. AquaBounty, which developed the transgenic salmon (not yet commercialized) only had 12 employees on staff in 2012. And of course, many transgenic crops are being developed by public sector scientists, some of which address undernurishment such as biofortified bananas to address vitamin A deficiency. This reason for opposing GMOs is like saying that you oppose electronics because Apple makes too much money from the iPhone.

4) "GMOs place restrictions on seed saving". This is tied to #10 on this list. Farmers who plant GMOs sign a contract where they state that they will not reuse seeds. In the same way that you're not supposed to copy and give away that Maroon 5 song that you just downloaded from iTunes because it's a copyright violation, farmers are supposed to respect the intellectual property rights of the companies with whom they have signed a contract. Many farmers have written about the plethora of choices they have when it comes to seeds (here's one of my favorite articles). Basically, if farmers do not like the restricted seed use, they don't have to buy the seeds. It's as simple as that. The fact that they do and that they buy the seeds on a fairly regular basis suggests that there's something about GMO seeds that they prefer. Not only that, but there are non-GE crops where farmers have to sign agreements as well (this includes non-GE sunflowers, which Chipotle switched to when they adopted more integritiness). So this has little to do with GMOs: it has to do with patents. If you can think of a better way that companies can recover the dollars they spend on making a product after the first year, by all means, make the suggestion. Farmers who do not use GMOs generally buy their seeds from one year to the next, too, because the seeds they plant are often hybrids. Recalling Mendel's pea experiments, this would mean that if farmers reused the seeds, only a portion of the following year's crop would have the traits they want.

3) "GMOs use the carcinogenic Glyphosate". Glyphosate use is not restricted to GMOs. That by itself is enough to earn it a place on my list. In fact, we just used it this week to get rid of a particularly thorny wild blackberry that we couldn't control and was right in Baby Boy's biking path along the driveway. Regarding the label "carcinogenic", I think that Dr Andrew Kniss wrote one of the most balanced pieces I've read on this topic, and I'd like you all to head over there to take a look. An important point to keep in mind is the time at which herbicides such as glyphosate are applied. Think about it: glyphosate is being applied so that corn/soy can grow heartily without getting choked out by weeds. Does it make sense to apply glyphosate when corn is several feet tall? Here's Pioneer's recommendations for glyphosate application, and they recommend using glyphosate when the plants are just a few weeks old. Between that time and harvest, it might rain, the sun will have beaten down on the crops, and the crops will have been watered. So saying that the corn we eat is "drenched" in glyphosate doesn't make sense to me. Regarding the amount of glyphosate used, I love this graphic by Sarah Schultz where she explains that approximately one soda can-sized amount of glyphosate is applied across an entire acre of crop in one season. More importantly, there are MANY GMOs that are not glyphosate resistant: the Arctic Apple or Innate Potato, for example, could be grown using organic practices (without the organic label), and again, all those GMOs that are being made for humanitarian purposes that have absolutely nothing to do with pesticides.

2-1) "Monsanto". I give Monsanto 2 spots on this list, because there are different aspects to the "I hate GMOs because of Monsanto" reason.

2) "GMOs promote a monopoly." Every time I see this, I think that someone over at Dow Agro is cackling. I work in a field in biotech right now where a single company has between 70-80% of the market. Google web searches are used almost 70% of the time. Android has 80% of the market in operating systems for smartphones. But strangely enough, I've never seen a "March against Google". I tried to find out how much of the seed market Monsanto owns, and the numbers are all over the place, because it's such an easy number to rig to portray your point. For example, Monsanto says that it has 5% of the world market in seeds. The Organic Consumers Association says that Monsanto has 80% of the US GM market on corn. However, GMOanswers.com explains the latter by stating that they license the trait to other independent companies, so they're not sold by Monsanto. Commercial licensing agreements are set up between companies ALL the time, so the stat from OCA is blurring the real numbers. This would be equivalent to saying that the Lenovo laptop I'm typing on was sold by Microsoft because it has a Windows OS on it. No: the laptop and the sales go to Lenovo, which then pays Microsoft a licensing fee. So I honestly don't know how much of the seed market Monsanto owns. Keep in mind that organic and non-GM farmers have to buy seeds from somewhere, and Monsanto does sell organic seeds. Unless you know what seeds your local farmers used when you buy your veggies, you have no guarantee that you're boycotting Monsanto if you boycott GMOs.

The problem with monopolies is a tough one and I don't know what the solution might be. Since it takes such a long time to get a GE product through the regulatory process, it's difficult for a small company to last very long. During that time employees need to be paid, logistics need to be taken care of, and the product pipeline needs to continue its development while no revenue is being generated. By no means is this a problem unique to the agricultural biotech sector. Small tech companies are gobbled up by larger behemoths every day. So the issue of monopolies is far from being a problem about GMOs.

1) "Monsanto made (place your favorite scary chemical here)". This is a topic that I'm struggling with myself. I know that Monsanto has a very checkered past, particularly when it comes to Agent Orange. Very briefly, Agent Orange is an herbicide that was used by the US during the Vietnam War to deprive the guerrillas on the ground of food and cover. Agent Orange production during the Vietnam War contained a contaminant which caused severe health problems in the local inhabitants. The US government placed orders from many companies for Agent Orange, and Monsanto was one of them. I don't know how it came to be that Monsanto is exclusively blamed for Agent Orange. As I see it, there are multiple people to blame, primarily the US government. I'm assuming that all the companies involved could have turned down the US government contract, and I'd like to believe that in an ethical world, they would have. But to blame Monsanto for this issue makes no more sense than to blame Boeing for military airstrikes, and I have yet to see a "March against Boeing". The Monsanto that exists today has gotten rid of its chemical division, however there's no denying that the company is built upon the revenue generated by the company that existed back when it made chemicals. There are many companies that exist today that were built decades or centuries ago under very shady circumstances (see the Hugo Boss brand as an example, where they provided uniforms during Hitler's Germany; here's a short list of companies that benefited from slavery. When the spouse read this section, his degree in Political Science kicked in and he started rattling off companies that benefited from times of war, including IBM). I believe that these companies should acknowledge their past and make amends. GMOanswers addresses the topic of Agent Orange and Monsanto, but they have a very PC statement basically pointing the finger elsewhere. Ultimately, this issue has very little to do with GMOs, but is a discussion that we need to have in our society.



In conclusion: there are many legitimate concerns about modern food production. There are many legitimate concerns about the corporate nature of our society and the undue strength they exert over the American political system. These are the things we should be opposing. But whether you realize it or not, when you yell "No GMO!" and list one of the reasons above, the crops that are designed for you and I as consumers, the crops that are designed for humanitarian efforts, all suffer as a consequence. I know it doesn't make for a catchy slogan, but why not try voice your concerns by stating "No to the patenting of all seeds, regardless of technology used for their development!!" or "Increase funding so that our public institutions have the resources to commercialize and license crops!!". I'd recommend focusing your efforts on the REAL reason why you oppose GMOs, and not on the technology as a whole.

Better Know a Scientist: Interview with Plant Geneticist (now Human Geneticist) Sonya Clark

I've been working on a post about the Innate Potato for about a month and it keeps getting delayed. So this week, we have another edition of “Better Know a Scientist”, where I’m interviewing my boss!! Seriously. My manager, Dr Sonya Clark, has a PhD in Molecular Biology from the University of Canterbury in the faraway land of New Zealand. Like me, she moved to the US, where she did a post-doc at UC Berkeley in the Plant Gene Expression Center. Then, like me, she moved into the private sector where she’s worked for over 15 years, mainly in DNA sequencing companies. I wanted to learn more about the work she did in plants and also to score some brownie points :)

Q: Pretend I’m one of our interns: explain to me the work you did for your PhD. Why was it important?

My PhD was funded by a grant from a government agency in New Zealand that was directed toward improvement of crops.  At the time I did that work, onions were a significant export crop. The project was to clone the gene responsible for the flavor of onions, with the concept being that having that knowledge would facilitate the ability to adjust the onion flavor intensity (apparently New Zealand’s onions were too intense to be acceptable to overseas markets).  I did manage to clone the gene (turns out it was an interesting compartmentalized enzyme that acted on the substrates when the cells are broken to release all those pungent volatile sulfur compounds everyone is so familiar with!). Using it to modify the onion plant itself turned out to be the larger challenge and it took another 15 years or so until a commercial onion was released using the gene sequence to create a knockout line  (using RNAi technology - a ‘tearless’ onion!).  It was really nice to hear that the project did continue until that was achieved, and fun to know I had a part in making that happen.

[Biochica’s note: for more about RNAi, read this post about the Arctic Apple, which uses the same technology to make non-browning apples. The Wikipedia entry for RNAi is also quite good]

Q: What did you do for your post-doc in Berkeley? Why was it important?

My post-doc was in a lab funded by the Department of Energy to explore methods for phytoremediation (using plants to detoxify contaminated soils).  My project was to introduce expression gene libraries into a yeast model system with similar biosynthetic pathways to plant (Schizosaccharomyces pombe). I would build various types of gene expression libraries, transform them into the yeast and test how they grew on media plates infused with cadmium.  Whenever I found a yeast that would grow well in cadmium, I’d figure out which gene had been added (sequence the insert) and then test those genes in plants to determine whether a similar tolerance was capable of being created that way. Turned out there were lots of genes that worked in yeast and not any that had a big effect in plants. But it was an interesting project in that the genes that conferred tolerance in the yeast cells helped define how these detoxification pathways functioned. Basically, the metals are sequestered into cellular subcompartments, so the project provided a lot of knowledge of the various strategies that plant cells could potentially use.

Q: Why did you switch careers into human genetics? Was it an easy transition to make? Is it because you declined to participate in the ritual sacrifice that takes place when you sell your soul to Monsanto?

I switched out of plant genetic engineering mostly because it was so dominated by Monsanto and I didn’t want to be part of a monopoly around the use of the technology.  At the time I was thinking through where I wanted to go, there were very few ..(pretty much no..) other options to engineer plants in an industrial environment that would feel like a positive contribution.  As far as the transition, that was a matter of luck - other postdocs in the lab were joining a tiny startup working on engineering mammalian cell lines to produce enzyme therapeutics for a very rare childhood disease and the positive nature of that project was very motivating.  I got a  chance to work on something that was very novel at the time as well as technically challenging as well as the opportunity to learn an enormous amount about building a startup.

Q: Couldn't you make the same argument for human/pharma work, though? Getting a drug through trials costs so much that every start-up probably wants for a Glasko or Roche to buy them out. Isn't that comparable to plant work? Getting a plant through regulatory costs so much that you almost need a Syngenta, Dow or Monsanto to get through those hurdles?

At the time I switched plant genetics was being driven predominantly by profit margin motivations within large corporations even though plant engineering had the potential to offer many values in a less corporate way (such as the work going on within government funded labs to provide plant tools for countries where agriculture was a struggle). There seemed to be little opportunity for growth of startups in that field. However in the human disease treatment space new worlds were opening up with the appearance of the orphan drug program which allowed for startups to get traction and funding to work on the types of products that big pharma was not interested in addressing.  I guess it was therefore a lot about the type of environment (startup vs. corporate). I was interested in understanding how startup worked and how companies were created. Certainly as products mature and enter into the world of regulation having experience to get through that is critical to success, but a good partnership can achieve that just as well as a buyout.  I joined BioMarin in 1999 when they were just starting out, so got to live through a company being born in the orphan disease treatment space and successfully mature into a very successful company.

Q: Do you think that something as useful as a tearless onion will make anti-GMO activists change their tune?   

I’m not sure tearless onions are going to provide enough value to humanity to tip the balance in favor of GMO’s.  However I do think that a really valuable part of the GMO discussion is to appreciate that there are a lot of different motivations to use plant genetic engineering, some of which have the potential to be very important to human health and well being in the future (e.g. developing salt-tolerant crops).  It’s hard to support GMOs that are created primarily to generate profit for a large corporation.

A tearless onion would be awesome. I'd pay extra for that trait!
Image from Wikimedia Commons

[Biochica's note: An Iron Chef challenge using onions, where the challenger uses a GM onion and wins due to the time saved from not sobbing would show the true value of the crop]

Q: You seem to have mixed feelings about GMOs. You mention that some GMOs are hard to support when they're made mostly to generate profit for big Ag. But if they sucked, then farmers wouldn't buy them. So what do you think of current GMOs on the market? Do you think they're safe? What do you think of the next generation of transgenic crops, that are designed to benefit the end consumer?

The world of commercial GMOs is complex and there is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ answer.  We need to appreciate that the technology in and of itself is not the risk, it is how it is used that should be paid attention to.  Some uses are just fine and others may come with unintended consequences that have to be evaluated and understood in the same way all new technologies bring risk as well as value. So my opinion is that each one needs to be evaluated and accepted or rejected on its own risk-reward profile not in a dissimilar way to how we treat chemistries, after all we don’t believe all chemistry is bad and ban it all from our world.

Q: Do you miss plant genetics? Would you recommend it as a career path?  

I do miss plant genetics - it is a really fascinating technical area.  You get to tinker with a genome in a much more accessible way than with mammalian genomes and the understanding that is generated about how genes work is incredibly interesting.  A lot of the gene editing technologies that are emerging now for mammalian systems probably would not have come about without the learnings gleaned from the plant world.  The problem with it as a career path seems to be still the same - there are few jobs that would provide the ability to do positive work and provide a decent income.

[Biochica's note: recent articles suggest that the times are changing with respect to the demand for agricultural/plant researchers. See here and here]

Q: Last question: my readers here know that I dream of a peelable pomegranate. You and I have also chatted about my plans for early retirement, where I go back to school somewhere between the age of 42-45 to do a post-doc in plants. Or somehow I become CTO of a corporation. I still haven't decided which. But do you realize that by not doubling my salary annually, you're delaying my retirement and consequently depriving the world of a peelable pomegranate? How do you respond?

Apologies to the world for the deprivation….   That’d be one cool fruit. If you ever find a job with a doubling salary, let me know, I want one of those too!

[Biochica's note to POM: if you're reading this, contact me in 10 years when I retire, and you can sponsor my project]

Better Know a Scientist: Interview with Estefania Elorriaga on Site-Specific Nucleases

This week in “Better Know a Scientist”, I’m interviewing Estefania Elorriaga. She’s in the midst of her PhD in Dr Steven Strauss’ lab in the Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society at Oregon State University. She is doing research on using site-specific nucleases for mutagenesis (fear not! She’ll have to explain her research in this interview). Let’s get started!

Q: What are site-specific nucleases? Why are they important?

Site-specific nucleases are enzymes that can cut DNA at specific  locations in the genome of your organism.  The nucleases create a break which stimulates the organism’s DNA repair mechanisms to fix the break.  Occasionally, the repair mechanisms will make a mistake (delete some DNA or insert some extra DNA) that will lead to a loss-of-function mutation in the target gene, meaning that the protein you targeted will no longer do its job.  Examples of site-specific nucleases are zinc finger nucleases (ZFNs), transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALENs), the CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats)-Cas system, and engineered meganucleases.  Site-specific nucleases can also be used for gene repair or gene replacement with the addition of a donor DNA sequence.  These technologies are important because they allow scientists to modify only specific locations of genes in order to obtain a desired trait.  In the area of crop breeding we believe these technologies will be crucial for improving current lines specially for particular cases like drought-tolerance, high or low temperature tolerance, disease resistance, or even nutrient content.

[Biochica’s note: if you want to learn more about gene editing, please see my previous post on the topic]

Estefania's work using TALENs.
The plant on the left has a TALEN (will show it's trait much later)
The plant on the top-right is her transgenic control,
expressing GFP (green fluorescent protein).
The plant on the bottom right is the unmodified control.

Q: How specific are the nucleases? If you can share, are you seeing off-target edits in your work?

We are still at the early analysis stage, so I cannot really say personally how specific they are.  But, according to the scientific literature, CRISPR-Cas nucleases appear to be the most active and specific, followed by TALENs, and last ZFNs.  CRISPR-Cas nuclease show a lot of promise because of the high activity that they show so far and their off-targeting appears to be somewhat predictable.  

Q: Are there any GMOs made using site-specific nucleases currently on the market? Do you know of any that are in development?

There are no commercially available GMOs currently in the market or in development (that I know of), but everyone in the field believes that the technology is going to revolutionize genetic engineering, especially breeding and gene therapy.

Q: Like me, you were raised in Venezuela (I was raised in Barquisimeto and I left after graduating from high school). Venezuela has a moratorium on growing any GMOs and activists would argue that the moratorium is in place because of how harmful GMOs can be. So, how do we know that you aren’t a spy sent to the United States to bring down the imperialist empire through evil GMOs?

Ha ha! If the Venezuelan government was making me get a PhD just to spy on the USA, I think I would have quit my job as a spy and gone to Colombia or Costa Rica.  I cannot imagine doing research while spying.  As it stands, I barely have any free time.  And also, I cannot imagine pretending to be a researcher.

[Biochica's note: that's exactly what a person tasked with destroying the imperialist empire with GMOs would do: deny it].

Q: What traits are you working on in the lab? Why are they important?

I work with flowering genes in both poplar and eucalypts. Understanding floral development and identity genes is important because it will allow us to generate transgenic trees that don’t have functional pollen or ovules, so there is no possibility of transgene flow.  Developing transgene containment technologies for forest trees to facilitate the commercial and scientific use of transgenic trees is one of the main goals of our lab.

Q: Can you explain what you mean by “transgene flow”? [Biochica note: some activists refer to this as “GMO contamination”] Does it basically mean that you’re blocking the GM tree or plant from hybridizing or crossing with a non-GM tree or plant?

“Transgene flow” is the movement of the gene we inserted into our trees into a wild or cultivated population of the same or a related species. And yes, it basically means not allowing our GM tree to cross or hybridise with wild or cultivated trees.

Q: If you’re creating a GMO to address one of the major concerns against GMOs, aren’t you creating a circular argument? How would that conversation even go? I imagine it would be like, “Activists! You’re worried about GMO genes getting into the environment? Here’s a GMO that will prevent GM genes from getting into the environment. Go forth and plant it!” Aren’t a few heads going to explode? Is THAT the real plan of the Venezuelan government? To bring down the imperialist empire through circular arguments?

By eliminating transgene flow, we are just allowing the GM trees to be used commercially for other purposes like a non-flowering faster growing eucalyptus.  Also, eliminating transgene flow in the current GM crops will allow the scientific community to educate the public, and also other scientists that are weary, about the safety of GM technology.  We hypothesize that transgenes will likely not do well in the wild, so they will probably get eliminated through fitness selection, but we need to study each particular case. Ha ha! Nothing from the current Venezuelan government surprises me, so who knows...

Q: Are there any non-GM crops where gene-flow is a problem that may benefit from the adoption of the technology?

The other case that comes to my mind is the case of gene purity in seed crops.  Seed producers follow standards and practices that guarantee the purity of the seeds available to farmers and home growers. Genetic purity in their case is essential to ensure that the seed will perform as expected, so seed producers must be careful about the pollen that fertilizes their plants.  

Q: What trait would you like to work on in the future?

I would like to work with either nutrients (e.g. create a highly nutritious fruit or vegetable crop), drugs (e.g. create plants that can make medicines), or abiotic resistance (e.g. create plants that can take up heavy metals).

Q: There are many articles in the news and in journals about potential traits that may benefit us, many of which never make it past research, but none-the-less create much buzz. Which one(s) do you think are the most exciting? Which one(s) do you think are the most promising?

Being a transplant in Oregon and feeling like a true Oregonian since I moved to the Northwest, protecting the environment is a topic dear to my heart.  In the University of Washington, Prof. Sharon Doty worked with transgenic poplars that were able to remove more than 90% of contaminants from Superfund sites. According to the EPA, “A Superfund site is an uncontrolled or abandoned place where hazardous waste is located, possibly affecting local ecosystems or people”. I think using trees to clean our aquifers and our soils is a win-win. We get more oxygen, cleaner air, and also cleaner soils and rivers. But, the trees are nowhere near being ready for use outside of university labs.  

There is also a transgenic pig called “the Enviropig” from the University of Guelph in Canada, that digests phosphorus from its food more efficiently than non-transgenic pigs, so it needs less feed and its waste is less toxic to the environment.  Doesn’t that sound like a win-win too?!  

I am also a big fan of producing medicines in plants (like I mentioned above).  This practice is known as biopharming.  I am also a fan of using GM mosquitoes to eliminate vector-borne diseases like dengue (after the GM mosquito mates with a non-GM mosquito the transgene causes the mosquito larvae to die).  These two cases I mentioned though are closer to production than the Enviropig or phytoremediating trees.  Biopharming had a rough time recently because many of the companies involved went bankrupt, but there is an experimental antibody for Ebola currently being made in tobacco by Kentucky BioProcessing called ZMapp that should give this industry a boost, and the British company Oxitec plans to release GM mosquitoes in the Florida keys to reduce dengue and chikungunya (both diseases you don’t want to get, and less yet while on vacation).  ZMapp is considered the most promising candidate to combat Ebola and it is currently being used in a controlled human trial in Liberia. The mosquitoes were already tested in Brazil and Panama with great success, so both countries plan on releasing a lot more of them.

[Biochica’s note: if you want to learn more about Oxitec’s mosquitoes, please see my previous post on my family’s experience with dengue and my review of the literature on these phenomenal skeeters]

Q: How much money is Monsanto paying you to develop these transgene containment technologies that will solve one of their public image problems? After all, we all know that Monsanto controls university research.

Monsanto has never paid me or our lab for the research we do.  Sadly, when many people think “GM technology” they think “Monsanto”.  But, in reality the technology is being used by hundreds of university labs, research facilities, and biotech companies developing more than herbicide- or insect-resistant crops.  Monsanto and all the other large biotech multinationals like Dupont, Pioneer, or Syngenta come up with cutting-edge seed and agro-chemical technologies, but given that there is no direct benefit to the end user (all the benefits go to the farmer), the public shows little to no support because of lack of understanding and fear.  If you look over the ISAAA’s (International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Application) Pocket K. Documented Benefits of GM Crops, you will find that from 1996 to 2012, global farmers’ income increased by $116.6 million billion and there was a reduction in herbicide and pesticide use of 503 million kgs (ISAAA is an international non-profit “that shares the benefits of crop biotechnology to various stakeholders, particularly resource-poor farmers in developing countries, through knowledge sharing initiatives and the transfer and delivery of proprietary biotechnology applications”).  All these agricultural biotech companies perform cutting edge science and create impressive biotech products.  However, as companies they are concerned with profits, so given the high cost of generating a GM product, they focus on products that will bring them a return on their investment.

Q: My dreams for crop modification aren’t as lofty: I just want a peelable pomegranate. Do you think that the research you’re conducting might be able to help?

My work won’t directly affect the possibility of creating a more peelable pomegranate. But, indirectly it can bring science closer to your dream.  My research can add onto the increasing scientific knowledge base that is proving that site-specific nucleases can someday be an important tool in crop breeding.  If we find the gene or sets of genes involved in making the pomegranate’s skin, we can either modify or replace the genes for ones that will make the pomegranate easier to peel.  For many centuries, humans have been modifying the aspect, size, and taste of cultivated crops by doing selective breeding without knowing anything about genetics.  Wild bananas and corn (and dogs...chihuahuas come from wolves!) are great examples of what selective breeding can do.  Wild bananas are small and loaded with seeds.  Meanwhile, cultivated bananas are large and have tiny seeds (that actually are not viable because cultivated bananas are sterile).  Teosinte (the wild ancestor of corn) make small ears with only two rows of hard fruit cases that protect the seeds.  Corn makes large ears with eight to twelve rows of tender seeds (no hard fruit cases).  So, GE is basically streamlining breeding by allowing use scientists and plant breeders to perform highly selective and direct breeding using genes from the same species or other species.

[Biochica’s note to the spouse: it sounds like there’s the remote possibility that Estefania’s research might be able to make my pomegranate. Please be advised that we may have to move to Oregon in the near future to help conduct this research].